The anti-49 smears
Most of the claims against the ethics measure are wildly off base
Rocky Mountain News
Published October 30, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
There's no obligation for political campaigns to be fair, let alone balanced, but there are times when messages go beyond the pale.
Case in point: the advertising, largely bankrolled by labor unions, to defeat Amendment 49, the "ethical standards" initiative.
It's one of three ballot issues labor has targeted, along with Amendments 47 ("right to work") and 54 ("clean government"). We oppose 54 as well, and are staying neutral on 47 in deference to a business-labor deal we supported that removed four amendments from the ballot that would have damaged the economy. But we endorsed Amendment 49 last month and are amazed at how it has been portrayed on TV.
Amendment 49 would prevent any state or local government agency from automatically deducting dues from paychecks on behalf of public- employee unions or any other membership organization. The current system amounts to a free collection service - and some of those dues fund politics, from lobbying for higher benefits to making campaign contributions to favored candidates. Amendment 49 would end this gift to special interests.
The foes of 49 haven't taken a clean shot at it yet. They've run no ads attacking the measure on its own. Instead, they've lumped the three ballot issues together. Since each is different, the campaign against 49 has been especially misleading.
Ads opposing 49 claim it would muzzle government workers and endanger public safety. One ad from the labor-backed group Protect Colorado's Future says 49 (and the other measures) would "silence the voices of firefighters, police officers, teachers and nurses" and "end up making what [they] do harder."
In what way? The amendment doesn't say unions can't collect dues. It just says government can't collect dues for them.
Another ad from that same group claims that passing 49 would "threaten our paychecks," implying that, with 49 in the constitution, employees (including, presumably, nonunion workers) might lose pay, benefits or even their jobs.
This is nonsense. If Amendment 49 is enacted, organized labor will have to work harder to collect dues, of course, but no harder than other private organizations.
A third ad makes the bizarre claim that the three measures would "silence small business," when 49 has nothing to do with small business. The same ad states, correctly, that Amendment 49 would not apply to "multinational corporations," including drug companies and defense contractors. Of course it wouldn't, since the amendment would end free union dues collection by governments.
The implication of that ad is that 49 would give businesses an unfair advantage in lobbying the government; public-employee unions would face a new burden that would not apply to corporations. In fact, ending the practice of free dues collection would simply level the playing field among unions, business organizations and any other group that tries to influence public policy.
Finally, this ad says "multinational corporations are pushing Amendments 47, 49 and 54." What a joke: 49's budget, provided largely by the Independence Institute, is roughly $100,000.
The secretary of state's office reports, though, that Protect Colorado's Future has raised and spent millions against the three measures - and that was even before some business leaders joined with unions against these measures.
The only fat cats in this battle are those wearing the union label.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
October 30, 2008
2:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
TimeLord writes:
Why should the government allow me to deduct for a church but not for a critical employment membership?
The answer is simple, of course; there is no valid reason, it is purely an attack on unions.
October 30, 2008
3:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
The church is not supposed to be involved in politics, the unions are. In my opinion, state checks should only take out taxes, SS, etc. No other items. If you want to contribute to a church, go on sunday and drop a check in the collection plate. taxpayers should not put out one thin dime for to write extra checks to any organization.
October 30, 2008
6:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
TimeLord: There you go again! Does your church tithe come out of your government paycheck by deduction, right between FICA and Health Insurance?
No?
Then why should dues paid to a union?
You are deliberately lying about the initiative, thereby AGAIN proving that unions are a criminal organization, surviving only by lies and intimidation.
October 30, 2008
6:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
If it passes, oh well. My wife who is a member of the completely voluntary teacher's union will just have to set up an automatic deduction from our account. 15 minutes and its done. However, implying that vast resources of our government are being wasted collecting union dues is a fallacy. It takes them even less time to set up the automatic deduction. This amendment is no more reasonable than the right to life proposal. It is a group of sleighted union haters that want to make it as difficult as possible for people to belong to wholly voluntary unions. Pretending that it is serving some higher purpose, or that the unions can't recognize that the money indirectly handed to them from their members is actually from the government itself is logic stretched so thin it can't be seen anymore. Go ahead and deny the teachers, firefighters, police officers, and others the same convenience you appreciate at your private sector job based on your own personal bias against unions. But don't pretend to think that it is for some higher purpose. Nobody is that stupid.
October 30, 2008
6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
IBM pushes for 100% employee charitable contributions (to an assortment of charities) - then deducts and distributes them from our paychecks. Why shouldn't an automatic deduction for union dues - which generally earns the worker a paycheck from 20-30% higher than a non-union job elsewhere - (and forces the local businesses to pay roughly the same wage for the same work - something I am quite sure the anti union whiners don't want folks to know) and which is a convenience to the employee - not to mention a cost saving (no check to write, no postage, etc) be banned unless EVERY non-business related deduction be banned too?
October 30, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
The Denver Chamber, Corporate and Union Bosses have an unholy alliance to protect their corrupt partnership of politics.
VOTE YES on 47, 49, and 54.
When Union and Business Bosses join, you know their is corruption because their economic interests are opposite.
October 30, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
cowboy69 writes:
Misleading voters on amendments 47, 49 and 54 is directly connected to the govenors office. There has been 68 million dollars from outside of Colorado special interest groups to sway the support and or defeat of the 14 amendments on the ballot. I am a third generation Coloradoan and it baffles me that this state carries that much influence on a national level.
October 30, 2008
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
ObiWan writes:
Not only is the Rocky appalled, but so are these county sheriffs...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK6A-Q...
Sheriffs John Cooke (Weld), David Weaver (Douglas), and Ted Mink (Jefferson) refute all of the bogus claims against Amendment 49.
By the way, these ads against 49 are so deceptive, the Denver Post had to editorialize against this as well...
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_...
Mark Hillman said it best....don't reward labor's lies!
October 30, 2008
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
One reason for #49 is the Teacher's Union. If someone does not want to be a member of the Teacher's Union, that person must, in writing, EVERY YEAR, say do not deduct the dues. Why not just one notice in writing? Because if that person fails to file the required notice within the time period required every year, the Teacher's Union automatically deducts the dues from their pay check.
That's bull and that's one reason I say YES on #49.
October 30, 2008
8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
Let's see......the union bosses are spending "millions" of union member's hard-earned money to defeat Amendments 47, 49 and 54, while about $100,000 was spent by the pro-47, 49 and 54 group(s).
Interesting.
I'm still waiting for the unions to back up their claims with facts.
Where's the "corporation involvement"? Which corporations are involved? Of the $100,000 spent by the pro-47, 49 and 54 supporters, which corporations gave how much?
Come on, guys, give us names, numbers and dates, not just innuendo, or are we supposed to just take the union's "word" as fact of their claims?
I mean, it's not like unions have EVER lied to us before, have they?
October 30, 2008
8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
ObiWan writes:
Roger44:
If unions are supposed to be involved in politics, then just how much are they supposed to get from taxpayers? They're already getting free money collecting and accounting services, what else would you like to give them for free just "because" they're supposed to be involved in politics?
Should we make free office space for them at city hall or the county building? Free phone lines? Free fax and copy machines with free paper? Free time at the podium when the Assembly is debating a topic?
The Colorado Farm Bureau (just one example) is involved in politics, yet to my knowledge, they don't get ANY free services like what these unions do?
The KKK, the ACLU, the NRA, the Sierra Club....these are all political groups. Should the government collect their dues from their members for free just because they are political?
October 30, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
DougH writes:
I am surprised by the Rockies outrage over the collection in dues from paychecks. The Union and Management agree on a contract for the workers, and part of that contract calls for collecting dues for the union, what is wrong with that ?
The Rocky is actually endorsing a State Constitutional amendment that would put the government into a private contract agreed to my ownership and the union. This is not the sort of small government that the Rocky usually endorses. It must be a matter of who is benefiting.
This Amendment is nothing less than a retaliatory measure sponsored by business interests to get back at Governor Ritter for overturning Governor Owens ban on Unions. All three of the anti- union measures are just cheap self-serving politics.The Rocky should stay out of them altogether.
October 30, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
The scumbags opposing 49 are saying that taxpayers should pay the processing cost of collecting union dues, so that unions don't have to foot the cost.
If unions want their dues, let those scumbags PAY for the cost of collecting their own dues..... NOT taxpayers.
October 30, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
richardtmyers writes:
Personally, I find Amendment 49 punitive and unnecessary. And i'm not alone.
The Aspen Times says it doesn't "deserve treatment in the state Constitution."
The Coloradoan agrees, declaring, "the Constitution should not be manipulated in such a manner."
The Durango Telegraph says 49 is "another anti-worker measure."
The Steamboat Pilot elaborates, "Amendment 49 interferes with the labor-management process between state and local governments and their employees. Payroll deductions can be a valuable way for governments to provide benefits to their employees and remain competitive with the private sector. Furthermore, we don’t think a ballot measure should take away the authority that state and local governments have to decide their own rules with payroll deductions."
The Boulder Weekly says "Amendment 49 is an attempt by certain interests to weaken organized labor in the state. The state’s own analysis of this measure shows that allowing these deductions costs taxpayers nothing; eliminating them would save the taxpayers nothing."
Those assessments sum it up for me.
October 30, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
DougH writes:
Memo to rickg19611: Taxpayers are not paying anything to collect Unions Dues. It is an agreement between the company and the union to collect dues from company paychecks.
October 30, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
I agree the Amend 49 ads are the 2nd least accurate of the current cycle, in that they have very little to do with the actual content of the amendment. On the other hand, it's kind of hard to say, "what an irrelevant amendment...why do they bother doing this?" in a 30-second ad.
A company sets up automatic payroll deductions as an employee benefit and to make its own life easier. Once they do that, there's little reason not to use the system for any standard repeated payment.
A more accurate title might have been "The Dog in the Manger Amendment," That is, there's no conceivable benefit for the backers or the public, but they can manage to irritate unions and union members.
By the way, the most deceptive ads? The anti-58 campaign of course. “Dollar for Dollar pass-through” …hah! Removal of this Colorado-only tax subsidy will have no perceptible impact on energy prices. If you noticed, production costs (including severance taxes) had nothing to do with oil rising to nearly $150 and subsequently falling to the low $60s. No, the $10Mil ad campaign paid entirely by the Oil industry is simply seen as a good investment if it lets them keep the $300Mil in tax subsidies they’re currently receiving from Colorado.
October 30, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Andy writes:
Good points, RMN, but I don't see anything that would change my no vote on this one. I've not seen any good reason why the policy of deducting union dues from paychecks should change. I don't know that I'd vote for starting to deduct these dues from paychecks, but that's the way it is now. If it ain't broke...
October 30, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ben_Arvada writes:
richardtymyers,
You have the weak arguments from the Aspen Times, Durango Telegraph, Steamboat Pilot, and Boulder Weekly on one side. Summing up their arguments? "Uh, we shouldn't put Ethical Standards in the state constitution because powerful union lobbyists think it's a bad idea...." Amendment 49 can only be seen as "punitive" and "unnecessary" if you think that some lobbying groups should benefit from free government collections at the expense of taxpayers and other groups.
Instead, I'll take the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, Boulder Daily Camera, Pueblo Chieftain, Grand Junction Sentinel, Colorado Springs Gazette, and Longmont Times-Call - all of which have publicly endorsed 49 as a good-government measure that avoids unethical conflicts of interest and levels the political playing field.
DougH,
Amendment 49 has nothing to do with private businesses or contracts. It's about ethical government. Please check your facts.
October 30, 2008
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"Why should this matter, these deductions are done by computer and have virtually zero to governmental costs."
The reason that union dweebs claim that there is no cost to taxpayers....... everyone knows that computers program themselves, run themselves, and humans never even need to enter the buildings where the computers operate! And everyone knows that computers are 100% free! So NO cost to taxpayers!
No wonder the anti-49 crowd have been proven to be idiots and liars.
October 30, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
DougH writes:
Ben_Arvada: Amendment 49 is all about restricting union dues collection . The ballot heading says " Allowable Government Paycheck Deductions" and the ballot title allows just about any kind of deduction, except union dues. Isn't that amazing !
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with so-called ethical government. That is all a fiction made up by the authors of this union busting amendment
October 30, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
49 is anti-labor. Of course, in some states you have to pay union dues whether you want to or not. So the Colorado "Opt out" provision is anti-labor also. Allowing government contracts to go to non-union shops is anti-labor. Anything that doesn't benefit union bosses is anti-labor.
Unions never told many teachers that they had the right to opt out. When the Independence Institute sent a letter to every teacher in the state telling them that they were allowed to opt out, the unions screamed.
I worked for a company that virtually required everyone to make a donation to United Way. United Way funded a religious organization which fed the poor and proselytized while they were doing it. I didn't not want to donate but was pressured into doing it.
I can easily see that it could be very difficult socially to opt out of the union.
rvt1000, you are someone that gloriapoole_RN should be scared of. She has the nerve to disagree with you, so you want to take her career away.
October 30, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
rvt1000 writes:
"Every accounting office in the country is already computerized. "
ROFLAMAO!! And so you think that means there is ZERO cost to do anything in those offices? Are you really that clueless?
"These are the same payroll computers that calculate everything (taxes, ss, medicare, etc.). So it isn't costing anyone anything extra. "
Yeah.... so the applications running on those computers MAGICALLY reprogram themselves to collect the union dues, MAGICALLY transfer the funds, and MAGICALLY maintain the employee records on all of the transactions! WOW.... does anyone know how these computers do all their MAGIC without human intervention?
"Adding a deduction into the computer costs almost nothing. "
And who adds it? One of those ZERO cost employees? Or maybe you think it's the MAGIC COMPUTERS RUNNING THEMSELVES!!
"RICK G- You've opened up your mouth with insults...now be a man and step into the ring...and we can settle this like men...you juvenile jerk.....heck we can even sell tickets for charity."
You clown... ou've already proven that you're clueless by claiming that HUMANS are not needed for computers to be programmed, run, and maintained!!! You'd probably get lost trying to find the location for your arse-whipping... and then claim that it's the fault of those SELF-PROGRAMMING, SELF-RUNNING, SELF-MAINTAINING computers that caused you to get lost again.
October 30, 2008
12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
DougH writes:
"Memo to rickg19611: Taxpayers are not paying anything to collect Unions Dues. It is an agreement between the company and the union to collect dues from company paychecks."
Doug..... surely you're not like the clown that claims that the taxpayer funded computers are programming themselves, running themselves, and maintaining themselves when they process payroll.
If unions want their dues, let THEM collect the dues and PAY for that collection.
Why demand that TAXPAYER FUNDED EMPLOYEES PROGRAM the TAXPAYER FUNDED COMPUTER SYSTEMS, and then have TAXPAYER FUNDED COMPENSATION PERSONNEL involved in maintaining the databases needed to determine the union dues for each person, and then have TAXPAYER FUNDED EMPLOYEES processing the transfer of funds?
TAXPAYERS are paying for the work that government employees are doing in processing the union due payments.
No matter how much some clowns think the computers are running themselves without humans involved.
October 30, 2008
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
The private sector is different than the public sector. A private organization can agree to deduct union dues or it may choose not to. The public sector has a different set of rules. One important rule involves the separation of political organizations and government functions. There are well defined measures to stop government agencies from advocating political positions. Unions are highly political organizations lobbying extensively for various policies. Since a large part of union dues is spent on lobbying, union dues should not be collected by government agencies.
Amendment 49 will get government out of the union business. Unions can collect dues and lobby the government. Government agencies will not be the bag men to facilitate the political view of the unions.
October 30, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
jmjohnson writes:
The only thing about 49 that is anti-union is the fact that when union members begin to pay that annual dues check, they'll start to think really hard about whether or not paying that money is really worth it.
I remember my dues were about $360 a year. For someone making about $20K after taxes, that was a lot of money for me with no benefit in return.
October 30, 2008
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Good comment rick, my computer requires electricity which I have to pay for. And Colorado businesses don't want to pay more so folks can make a living, hence the number of illegals, and the ski industry importing labor from south America. My union collected their own dues, had to send them a check. I've had employers want me to contribute to United way, but they cannot require you to. And I didn't. I don't shop at target because they send 5% to charities, give me the 5% discount and I'll contribute to my own charities. As long as there are humans working for the state that operate the computers it costs money.
October 30, 2008
2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
“MAGICALLY” rickg says that someone is “…claiming that HUMANS are not needed for computers to be programmed, run, and maintained!!!"
"Rickg, since you obviously have no understanding of how IT works in business, I'll try to make it real simple for you. Of the organizations subject to Amendment 49, the number without automated payroll (often an outside service provider) is small enough to count as effectively zero. The number of automated payroll applications without a function to allow automatic deductions is effectively zero (no one would try to sell such a system). The companies are already paying for operations and maintenance of their HR systems.
Once such a system exists, the cost of adding the second automatic deduction, is negligible (what, you think someone has to do original programming every time someone chooses an option?). Activating a deduction does not substantially increase effort, and would not require new hiring. Removing a deduction would not lower effort to such a degree that it would allow eliminating a position.
So yes, if an organization has already implemented automatic payroll deductions for any purpose, automatic deduction of union dues is effectively free to the organization.
Clear enough for you rickg? If not, I’ll try to rewrite that without words longer than two syllables.
If someone wants clearly stated rationale for voting against 49, try mmannio’s entries, not rickg's (I disagree with mmannio, mainly in his exaggerated depiction of unions, but he’s rational).
October 30, 2008
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
rvt1000:
"At least one of the groups behind one of these measures has been fined $10K because they won't disclose where the money is coming from."
More pro-union innuendo?
Which "group" are you referring to?
Did the money come from employees of this "group" and was it collected from those employees, whether they wanted it to support these Ammendments, or not, as is the case with those employees paying union dues to those unions opposing these Ammendments?
Yes, business lies all the time, just as unions do.
Do I have first hand experience in such matters? Yes, I was a Shop Steward for the AFL/CIO for several years.
I voted yes on 47.
October 30, 2008
4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
malis....
Where do you buy those magic computers that you claim will process payroll without human intervention?
You might want to notify Gates, Jobs, and others in the high tech industry that you've found a way to have computers program, run, and maintain themselves without any human interaction.
Also, you may also want to contact all CIOs in the country and inform them that they've been paying IT people for no reason... since you have a magic method for computers to operate without humans involved.
October 30, 2008
5 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
rvt...
" John smith is hired by county A. County A has computers in accounting for payroll. the software that runs everything including ALL deductions was designed by the software vendor. "
So how does John Smith's name get added to the database? How do the computers know that John Smith has been hired?
Hmm..... MAGIC? No dweeb.... because a HUMAN BEING has to enter them into the database!!
"The first day of work Mr. Smith fills out his paperwork...makes his choices on medical, dental, disability, etc.... The HR clerk"
Hmm.... is the HR clerk a computer? No. A human that needs to be paid.
then enters this info into the system. Each deduction is a line by line entry, or will default to a simple check box....even if its a manual entry someone typing 45 wpm could probably do it in about 15sec (so .25 of 1 min of $12/hr = $12hr/60min/hr = $.20/min *.25min = .5c per employee.) Ok so now we've established that it's somewhere around and extra $.05 per employee--ONE TIME! THAT'S A WHOPPING $50.00 PER 1000 EMPLOYEES. Governments waste more overpaying no-bid contractors by thousands more than that.
You think a government employee costs $12 per hour? Where? INDIA? PAKISTAN? Government pays more than that for BENEFITS alone.
"All county governments offer direct deposit as a way of saving money so the software and everything necessary is already there....once again there is virtually no cost."
"virtually"? So you admit there IS cost that taxpayers pick up for the unions.
"And for the record I'm probably better with these things than you are."
Obviously not, since you've had to change your claims.
"Lastly, I new you didn't have the guts. It's really easy to hide behind a computer screen. Your a shameless deceptive coward. You talk smack (actually it's closer to slander)but don't have the guts to "put your money where your mouth is" The offer still stands...we find a gym...call a few media outlets...you can pick the charity (as long as it is a charity according to the IRS anyone will do)."
A little twit like you against me? ROFLAMO! A little clueless twit like you would end up just like the practice dummies we used at Ft Benning. A pile of stuffing that gets recycled for the next class coming through training.
October 30, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
jmjohnson writes:
Actually RVT, my job was with the IRS. Why they have a union is beyond me, but they did. I was making $12.50/hr at that time, and my wages were set by Congress, not the union.
Now you'll make the argument that my union fought for my higher wages. Well they can certainly lobby for higher wages, just like anyone can, but a pay increase to public employees largely comes down to government budgets and political priorities, not profit sharing as it is in the private sector.
Also, for those of you opposing this amendment, would you be fine with me having automatic deductions from my paycheck to an anti-Union PAC? The idea is largely the same, both are working for the betterment of workers, in their words, and both do it through the political process.
October 30, 2008
5:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
rick, rick, rick, if you're not aware, they've already bought the computers and are using them to run their businesses (for which I'm thankful--my business is helping them to do so securely, and business is good!).
They're already paying IT people and payroll clerks. Nearly all of them have already implemented automatic payroll deductions for a variety of purposes (hmmm, mine includes a charitable deduction; 401k deduction to our company's outsourced financial services provider; and Health Care Spending Account deduction to a different outsourced services provider. Union dues are an optional deduction (I'm not eligible because I'm management, but we get along very well with our union staff).
The incremental effort to add a deduction is so small as not to be worth budgeting. Hmmm...still too may syllables. Let me try again.
The…cost…to…deduct…union…dues…is…so…small…that...it…has…no…bearing
…on…a…vote…for…or…against…49.
Clear? Oh, and I’ll tell Steve (Jobs) and Steve (Ballmer…Bill G no longer has an operational role) that rickg assures them every company in the country is going to have to buy a new computer (and hire operators! and programmers!) every time they want to implement a new automatic payroll deduction. I’m sure they’ll be thrilled.
October 30, 2008
5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
rickg19611,
There is marginal cost to provide the payroll deductions. There is data entry cost and probably cost to transfer money. Moreover, the state is providing a service to the union. This service has a cost in the private sector. The union is screaming because it wants to continue receiving a subsidy from the state. The value of the subsidy is the cost to collect the union dues without the payroll deduction.
As I indicated in my previous post, unions are highly political organizations. The state has no business subsidizing political organizations.
October 30, 2008
5:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
rvt....
Navy? I bet you couldn't even handle Navy PT.... and we did more in one hour than the Navy does in a week.
Here's why the Army was a LOT more fun....
http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp?refc=#?channel=&video=
Oh... and since you don't seem to have much knowledge of economics, since you claim that when a person is hired, their payroll is processed "one time", maybe you should stick with whatever you ARE good at. Digging ditches. Pretending to be a pro wrestler. Whatever. Because it sure isn't serving in the military. Or knowing anything about basic economics and financial management.
October 30, 2008
5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
mmannino....
Exactly right.
Unions want taxpayers to pay for the processing of union dues.
Of course, some will claim there is "virtually no cost". Of couse "virtually" no cost in government, which spends trillions each year, means it's probably hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds.
These are people have NEVER owned their own business, so they're clueless about how much work goes into payroll processing in EVERY pay period.
People who don't have a clue about financial or economic issues think that there is NO cost to processing payroll..... or as some claim,.. just a "few cents".
That's an example of how little they know about it. ADP, which is only ONE company in the country that processes payrolls for organizations has revenue of $9 billion per year! The payroll processing industry is a $110 billion dollar a year business!
So much for the myth of "virtually no cost".
October 30, 2008
6:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
rickg, the work is going into making payroll whether on not there's one more allowable deduction (and yes, it is a lot of work...ever put 10,000 punch cards through a manual sorter nine times, to get SSNs in order? I used to, every two weeks). The point is (for the third time) there's effectively no *measurable* additional cost.
There are many valid rational reasons to vote both for or against 49. The so-small-it's-not-measurable additional cost of processing the deduction, is not among them. Just because it's rickg's reason doesn't mean it has to be yours. Or once again, in words of no more than two syllables so rickg can understand,
The…extra…cost…to…deduct…union…dues…is…so…small…that...it…has…
no…bearing…on…a…vote…for…or…against…49.
October 30, 2008
6:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
rvt1000,
I do not know where you get your cost estimates. The state probably has numerous payroll systems. There are probably other associated elements besides the payroll deduction such as personnel department interactions with union officials.
The state has no business providing a subsidy to a political organization. The value of the subsidy is the cost to obtain this service without the state payroll system. The subsidy value must be significant otherwise the unions would not be raising this issue.
October 30, 2008
7:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
mmannio, yes, it would cost significantly more for unions to set up entirely new systems than to take advantage of existing payroll systems, and that's a factor. Greater though, is probably the annoyance factor...every additional barrier placed in front of potential members means fewer members.
And that's the real motivation behind the backers of Amendment 49...they simply want to make it harder to be in a union because they feel that means small, less powerful unions (by the way, without the right to strike, there are no even mildly powerful state government unions). Some of the backers haven't thought that far—they just want to annoy people they don't like and see this as one way of doing this.
You are not among those people (rickg is). Your primary point is serious, in that the state has an obligation to keep the influence of partisan politics out of the operations of government. I hadn’t thought of Amendment 49 in this context and it’s worth considering. I’ll think more about
But, as I said, I do not think it's a concern of the original backers (I’ve never heard them make that argument). They might be glad to adopt it but their real motivation is simply anti-union, any union, anywhere, anytime.
October 30, 2008
7:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gonzopozo writes:
There is no taxpayer cost. The systems are already programmed. Deal with it.
The key to this whole matter is in the article.
"49's budget, provided largely by the Independence Institute, is roughly $100,000."
Ah, the Independence Institute. The Caldera-led zealots that are STILL whining about Ref. C. Check out their REAL agenda before you support ANYTHING they dig into their deep pockets for.
October 30, 2008
9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
malis,
You are wrong about the Independence Institute's position on Amendment 49. I like the II. I am a conservative and I think the II represents the conservative position well. I realize that others may not agree with the IIs positions but the II is a principled organization.
Here are the IIs arguments for Amendment 49:
- The primary argument for Amendment 49 is that it eliminates a major conflict of interest.
- It levels the playing field among various lobbyists and interest groups.
- It protects many public employees from unwanted deductions.
The II is not trying to harrass unions. It is the other way. Unions have a cozy relationship with government. Government should be neutral towards political organizations including unions.
October 31, 2008
12:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Patron_Drinker writes:
I agree that government should not collect money for the unions that lobby it and with which it negotiates labor contracts. However, if we (voters/taxpayers/the government) stop collecting money for one private organization (the union), we should stop collecting for all private organizations (churches, United Way, et al). I'm willing to give those up, but the amendment doesn't mention them. That's why I'm voting against it. (And I am anti-union, although as a laborer, I am pro-labor.)
October 31, 2008
1:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
ObiWan writes:
rvt1000....
You make excellent points about how little this all costs.
Then why are unions spending 22 MILLION to make sure they don't have to take some work currently being done by the government, transfer that work to the unions themselves, and let them do it?
Why can't these associations and unions do this work IF IT COSTS NOTHING TO DO THIS KIND OF BANKING??
Remove government as the middle man, and let people pay their dues through an inexpensive monthly bank draft.
The ETHICAL reasons for 49 are clear. Do you want the government collecting money for the ACLU, the KKK, the Sierra Club, the NRA just because government can do it as a free convenience because one or two of their workers are ambitious enough to bother their payroll clerk, but too lazy to pick up their checkbooks once a month?
October 31, 2008
1:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
ObiWan writes:
Also, rvt1000, you write....
So what your really saying is unions should be discriminated against....isn't it!
No, what's being said is other unions and political associations like the Colorado Farm Bureau shouldn't be discriminated AGAINST simply because their association members AREN'T government employees. They have to go collect their dues from their members DIRECTLY! And somehow they manage to survive!
You say...."Just another sneaky way to weaken/destroy unions." Can they really be DESTROYED just by asking their members to set up a monthly bank draft?
If they can, then they are truly a house of cards waiting to collapse at any moment if they are as weak as you suggest.
But still, they've got $22 million to throw around in a campaign to mail every person in the state these full-color 9X11 ads...geez, you'd think they'd have enough money to send out a freaking payment reminder with an envelope every month. I doubt that would cost $22 million.
October 31, 2008
6:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
jmjohnson writes:
Frankly, if this helps to destroy the teachers union, I'd be pretty happy. They're the one single largest barrier to performance pay. I always hear people complain that sports stars make millions but our teachers make only 30-40K... Well, if the teachers are REALLY good teachers, they SHOULD be paid more. But the teachers union opposes performance pay because it means that the lazy useless teachers will make less than the teachers who actually CARE about teaching, or worse, they may get fired.
Communism does not promote excellence, it simply promotes laziness. Why exert effort to exceed expectations if you won't get any monetary recognition for it. Oh that's right, because love of teaching should be reward enough right? While some teachers genuinely do love to teach, just telling them that doing their job is its own reward rings hollow and sounds like a cop out that they shouldn't make more than the teacher that's there just to make a paycheck.
October 31, 2008
8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
rvt1000:
"We'll my mother and stepfather who were both shop-stewards say thanks a lot (sarcasm included). Their retirements are funded through the union. What's going to happen to them when in 5 years if this passes and the company then decides they don't want to pay into it anymore? She scrimps by now and is to old to return to work and has physical problems from the job (got a whopping $6300 for the disability). Social security is a joke."
Perhaps your mother and stepfather should be thanking the unions for spending millions of their retirement fund monies on fighting these amendments, along with other political and personal gains. Where do you and your folks think this money comes from? And, who's going to replace it, once it's gone? Unfortunately, once it's spent by the union bosses, it's never coming back to the union members who paid into it. If that causes the retired union members a hardship, well, as you say, it was their choice.
"If you were really a shop steward you would know all union officers/management is ran by vote.... if the members don't like what the union is doing...they can exercise their right to vote or hold office themselves. OR go find another (lower paying) job."
Contrary to what you've been told and choose to believe, most unions are not run by the rank-and-file members. Once elected, the officers of that union will run things as they see fit, which is why more union officials have been charged with criminal actions, than any other single group in the nation. It was my experience that most union members will go along with whatever these officers want. Very rarely, will a union officer be voted out of office for not doing what the rank-and-file members want. On the contrary, most rank-and-file union member choose to be like sheep, following a shepherd.
I did vote union for several years. However, after several years as a Shop Steward, I became disgusted how the union was being run, along with defending incompetent and lazy union workers against sanctions from the company. So, I did vote, with my feet and found a higher paying job, with better benefits, in a non-union shop.
If you believe all national (and even some local union officials) really care about the union rank-and-file members, you are only showing your naiveté. It was my experience that most high ranking union officials are focused on protecting what THEY have and what THEY can get from the union members.
November 1, 2008
8:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
ObiWan writes:
rvt1000....
I'm disappointed you've had to leave the conversation.
I was going to ask how proud you must be that your UFCW guy here in Colorado pulls down 162K per year, and gives sweetheart jobs to his daughter and son, so that they pull down 6-figures as well.
Just fightin' for the workin man, right?
http://facethestate.com/articles/1174...
November 3, 2008
9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
JINX writes:
It's funny that county sheriff's are speaking out and are oppossed to this ballot, convenient isn't it. Every sheriff's office in this state is a work at the will of the sheriff. The sheriff can fire a deputy for the small reason of supporting a different candidate or not supporting the current political agenda. The sheriff can demote deputies from rank and bring in his own administration to replace everybody. They enjoy the "right to work" and use it towards there own political agenda. Look at Colorado Springs for an example. The sheriff uses and abuses his administration and after the fact runs for the senate. Exactly why I quit being a sheriff and went to a union shop. I enjoy job security, better pay and benefits and a safer enviroment. This scam job by Jon Caldera is a lions in sheeps clothing. SUPPORT your police, fire and teachers, VOTE NO on this scam.
November 3, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tigermoon writes:
Personally, I'm really bothered by the fact that it is assumed all labor organizations have political monies to lobby the government. I work for an association that would be greatly affected if 49 passes. We do not require all employees to pay dues, we do not require them to even pay a negotiating fee or representation fee. There is no opt-out letter anyone has to write. Our contract that members sign to join opts-in for paying dues. We have no political action fund, and do not campaign for or lobby on behalf of any political entity. Our organization has negotiated with our members' employer to have a payroll deduction.
I fail to see how preventing us from collecting dues through a negotiated agreement is a good government measure.
November 4, 2008
1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
LFC writes:
I just don't get why this amendment is even a big deal. if it is taken away from us (a vote of yes) My union sets up a bank account and I have it automatically take my union dues every paycheck just like my bills. What a waste of time and space. It doesn't matter either way. I am in a Union. 54 and 47 I feel it is important to vote no, but that is because I am in a union.