Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

No labor peace on fall ballot

Group fails to head off 'right-to-work,' countermeasures

By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 3, 2008 at 9:05 p.m.

Text size  

Related Links

More More Business

More stories »

A coalition of key metro-area businesses says the latest push to get "right-to-work" amendment supporters to withdraw their Colorado ballot measure has failed.

Coloradans for Responsible Reform, a campaign group organized by Denver's business chamber and economic development arm, said proponents of the "right-to-work" initiative have concluded they will forge ahead instead of working out a compromise ahead of the November election.

"All of it has pretty much unwound," political consultant Rick Reiter said of the chamber-led group's effort to persuade right-to-work backers to pull their measure from the ballot by an Oct. 2 deadline. "They came to the conclusion they want to stay in the hunt."

The chamber group's effort to head off a ballot clash this fall is the latest in a string of attempts by government officials and business leaders to persuade business and labor camps to pull several competing measures from the ballot.

The right-to-work amendment would ban mandatory union dues for workers covered by union contracts.

Its campaign spokesman has repeatedly stressed that his group has no intention of backing down.

"The campaign is moving ahead full steam," said Kelley Harp of A Better Colorado, which is running the "right-to-work" effort. "I don't know what conversation they're alluding to" about negotiating a compromise.

Reiter, who spoke to the Rocky Mountain News editorial board on Wednesday, said polls being conducted for Coloradans for Responsible Reform have indicated the "right-to-work" measure is "in a lot of trouble" with registered voters.

Despite all the focus on "right-to-work," it's the four initiatives proposed by the labor community - in retaliation for the right-to-work proposal - that have the business coalition the most worried.

"We're going to characterize them as the poison pill amendments," Reiter said. "They look good on their face but they will be a tremendous setback."

Among them: requirements that employers pay 80 percent of health insurance premiums and another that would allow injured workers to sue for more damages after collecting workers compensation benefits.

One measure would make executives criminally liable for fraud at their companies, while another would ban firing of employees without a specific reason and allow them to sue if they decide they've been improperly let go.

The latter two were proposed by a labor-backed coalition called Protect Colorado's Future, a group that formed after brewery descendant Jonathan Coors and others began promoting their campaign to make Colorado the nation's 23rd "right-to-work" state.

Labor proponents agreed Wednesday that negotiating with the "right-to-work" proponents appears futile, even though they have indicated they would pull all of their own initiatives off the ballot in exchange for a withdrawal of the proposed "right-to-work" amendment.

"They've never once said they would sit down with us," agreed Jess Knox, executive director of Protect Colorado's Future. "They've said no deal for Colorado."

Voters will face 18 statewide ballot initiatives in November.

For now, the chamber group plans to run a campaign advocating "no" votes on the four labor-backed measures.

Denver Metro Chamber President Joe Blake, who also spoke to the Rocky editorial board, called the whole battle "a tragic miscalculation."

He said a company from California has already vowed to abandon a plan to move to the state if the measures pass. But the campaign will focus mainly on convincing voters they will face job cuts and lower wages if businesses are forced to comply with all the new directives.

At issue

Labor groups filed ballot measures to counter a "right-to-work" amendment that would ban mandatory union dues. Efforts have failed to use the four labor measures as leverage to get proponents of the proposed amendment to withdraw their initiative. A summary of the competing measures on Colorado's ballot this fall:

* Amendment 47: Prohibition on Mandatory Labor Union Dues

Known as the right-to-work amendment, this proposed constitutional change would do away with the current practice of allowing workers to vote on whether they want an "all-union" agreement that requires employees to pay dues to cover the cost of being represented by a union that negotiates wages and other benefits.

* Amendment 53: Allowable Causes for Employee Discharge

Would ban firing full-time employees without a specific reason and allow workers to sue if they believe they've been improperly dismissed.

* Amendment 55: Criminal Accountability for Business Executives

Known as the "corporate fraud" initiative, it would make an executive criminally liable for fraudulent activity they know about but fail to report within their businesses.

* Amendment 56: Employer Responsibility for Health Insurance

Would require every private employer with 20 or more employees to provide health insurance, limiting the amount employees would pay to 20 percent or 30 percent for dependent coverage. Nonprofits would not be required to do so unless they have 1,000 or more employees. Employers could opt to pay for insurance through a new state authority.

*Amendment 57: Additional Remedies for Injured Employees

Would require every employer with 10 or more employees to provide a safe workplace and allow injured employees to seek additional damages in court beyond workers compensation benefits.

Comments

  • September 4, 2008

    2:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ksells writes:

    Brinkmanship seems to the tone to the election. I wonder if the desire to break a few union work places are worth it to the Coors family and the Rocky Mountain Employment Council now? If the anti-union vote wins then I would expect to see an initiative that states that non-union members are not covered by the contract and can not be represented by union representatives.

    But the trade off is pretty good. The loss of employment at will is long overdue and would effect many more businesses then are those represented by unions. Workers comp is a joke. Anyone who looks at the amounts paid by workers comp would be appalled. Employers being required to pay for health benefits is correct not only on moral grounds, but it's high time that employers stop transferring health costs to the state.

    Reap what you deserve, Mr. Coors and the anti-union folks. What people forget is in trying to do away with unions the government picks up the pieces.

  • September 4, 2008

    3:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ksells writes:

    I neglected to mention the corporate fraud initiative. I worked for the telephone company for over 30 years and an upstart company who was cooking the books cost me three quarters of my life savings. Oops, it's legal. Sue the company, if's there's anything left. White collar crime should be punished and in particular, those who made the decision.

  • September 4, 2008

    3:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Let workers choose: Giving workers a voice is the purpose of unions

    Amendment 47, the Right to Work Amendment, would amend the state's constitution to prohibit the current allowable practice of forcing workers to join a union as a condition of their employment.

    We think the best thing about this particular measure is its potential to make unions, when needed, better. The upshot for workers under Amendment 47 is that once the unions are in place, the lack of a guaranteed membership means the unions will have to continue to deliver on their promises in order to thrive.

    The Boulder Daily Camera supports Amendment 47.

  • September 4, 2008

    4:10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ksells writes:

    jacka,

    I'm afraid you are wrong. Colorado doesn't force anyone to belong to the union. What the current law says is that unions are reimbursed for representing non-members in both bettering their economic situation and give representation to insure that they are unfairly treated, there will be someone to go to that doesn't charge $250 an hour. The concept of this amendment is that those who do not want to pay for the protection and the gains of a union contract should not have to pay for it. Really, it's about stepping onto the backs of people fight for you.

    I am sad that there are so many people who are jealous of the gains that have been gained by people who were willing to give there all to better their living conditions. And in a state that has a monument in Ludlow where men, women, and children gave their life for decent treatment.

  • September 4, 2008

    4:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Elwood writes:

    How about strike wages that are less than 1/10 of normal wages. How long are we supposed to survive on that? Where are the dues that we paid now? Oh yeah, they paid for the quarterly convention of Union bosses in Las Vegas, gold watches, union rep's cars, etc.

  • September 4, 2008

    4:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    BetterEducated writes:

    Don't drive yourself nutz arguing with Jacka, he doesn't get it.
    All public (such as teachers) and private workers who have a union that is recognized as the exclusive representative of those workers, is benefited and restricted by the union contract. In other words, ALL public school workers have to accept their assigned union as their "exclusive representative." In the public sector at least, THIS IS FREE FOR NON-MEMBERS.
    Only members of the union can vote. This means: the pending DCTA/DPS contract will be voted on by union members only, non-member teachers have given up the right to vote on the contract and on the officers who do the negotiating on behalf of ALL WORKERS exclusively represented under the contract.
    The state labor peace act applies only to PRIVATE workers so it's a little confusing how much any of the proposed enactments would affect public workers such as teachers. Colorado has always had a very, very delicate and unique balance going on, and we can only pray that it tilts off in the right direction once that balance is disrupted.
    Hang onto your eyebrows, ksells: As you know, Ludlow victims were striking to elect a union that was not an in-house relative of the mine itself. Guess what some DPS classified workers still get for a "collective bargaining agent" that "exclusively represents" all workers (only the non-administrative workers) in a certain department? Or how many of the officers of those "agents" go on to become DPS admins? (Shh, if workers complain, the state militia comes over :-)
    Since most American collective bargaining occurs in the PUBLIC sector these days, we should be focusing on those rights in Colorado imho, but that is a can of worms that nobody in their right mind would want to open up in this political climate. Meanwhile, the "half a loaf" in-house school district unions are Something as opposed to Nothing at All -- which in Colorado seems to be about the best they're gonna get.

  • September 4, 2008

    9:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    iggypuppet writes:

    jacka is a shill for Amendment 47. He should be corrected for every dishonest statement and should be challenged with facts on every contention.

    Pro or anti-union, I think everyone should be able to make their own decisions based upon FACT, not fiction or spin.

    Too bad we can't track jacka (or Jack A on other posts) and his bank account. I'd be willing to bet that some checks have been sent his way by proponents (or financial backers) of Amendment 47.

  • September 5, 2008

    4:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Vspackles writes:

    I agree with iggypuppet, everything jacka writes is bogus!

  • September 7, 2008

    11:56 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    broncoswin99 writes:

    I agree with both of the folks above -- JackA has an agenda to push and apparently has tons of free time to push his deceptive message (sorry, I mean lies) all over the place!

    Vote based on the facts: Colorado's middle class will be hurt by untested constitutional amendments that will only increase the power of the out-of-state corporate interests behind them over Colorado's workers. All the 40s are dangerous, think twice before pulling that lever!

    NO ON 47
    NO ON 49
    NO ON 54