Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

CARROLL: Ritter needs to step up and step on 55

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 9, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Gov. Bill Ritter will spend much of this fall promoting his amendment to raise the severance tax. That's understandable but too bad. He ought to spend it trying to save this state from the most serious threat to its economic health in many years.

Come Nov. 5, Coloradans could wake up in France - and I don't mean the France of legendary food, architecture and other tourist delights. I mean the France of oppressive labor regulations that stifle job creation and economic growth while keeping unemployment artificially high.

Thanks to the work of a coalition of unions, voters in November will face four measures - Amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57 - that if passed will decisively erode this state's competitive edge. Consider just one of them - Amendment 55, the so-called "just cause" law "for employee discharge or suspension."

This amendment will turn thousands of layoffs or firings in the private sector into fodder for potential lawsuits, with courts and juries peering over the shoulders of company supervisors and second-guessing decisions. The measure says a company can fire someone only if it "has first established just cause," which it defines in nine different ways - with almost every one being grist for legal wrangling.

Just what is "gross insubordination that affects job performance"? When does insubordination rise above minor and become "gross"? Is habitual insubordination that doesn't measurably affect job performance OK? Why? Doesn't an employer have a right to expect a level of esprit de corps on its staff?

For that matter, what amounts to "repeated violations of the employer's written policies . . . relating to job performance"? Does "repeated" mean two violations? Three? A half-dozen? And how explicitly must they be related to job performance? Lots of employers have written policies related to behavior, civility or dress that some disgruntled employees will argue have nothing to do with their performance. Does that mean they can violate these policies at will without fear of being fired?

Even straightforward terms such as "neglect of assigned job duties" will be cause for disputes that wind up in court.

Meanwhile, companies can forget about contracting with outside firms to take over tasks that they'd traditionally done themselves - at least if it involves shrinking their work force. Amendment 55 doesn't allow layoffs to improve efficiency.

In one stroke, the amendment would transform not only every firing decision but every hiring decision, too. Currently, if a business decides to embark on a new commercial project and hires a dozen people, it knows it can change directions six months later and let those workers go if it is disappointed with results. Without this knowledge, businesses would be less likely to take on risk in the first place.

But could a business change directions as readily under Amendment 55? Almost surely not, since 55 would demand proof of "economic circumstances that directly and adversely affect the employer" before workers could be let go. Does "adversely" mean losing money? The amendment is silent on the subject - although laid-off workers won't be. What if a company says it didn't make as much money as expected? Will courts accept that reason as legitimate - or balk?

Under Amendment 55, businesses will become much more hesitant to hire workers as they discover it is much more costly to let them go. A whole cottage industry of attorneys seeking assembly-line settlements for discharged employees will surface - and businesses will pay this tribute rather than the legal fees of going to trial.

Someone with credibility across Colorado - and especially among those suspicious of free labor markets - needs to lead the charge against this amendment. The governor is ideally situated for the job. As an acknowledged friend of unions, he alone might possess the moral authority to defeat this truly terrible idea - an idea that will make Colorado a flyover state for companies considering sinking new roots.

We are set to learn a lot about the governor and his priorities in the next 56 days.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • September 9, 2008

    1:19 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    This union-backed governor must call for Amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57 to be scuttled by the Unions regardless of any other factors.

    This governor handed over state employees to the unions, the pay back is Right-to-Work. Maybe the unions should spend their hard earned cash fighting the amendments they dislike.

    The passage of any one union-backed measure will be the death nail in this governor's short 4 year administration. The voters cannot fire the unions, but can fire the governor.

  • September 9, 2008

    4:57 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    There does need to be some stiffer laws on safety in the workplace in this state though. I worked for employer in NE Co. that constantly violated safety regs, finally a complaint was filed with OSHA and over a period of time this company was fined a good sum of money. Workmans comp came in and tested the air welders breathed in an enclosed space and recommended better air system, and better protection from fumes, but the Employer said it costs too much. Guess it's better to fill their pockets rather than protect the lungs of workers. I did some checking and OSHA and workmans comp do not communicate, insurance co was not aware of the fines and safety violations.

  • September 9, 2008

    5:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    a_watcher writes:

    I was wondering when someone in the msm would write about this. I made the same comparison to the French system in my blog two months ago:

    http://thecoloradoindex.typepad.com/t...

    France is where the unemployment rate among the youth hovers around 25% because employers fear to hire people because once hired, they cannot be fired. Recall last year when unemployed Muslims burned a thousand cars a night?

    The thing I find most troublesome is that "Protect Colorado's Future" is lying about what the initiative does.

  • September 9, 2008

    6:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike846 writes:

    Ritter is a complete failure as a governor. He panders to illegal aliens, supports tax changes that will cause layoffs and higher energy prices, and arbitrarily issues an order that effectively unionizes state workers. This is what you get when you elect a Democrat, folks. Now he's supporting these ballot measures to increase union power and further the destruction of many businesses in our state. Voters, these people are NOT your friends. Vote Republican. At least then you'll have a fighting chance. Put Obama in the White House and more Democrats in Congress and you'll get more of the same. READ their positions, from Obama on down. Then VOTE against them. Mike

  • September 9, 2008

    6:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    angka writes:

    What about Amendment 47? Didn't labor offer to take these off the ballot of your union-busting pals removed 47? Where's the complaining about that, Vince?

  • September 9, 2008

    7:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    COnative1966 writes:

    Job losses can be expected - that's what you get when Democrats control the legislative and executive branches. They can't help themselves but to put handcuffs on businesses that drive away jobs.

    It's EXTREMELY SCARY thinking what Obama will do as President with the Democrat controlled Congress. Gridlock in Washington would be a good thing compared to the Democrats running both congress and the white house - first do no harm.

  • September 9, 2008

    8:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    socrates writes:

    I believe Ritter has been leading the charge for all the labor/business related initiatives to be taken off the ballot. The insinuation here (echoed by the comments above) is that Ritter is behind them. He's not. I have read countless articles in the past months about how Hickenlooper and Ritter are attempting to have the initiatives withdrawn. That's a better solution than simply trying to get people to vote against it.

    Besides, if he can do that, then people can concentrate on getting rid of a tax subsidy for an industry that is pulling in record profits so we can focus those state dollars on more pressing needs.

    The Governor shouldn't have to spend time on these proposals (both from business and labor) he should be able to spend his time on creating opportunity for the next generation of Coloradans by passing Amendment 58!

  • September 9, 2008

    8:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SteveM writes:

    I've worked in numerous states with such laws as being proposed in Colorado and none of what you alarmists suggest is the case. Colorado is the only "fire at will" state I've ever worked in and you know what, it's not right. You should not be able to be fired because your boss doesn't like you haircut today. You moaners are full of hot hair and tying any of this to the governor or the democrats is as random as betting on 00 in roulette. Why don't you just jawbone with your coffee clutch on these issues and let the voters decide either way. Your fodder isn't helpful. It's one-sided baloney as usual.

  • September 9, 2008

    9:57 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    Let's vote to pass all of these amendments. Then the jobs will go to other states and bingo, no more illegal aliens (other than the criminals) since there will be no work for them here. We can become a "retirement" state. No jobs, no housing shortage, no need for Fastrak, etc. Sounds like a win/win. Oh that's right, we will have to increase taxes at all levels for individuals since business taxes will be greatly diminished. I knew it was too good to be true.

  • September 9, 2008

    10:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ghoax writes:

    just another reason to cast your vote for Republicans who understand that business is the lifeblood of our economy, government that expands its control to manage business actually does the exact opposite as it stifles growth. We need smart thinkers in office that know how to promote for the general welfare..that means government serving the people not providing for them, we can do that much better with business than government can by control.

  • September 9, 2008

    11:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    conniesz writes:

    If the Republicans understand business so well why are we experiencing bank failures at a rate to rival the 1930s after eight years of Republican management at the top.

    Colorado's economy didn't do so well under Owens either. Let's give Ritter a chance. What we have now clearly isn't working very well and it was all orchestrated by Republican administrations.

  • September 9, 2008

    12:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dmp2420 writes:

    All you who profess to believe in the unfettered laissez-faire ideology of the 18th and 19th centuries should wake up and realize we are in the 21st century now. I didn't hear any of you complain when the Fed rescued Bear-Stearns or when Paulson bailed out the incompetent CEO's of Fannie May and Freddie Mac with a government backed rescue yesterday. And get ready for another one because the Koreans just told just told Lehman Bros to take a long walk off a short pier.

    There needs to be a better balance between the interests of workers and the interests of companies and government is the only mediator capable of that role. For the past quarter century the balance has eroded and the singular preoccupation of Wall Street with profits has set real wages on a downward spiral.

    All that Amendment 55 would do is make companies give a reason for termination. It could help protect workers from age discrimation, racial discrimination, and sexism. As usual, and as has always happened throughout out our history, whenever working men and women in America propose something reasonable to protect workers or even the environment, many in the business community and their editorial lackeys shout their Apocalyptic warnings and guess what happens? PROGRESS. We heard the same things in the 1970's when environmental laws were first proposed and when OSHA was established,

    The Rocky Mountain News editorial staff should try to talk some sense into its twin Pit Bulls -- Messrs. Ryan Frazier and Julian Jay Cole -- if it truly wants 55 off the ballot because if they are willing to declare a cease fire and pull Amendment 47, then the centrist business community and the Governor will have some leverage with labor and I will bet there will be a cease fire.

    But don't go blaming Ritter because this neo-con and this professional union buster are refusing to listen to either compromise or reason. BLAME THEM.

  • September 9, 2008

    12:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    TC writes:

    Vince.
    Get a real job before you have an opinion on labor. Sorry, writing a column in a newspaper is a candyass excuse for a job.

  • September 9, 2008

    1:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    When people were given a chance to vote on whether they supported forced union membership, the unions attempted to blackmail its backers with those four measures.

    The unions claimed these measures were necessary to "protect" workers from management. Of course, if amendment 47 is taken off of the ballot the unions will throw the workers under the bus to keep their power.

    Looks like it's time to expose this for what it is and encourage defeat for all four and support for 47. It's obvious that the unions are only in it for their power. Any wonder they're down to 9% and falling.

    Vote yes on 47 and no on 53, 55, 56 and 57. No need to strangle our current businesses and scare off new ones.

  • September 9, 2008

    4:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    infidel91 writes:

    There's nothing wrong with the current state of at-will employment. Employers and employees retain the right to decide when and with whom they maintain their business relationships. There's no such thing as an employee's "right" to his job, any more than an employer has a "right" to a person's labor.

  • September 10, 2008

    1:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jessword writes:

    Does no one else find it curious that Mr. Carroll has chosen to demonize this ballot initiative by using a comparison to the oft ridiculed, socialist France? Red meat anyone? Never mind that France runs a completely different type of government, dammit, can't have any similarities with them damn Frogs!
    Why not take a gander up the road at your neighbor Montana? Seems they've had a similar "just cause" policy for quite a few years. I wonder, have they suffered from an avalanch of lawsuits and business bankruptcies? Not a chance, Montana has consistently had one of the fastest growing economies in the country over the past several years, (often outpacing Colorado). Montana is currently the sixth fastest growing economy in the U.S., while Colo. ranks 22nd. Montana's wages have been among the fastest growing in the country for several years, far outpacing Colo. And don't forget Montana has a budget surplus while Colo. habitually struggles with deficits.
    Lets see if Mr. Carroll has the guts to compare Montanians with the French, I won't hold my breath.