REUTEMAN: Business to fight labor measures as poison pills
By Rob Reuteman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published September 5, 2008 at 9:05 p.m.
Ican give you an early glimpse at how business interests will combat four labor-backed November ballot measures.
In political ads, debates and talking-points memos, they will be portrayed as "poison pill amendments."
"They're written to look good, but if passed will be tremendous setbacks for Colorado," said Rick Reiter, spokesman for Coloradans for Responsible Reform, a bipartisan coupling of various economic development groups and chambers of commerce.
"The amendments will hurt the people that proponents say they are designed to help," added Joe Blake, president of the Denver Metro Chamber and a CRR member.
The four proposed amendments to the Colorado Constitution:
* Amendment 53, Corporate fraud: Executives would face additional liabilities for fraudulent activity they might know about but fail to report.
* Amendment 55, Just cause: Employers would have to 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 56, Health coverage for employees: Employers with 20 or more workers would have to provide a plan in which the employee would pay no more than 20 percent, 30 percent for their dependents.
* Amendment 57, Safe workplaces: Injured employees could sue for additional damages beyond workers compensation benefits.
All four initiatives came about after Amendment 47 - the so-called Right To Work amendment - was proposed. It would outlaw agreements requiring workers covered by union contracts to pay fees for representation. It would further weaken unions.
Proponents of the labor-backed initiatives have indicated they would pull back their measures if the backers of Amendment 47, led by brewery heir Jonathan Coors, would yank theirs. It's a standoff and no one's blinking.
"These amendments represent a scorched-earth policy if they don't get '47' off the ballot," Reiter said. "They are trying to manipulate a surrender of '47.' It's a cynical use of the referendum process."
Jess Knox, executive director of Protect Colorado's Future, the group backing the amendments on fired workers and corporate fraud, countered: "It's cynical of Rick to say those things. We think our initiatives are good public policy. We've always said we would sit down and have a conversation with the folks behind 47. When we sit down, everything can be on the table."
Common threads run through all four initiatives, Reiter said. "They will end up lowering wages, workers will suffer a loss of benefits and there will be an open door to lawsuit abuse."
Knox: "The Colorado economy should not just be people pursuing singular prosperity. These measures strengthen the economy for employees. We fundamentally believe the more we strengthen the work force, the more we get to a place we want to be."
Blake said that one California company interested in relocating already has indicated it will stay away if the measures pass. When he gave a breakfast speech Wednesday on the situation, he said a woman in the audience said her company's insurance carrier notified them that if the corporate-fraud initiative passed, they'll no longer insure.
"These types of scare tactics are typically used against labor," Knox said Friday.
Reiter said, "What we'll be telling workers is that all four measures are going to rob you. You're the guy who's gonna get hurt. You'll end up without health care or even a job. If a company has to make an adjustment to comply with these new rules, it's gonna come out of your wages. Your 'bennies' and wages will be transferred to the tort system. New employers aren't going to look at this state. No one will come here and subject their profits to these measures."
The overall economy is the main driver in any decision to relocate here, Knox said, "not these other considerations. They may be in the mix, but the strength and quality of the work force weighs more heavily."
And so it goes. Oct. 3 is the drop-dead date for an initiative to be pulled from the ballot by its sponsors. Is there a capable peacemaker in the house?
To comment on this column, go to RockyMountainNews.com/Business.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's postgame rant on the Jets.
-
Broncos-Jets action
Visit our photo galleries for some action photos from Sunday's showdown.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
September 6, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brix57 writes:
Mr. Reuteman, when was the last time that you were a worker in a non-management position? Just curious.
One Californian company, unnamed, said that they would consider locations other than Colorado, if the measure(s) passed. This quote is a scare tactic that should not be used in an objective business news article. Your duty as a management position editor of a business section is to refrain from using these types of propaganda and to inform your readers.
Obviously, you have never been injured on the job nor have you endured what "benefits" worker's compensation metes out. Your tune would change almost immediately if you had.
Healthcare is something that should interest you, not how much an employer would pay, but, where that money goes and how it is spent.
September 6, 2008
9:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
Management types ( that includes UNIONS, because now people can't see a difference ) have been put on notice:
The time for top heavy management salaries and benefits ARE OVER!!
You had your chance, ENRON & Nacho-Boy is what the REAL worker got. It comes as no surprise that the worker bee has said ENOUGH.
And I have been on both sides of the desk.
I'd rather be a MAKER, not a TAKER or a FAKER....
September 6, 2008
11:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
daRock writes:
Punnisher,
Just how do any of these measures end executive salaries or benefits? The high paid executives in both business and unions will not be impacted.
Where is a small business supposed to come up with the money for the health insurance mandates to cover the employee and their families if they are not already providing health coverage?
Removing 'at will' hiring for small and medium businesses requiring a business owner give a reason for termination will hurt many many businesses, and in the end their employees. The intent of this amendment is to take the 'ownership' of a job away from the company and give it to the employee. Once an employee has a job, it belongs to him or her and the business owner must jump through hoops to restructure or change employees.
These measures are designed to weaken those that start, invest, manage and take all of the risk to own and run a business. How many restaurants that have more than 20 employees would go under? Would you risk your family savings to go into an already risky business with these extra demands? Any idea how many wait persons, bus people, bar tenders and hostesses, fast food employees and other minimum wage workers would be out of a job?
If these resolutions pass, the easiest remedy for businesses will be to not have as many full time employees but to make their workers part-time or 'contract labor' that are self employed. No matching FICA, no health insurance, no benefits including vacation/sick time or retirement plans.
All businesses run on a plan that allows for a certain budget and percentage of revenues for labor. Those percentages of the company budget are not going to be pushed up by a popular vote. There is no free lunch.
It will be small businesses and the little people that get hurt.
The top union people and their lawyers pushing for these amendments will all still be very well paid after the November elections. Most live outside of Colorado and they don't care.
Please study these resolutions carefully and think before you vote.
September 7, 2008
1:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Gov. Bill Ritter and the state constitution give the protections of "Right-to-Work" our government employees.
Now Ritter, Hickenlooper and Salazar oppose these same protections for the rest of Colorado? That's just wrong.
The rest of Colorado should enjoy Right-to-Work protections, just like our government employees.
YES on Amendment 47!
p.s. Curb the radical Union agenda to ruin Colorado
September 7, 2008
3:20 a.m.
bosunj writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 7, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
What is wrong with laws that protect the employee.
I have worked union and non union.
I had more respect from my non union boss but less pay.
How about taking some of those millions the head honcho gets paid.
Then pay the employees some of that money.
After all they are the people who do the real work.
Better protection for the employee how many b.m.w.s can a business owner own and drive at one time.
September 7, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Gov. Bill Ritter and the state constitution give the protections of "Right-to-Work" our government employees.
Now Ritter, Hickenlooper and Salazar oppose these same protections for the rest of Colorado? That's just wrong.
YES on Amendment 47!
p.s. Curb the radical Union agenda to ruin Colorado
September 7, 2008
6:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
SodaPop writes:
Dear Mr. Reuteman, while I appreciate your focus on this issue, the article leans heavily pro-business. Your first three quotes are from people opposing the pro-family amendments and supporting the anti-family one (Prop 47).
Later the article balances out, but the damage has been done. Next time consider establishing the pros and cons earlier in the piece. It would make for a better and more balanced article.
In any event, 47 should be yanked off the ballot since the signatures were illegally gotten and it is a joke. 47 will do very little in the short term to help businesses increase profits, although over time it will allow them to pay workers less, which always happens in restricted bargaining states.
But to hear the businesses tell it, if either 53, 55, 56, or 57 passes, all manner of chaos and destruction will ensue. Is that worth the risk for the chance to pass 47 with its questionable benefits?
Why would Coors not listen to them and cut this deal? Because he is a zealot on a quest and refuses to listen to reason. That alone should tell you we should not pass 47.