Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Let's make a deal

There's still time to pull some ballot measures

Rocky Mountain News

Published September 3, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Time is running short, and the odds of success are not good. But there may still be an outside chance that Colorado's political and economic heavyweights can bring warring labor groups and right-to-work proponents to their senses and convince initiative sponsors to pull several measures from this fall's ballot.

Amendment 47, the right-to-work initiative, along with union-backed amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57 have all been certified. They will go to voters unless they're removed by Oct. 2, 33 days before the election.

Gov. Bill Ritter, Sen. Ken Salazar, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and local business groups continue to urge right-to-work supporters and union officials to walk away from this confrontation before it's too late to remove the measures from the ballot.

Even as the two sides raise money to pass their measures and defeat their opponents, let's hope they remain open to persuasion. If the four labor-backed amendments pass, Colorado could quickly slide from a state with one of the nation's more promising climates for job creation to one of the more hostile environments for employers. The economic benefits of the right-to-work measure, meanwhile, would be negligible.

We'll be discussing each of these initiatives in detail in the coming weeks. For now, however, we'll confine ourselves to a few broad strokes.

For starters, Amendments 53, 55 and 57 - the so-called corporate fraud, just cause and safe workplace measures, respectively - would provide a bonanza for litigators. At the same time, they would offer little if any benefits to employees and do little to make employers more honest or job sites safer.

Amendment 53 would hold company officials, including nonresident board members of global corporations that have outlets in Colorado, liable under state criminal law if they are aware of unlawful acts and don't report them to state authorities. That might sound reasonable, except that no other state does it and firms everywhere will notice. Right now under state law, executives can face civil penalties, but they can't be sent to jail.

Colorado would also set a dangerous precedent by passing Amendment 55; we would become the first state to ban "at-will" employment in the constitution. Under 55, nonunion employers must provide written justification before they can dismiss workers - and could let workers go only under specific circumstances that are spelled out in the amendment.

Amendment 57 would give employees the ability to sue companies for work-related injuries even after they've received benefits available from the state's workers compensation system.

Finally, Amendment 56 would force private companies employing more than 20 workers to not only provide comprehensive health insurance but also pay 80 percent of employees' and 70 percent of dependents' medical costs. Among other things, the law would discourage small companies from growing into big ones. A firm about to hire its 20th worker would face a huge incentive to hire independent contractors instead. Or leave Colorado for a state with a friendlier environment.

All these initiatives would broadcast an unmistakable message to anyone thinking of opening a business: Steer clear of Colorado.

If removing Amendment 47 from the ballot would convince the backers of 53, 55, 56 and 57 to do likewise, that would be a good deal for the state.

Comments

  • September 3, 2008

    6:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    zippy66 writes:

    Or...instead of caving to pressure from out of state big-labor union thugs, Colorado voters could defeat #53, #55, #56 and #57, and pass #47.

    If pulled off the table, the anti-business initiatives will just reappear as bad legislation in January. And this time, Gov. Ritter will cave.

    The only way to get rid of these union snakes is to beat them at the ballot box because they have the legislature in their back pocket, and the Rocky knows it. Pass #47 and defeat the others.

  • September 3, 2008

    8:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    vendari01 writes:

    I see the author's points, here, and find myself in agreement with them, as stated. I also, unfortunately see many of the abuses some of these laws were meant to prevent. For example, the way an employer can get rid of an annoying employee by cutting that employee's hours to zero, forcing the employee to quit, thus avoiding paying unemployment. I am non-union, and have no desire to join one, but I remember reading about conditions for workers before they came to be, and recognize that a properly run union can be of great benefit to employees who have no other advocate. No story is all one-sided.

  • September 3, 2008

    10:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BrianSchwartz writes:

    Amendment 56 will put low-wage workers out of jobs - as employers pass the cost of insurance onto employees. If it's legal that is. If the employee makes close to the minimum wage, goodbye job! No worries to its Union sponsors, as union employees probably make enough money such that they won't lose their jobs. For more on this, see:
    http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/0...

    Amendment 56 also violates the rights of employers and employees to contract freely according to their own best judgment, rather than that of politicians.
    http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/0...

  • September 3, 2008

    10:51 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    We'll have to close the bead business.

  • September 3, 2008

    4:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    BetterEducated writes:

    I agree that your points are well taken but, Rocky, it's deals like you propose that have gotten us where we are: in uncontrolled intersections on these issues. When it works out, fine; but when it doesn't, problems are huge!! We are better off with some law on these issues in some direction or another, instead of the loosy-goosy way it's always been done here, that leaves everyone wondering what their rights are (and finding out they don't have any).

  • September 7, 2008

    12:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Gov. Bill Ritter gave the protections of "Right-to-Work" our state employees.

    Ritter, Hickenlooper and Salazar now oppose these same protections for the rest of Colorado? That's just wrong.

    The rest of Colorado should enjoy these same protections.

    YES on Amendment 47

  • September 7, 2008

    5:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    SodaPop writes:

    I fail to see how holding white collar criminals accountable is bad for business. If I know of a 'blue collar' crime that is about to happen, say, murder, but do not tell the cops, I am considered an accomplice. Why not have the same standards for white collar crimes? Those cause far more economic damage to the state than violent crimes anyway. How passing that would hurt CO's economy no one has adequately explained. Even if it did, you are telling me we should let criminal acts pass unchecked for the sake of making more money? Man, if that is our standard, we all can think of hundreds of nefarious activities that should be legalized.

    And 47 is a joke. All it does is give non-union workers the ability to freeload of their union co-workers, since their union co-workers would pay the dues that represent everyone at the work place, even the non-union workers. That is supposed to be good for business? We need an Amendment to the state constitution to allow workers to freeload? Really?