Yes on 49
Measure levels the playing field for employee deductions
Rocky Mountain News
Published September 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Video: John Caldara of the Independence Institute talks about Amendment 49 - Ethical Standards for Public Payroll System. Watch »
We never realized that several measures on Colorado's busy ballot would make it, in the words of a TV advertisement, tougher for "firefighters, police officers, teachers and nurses" to do their jobs. Or that these ballot items would somehow "silence" public servants.
In fact, such claims are nonsense at least in regard to Amendment 49, one of three targeted by the union-backed group Protect Colorado's Future. Passing Amendment 49, Ethical Standards for Public Payroll Systems, would have no impact on the ability of safety, law enforcement, health care or education workers to serve the public.
Yes, we know that Gov. Bill Ritter, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and others have been meeting in search of an agreement under which unions would pull four measures from the ballot that are detested by business, in return for which business would fund a campaign to defeat as many as three measures loathed by labor.
Amendment 49 is part of that trio.
We've repeatedly endorsed the original version of this proposed swap, in which Right to Work (Amendment 47) is pulled in return for unions agreeing to dump the four measures that apparently were instigated in retaliation for it.
We don't know at what point Amendment 49 got thrown into the mix - or why it should even be there, since it appears to us to be a benign good-government measure.
As you may have guessed, we support Amendment 49 - just as we previously supported various versions of this policy at the local level. It would block state and local government agencies from deducting dues or fees from employee paychecks for unions or other membership groups.
Amendment 49 would restore an executive order Gov. Bill Owens issued in 2001 affecting unionized state workers and extend it to local governments. Gov. Bill Ritter repealed the executive order soon after taking office.
Deductions required by law (income tax withholding, for example), court orders (child support, garnishments) and company policy (medical premiums, retirement contributions) would still be allowed. So would contributions to the United Way and other charitable groups as part of employer-sponsored fundraising.
But dues for unions and other membership fees could not be deducted from public employees' paychecks and collected by the government, as is the case now.
Under the current system, dues are collected at no cost from workers' paychecks, and the employer - state agencies, county and municipal governments, school districts, special districts, etc. - writes a check to the union. Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute estimates that at least $19 million a year goes from employees to unions, with government serving as the collection agency.
Unions then use a portion of those dues to fund political advocacy, from lobbying the government for higher benefits to making campaign contributions to their favored candidates.
In other words, government provides a free dues collection service for major lobbyists.
The arrangement places public agencies in an even more awkward position every time a conflict over a contract occurs. During this summer's heated negotiations between Denver Public Schools and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, for example, the district was collecting dues for a union - a process that is hardly free - that was publicly trashing the district's management.
The free deduction and collection of dues is a special benefit denied to most other worthy civic organizations.
Should Amendment 49 pass, unions and other organizations benefiting from free collections would simply share the same fundraising challenges that other groups successfully confront all the time. And that would hardly be the end of the world. Banks routinely set up automatic withdrawals so that their customers can pay any number of bills or, say, make retirement contributions. Deducting union dues should be a snap.
A number of jurisdictions - including Arapahoe and Douglas counties - have already enacted a local version of Amendment 49. A yes vote would extend this basic provision of fairness throughout Colorado.
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.
September 18, 2008
1:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
YES on 47, 49, and 54.
Forced Union Dues - Corruption - Ritter - Harassment - Hickenlooper - Discrimination - Political Funding - Udall - Denver Chamber
September 18, 2008
5:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
windskull writes:
I don`t know what point jacka is attempting here BUT in today`s mail I got a full color glossy 4 page piece of non-informative propaganda emboldened with the forlorn image of a Commerce City Deputy Sheriff from some group that calls itself Protect Colorado`s Future.
Reluctance to include the text of Amendments 47,49 & 54 while invoking fear without giving voters the opportunity of weighing the pros and cons or examine each Amendments individual merits before making an informed decision insults the intelligence of every Colorado voter & until shown clear text as to why these should not be passed I support all 3 out of loathing for fear monger politics
September 18, 2008
6:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tom writes:
Since no one is forced to join a union in Colorado, payroll deduction is a convenience for voluntary members who will more likely not remain in the union if dues payment must now be paid manually. 49 is yet another attempt to impoverish unions and thereby "bust" them. Don't want to remain in the union? Just resign your membership. But don't take away a convenience that makes it easier for more people to have the representation they want.
No on 47 AND 49.
September 18, 2008
7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
ObiWan writes:
Tom writes:
"payroll deduction is a convenience for voluntary members who will more likely not remain in the union if dues payment must now be paid manually"
Why is that Tom? Is that because now unions and other political associations that benefit from this practice will have to justify their dues?
Union members are strong enough to strike, but not strong enough to pick up their checkbooks once a month?
How would you feel if these payroll deductions were bundling money for the KKK or the ACLU? Maybe then YOU would stand up and scream, but as long as it benefits you politically, hey, let the good times roll, right?
Tom writes, "don't take away a convenience..."
Is that what it's come down to now? Just making it CONVENIENT for you? What else can the government do for you Tom? Fill your gas tank? Wash your car? Pick up your dry cleaning? Wipe your nose?
For heaven's sake, PICK UP YOUR CHECKBOOK!
September 18, 2008
7:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
They can go online and have the money taken out for the dues each month. Why should the taxpayers furnish these people a collector for their dues?
September 18, 2008
7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
YES on Amendment 49
... here is the text
49 Ballot Language
Amendment 49 - Ethical Standards for Public Payroll Systems
Ballot Title: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning deductions from governmental payroll systems, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting a governmental payroll system from taking a payroll deduction from any government employee except deductions required by federal law, tax withholdings, judicial liens and garnishments, deductions for individual or group health benefits or other insurance, deductions for pension or retirement plans or systems, or other savings or investment programs, and charitable deductions?
Amendment Language: Ethical Standards for Public Payroll Systems
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
The constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW ARTICLE to read:
Section 1. Purpose and findings. In the interest of advancing simple, ethical, and efficient government, the people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that public payroll systems should not be utilized to benefit private organizations and special interests except in accordance with this article. The people of the state of Colorado further find and declare that the requirements of this article must apply to all public employers, including all local governments and political subdivisions of the State.
Section 2. Definitions. (1) “Charitable deduction” means a payroll deduction for contribution to a charity or other organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501 (c) (3) of the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986”, as amended.
(2) “Public employee” means any person who is an employee of a public employer as defined in this article.
con't in next post
September 18, 2008
7:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
con't from previous post...
(3) “Public employer” means the state of Colorado, including any institutions of higher education; any Colorado local governmental entity, including cities, towns, cities and counties, and counties; and any and all other governmental entities, including school districts and political subdivisions of the state of Colorado. Public employer shall not include any foreign country, the federal government, the government of any other state, or any entities and subdivisions organized under federal law or under the laws of such other states or foreign countries. Public employer shall not include any private entity providing services to a public employer through such private entities’ own employees and contractors.
(4) “Public payroll system” means the payroll system used by any public employer for payment of wages, earnings, or other compensation to public employees, regardless of whether such system is administered directly by such public employer or by a third party pursuant to a contract or other arrangement with such public employer.
Section 3. Allowable public payroll deductions. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no public payroll system shall take any payroll deduction from the payroll compensation of any public employee except for the following:
(a) Deductions required by federal law, including by way of example but not limitation, for Social security and medicare;
(b) Tax withholdings;
(c) Judicial liens and garnishments, including court-ordered child support, domestic support, and maintenance obligations and payments;
(d) Deductions for individual or group health benefits or other insurance;
(e) Deductions for pension or retirement plans or systems, or other savings or investment programs; and
(f) Charitable deductions.
Section 4. Self-executing, severability, conflicting provisions. All provisions of this article are self-executing and severable, and shall supersede conflicting state constitutional, state statutory, local charter, ordinance, or resolution, and other state and local provisions.
Section 5. Effective date. The provisions of this article shall take effect upon the proclamation of the governor.
September 18, 2008
7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
So the employer can deduct almost everything(like my husband's employer) except union dues? What is wrong with union member's writing a check(don't let anyone into your account)and mailing in your dues? I don't get what the big stink is about?
The state (the taxpayers) are paying lots of money and manpower to put so many unneeded amendments on the over crowded ballots. This is just another example of stupidity.
September 18, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
Thanks Jacka.
I was about to go Google it. First time I've read the whole thing.
Ditto vudumom
I'll be voting no.
Good Idea. Shouldn't be a constitutional amendment however.
September 18, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky1 writes:
Obiwan, the "pick up your checkbook" argument doesn't hold water. It would be one thing if paycheck deduction were limited with some type of consistency, but that's not the case with 49. It allows public employees to retain their right to voluntarily have payments deducted to organizations like insurance companies or any type of charity -- if the KKK or the ACLU operate a 501c3, public employees still have the right under 49 to divert funds from their paycheck to these organizations. This measure intentionally singles out unions and takes away the right of public employees to voluntarily pay their dues to their union. The intent is to weaken the voice of public sector workers.
If you and others are simply opposed to public sector workers being able to voluntarily pay union dues through their paychecks because you don't respect the right of people to come together with their co-workers to advocate for their mutual interests, then just say so. I can accept that we disagree on that issue and engage in debate on this blog if we so choose. However, trying to contend that 49 is some type of even-handed good government measure is a waste of everybody's time because it's clearly a specious contention.
September 18, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
Unions should not be subsidized by the taxpayer. Amendment 49 stops one of the subsidies. Although you cannot be forced to join a union, you can be forced to pay union dues, a distinction without a difference. I strongly urge a yes vote on Amendment 49.
Unions are legalized cartels with two purposes: control the supply and price of labor. Unions were created by the Labor Relations Act of 1935, a law compelling private organizations to negotiate with labor cartels. Union control of an industry results in higher consumer prices, lower employment levels, and lower quality. If you support other cartels such as OPEC, you should also support unions. If you do not support cartels, you should vote against any measure supported by unions.
Union control of state government will sharply increase taxes and lower service quality without any benefit to taxpayers. Union control may also lead to work stoppages when politicians try to stand up to outrageous union demands.
September 18, 2008
8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
The unions should collect their own dues. The state should not have to do their jobs for them.
My husband has been a union member for over 25 years. He has always paid his union dues every month by check. This admendment is another way for the unions to get someone else to do their jobs for them. Yet if you ask them to work for free they would file a lawsuit.
September 18, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
I go back and forth on this amendment, but the firefighter add is just offensive. It presents no facts or even a connection to the amendment. It just presupposes that since firefighters are heroic, they should make all our political decisions. At every level this election season will make records for the most misleading and fact free advertising.
September 18, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
TRILL writes:
A benign clean government initiative?
Are you kidding me?
I can't believe the Rocky fell for this. This measure, and the others, are so clearly targeted at public employees and silencing them because conservative special interests have an irrational hatred of the hard-working men and women and the groups that represent them.
You can't just dismiss the argument that 49 will harm teachers, firefighters and others by making their jobs harder when this CLEARLY puts another hurdle in their path, while leaving a big loophole for corporate special interests, lobbyists, and other groups that are not singled out in this measure.
VOTE NO ON 49
September 18, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lara writes:
This doesn't "level the playing field"! It says some groups have more of a right than others to have a choice in how they spend their paychecks.
Why should Jon Caldara get to tell a teacher that he or she can't put their money toward the groups that work toward helping her decrease her class size? Why should big corporate interests who sponsor these initiatives get to tell a firefighter that he or she can't make a paycheck deduction to support the group that helps him get equipment that saves lives?
Caldara, Coors, and others keep talking about freedom of choice. But they want to take choice away for teachers, firefighters, nurses and other public employees in terms of what they do with their hard earned paychecks.
I guess they only support "choice" for workers when it suits their extreme ideological interests.
September 18, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
enginerd writes:
Why does this need to be part of the constitution?
The constitution is supposed to be the framework document that defines the powers of government. As far as I can tell, Amendment 49 is specifying policies that could be enacted by statute under the existing constitutional framework.
I would support this if it were presented as a statute, but I am opposed to mucking up the constitution with crap like this.
September 18, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lara writes:
Windskull -- It's the folks supporting these measures that are involved in "fear mongering politics." They are being deceptive about what all 3 would do, claiming that they will make it so you can't be forced to join a union when it's already illegal and no one can be forced to be in a union; they say it is about choice, when all three restrict worker choice; they say it's about clean government when they used criminals to circulate their petitions and broke initiative rules by using fake notaries and telling voters half-truths and untruths and not even being registered to vote in the state; they say that initaitives that will support workers will kill the economy when in actuality 47, 49 and 54 will hurt the middle class and depress wages. Don't buy their lies.
September 18, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
milo11 writes:
Okay, you "never realized" that amendment 49 - and 47, 54 - would make it harder for firefighters, teachers, nurses and police officers to do their job and get the things they need to do their jobs well and serve our communities, but you jumped to endorse anyway?
Come on Rocky, this is paycheck DECEPTION plain and simple. It has nothing to do with good government.
September 18, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
milo11 writes:
Did I mention...
VOTE NO ON 49?!
We don't need another misguided CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that will be on the books in Colorado for decades to come. This should be taken up in the legislature, not passed by voters who don't know all the complicated effects this will have. This is a complicated issue and it takes a lawyer to sift through the amendment text to understand the full implications of it. Reject this amendment and let the legislature take it up. That's what representative government is for.
VOTE NO ON 47
VOTE NO ON 49
VOTE NO ON 54
September 18, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
AnarchoCapitalist writes:
Lara writes, "Why should Jon Caldara get to tell a teacher that he or she can't put their money toward the groups that work toward helping her decrease her class size?"
This is absurd. Amendment 49 does not limit any individual from contributing to ANY group, it limits the government from being the collection agency for groups that LOBBY it! Taxpayers should not fund the collection, accounting, and bookkeeping for unions or any other group. Do we not live in the 21st century where all it takes is a couple clicks of the mouse to have an auto-deduction from your online bank account?? Why does no union member want to use this technology? Click a mouse a couple times or write a check each month. It's that simple. But I'm sick and tired of subsidizing free collection for all these groups that turn right around lobby government.
September 18, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
BetterEducated writes:
I got the same publication (twice) that windskull mentioned, bearing a sad picture of an ominous-looking officer.
What many people don't understand is that many public school workers do not want to be "exclusively represented" by in-house labor unions, but have no choice in the matter. The public just assumes that, since these people are unionized, they must support unions or WANT that representative. But actually, these workers never even heard of these "unions" before taking their jobs at the district, and had no prior relationship as a "member" or "non-member" in any of those entities. It's their EMPLOYER who has given them this association.
September 18, 2008
10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
ObiWan writes:
Rocky 1:
Actually, the argument does hold water.
Insurance companies and 501(c)3's are not INHERENTLY political organizations.
If the gvmt withholds money for a health care plan, the insurance company that gets those checks then puts the money to use by buying health services for those individuals.
What Colorado Amendment 49 seeks to stop is bundling money and giving that money to an organization who is overtly political, and will spend that money on lobbyists, strikes (remember RTD on baseball's opening day a couple of years ago?) and other political purposes. What other "end product" do unions have that is comparable to health care?
I respect people's right to "come together,"....I just wish they wouldn't use city hall's accountants to do it!
C'mon guys! Show us how "union strong" you are and pay your dues like most people pay their bills....and that is, WITHOUT THE HELP OF A GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTANT!
And for those of you saying this shouldn't be a constitutional amendment, RTA....it was an exec order under Owens, then Ritter repeals, and this ping-pong match will continue unless it is made permanent in the constitution. How many of you who think this is a "...good Idea. Shouldn't be a constitutional amendment however...." voted for a constitutional amendment on minimum wage? That was good legislation that should have NEVER been made constitutional...
September 18, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
ObiWan writes:
By the way voters, Milo thinks you're stupid....
He says, "This should be taken up in the legislature, not passed by voters who don't know all the complicated effects this will have."
So, you uneducated jerks, save yourself FROM yourself and let the lawyer elite handle everything....it'll work out just fine...
Thanks for the advice Milo, but I'll chose to THINK FOR MYSELF on this one! ; )
September 18, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
ZioKen writes:
I am voting to approve this measure and the ads on TV and printed publications against this just make me mad. Ballotpedia is a good source for non-partisan explanations of the ballot measures.
September 18, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnQAdams writes:
The hypocrisy of this amendment that has been introduced by big business is laughable. They want to stop local governments from being collection agencies. What a joke! What about garnishments? Governments will still continue to collect money for private businesses. I am sure if the amendment included making garnishments for private businesses illegal they would be standing side by side with the unions. Its a joke when you actually read these amendments how they are designed to hurt organizations that are protecting workers rights, negotiating better pay and benefits for workers. The loopholes and benefits that big business has enjoyed are still intact. No one has to join a Union and the assertion that everyone has to pay union dues is ridiculous. Individuals that choose not to be a member of a union pay what is called "fair share" a reduced amount to help pay for a negotiated contract and maintenance of the contract. Its a fact that Union workers with collective bargaining enjoy higher pay and benefits so why would someone not be compelled to pay their fare share. The reality of "fair share" is something that has stood the test of the Supreme Court (read Hudson v. Chicago). Amendment 54 is a complete affront to the Constitution, just because someone works for the Government or a company that has a government contract cannot contribute to political campaigns or lobby but big oil, drug companies, energy companies can still contribute and lobby. Wake up people and look around, the Coors Family, Jake Jabs and big business dream of the day they can treat workers as though they are in China. They want slave labor to maintain their high profits and their huge homes in Cherry Hills.
September 18, 2008
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
rg52 writes:
I am not sure how to vote, but most companies allow deductions from your check to 401K's, credit unions, flexible spending accounts, insurance, etc... Why not let an employee who is a member of a union, have their payroll department deduct this due, it seems to me it should be up to an individual, not the voters.
Is there fine print I am missing that is tacked onto the end of this ammendmant?
September 18, 2008
6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Oh come on, this whole argument is stupid. Employers should not have to collect dues for a union period. End of story.
If unions want to set up automatic bill pay out of their members checking accounts like Xcel Energy and Comcast do, and if union members choose to pay their dues that way, let 'em do it.
But Xcel or Comcast aren't able to go to your employer and have them deduct your monthly payment from your check before you ever see it, and neither should unions.
What's so hard to understand about that?
September 18, 2008
6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
So, if some union workers pay by check, and some by payroll deductions who decides that? Isn't it an agreement between the union and the company? Why do we have to put it to a vote? Can't the unions and the gov't agency come to some sort of agreement? Make it part of the contract? But what this really boils down to is the gov't doesn't want to have to pay for the processing of the payment to the union. So, they stop having to pay, are they going to lay off the people in the accounting depts that used to do the work? You betcha!
September 18, 2008
7:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
If the unions roll over for this they will fully deserve the double-cross they will get.
The two sets of proposals, labor vs management, are a perfect reflection of the highly politicized environment that has grown in colorado.
September 19, 2008
7:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
socrates writes:
Really? Rocky Mountain News - are you saying with a straight face that this deserves to be in the Colorado Constitution? A policy about payroll deductions should be in the Constitution? You guys have less respect for the constitution than I expected.
September 19, 2008
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
GarrettTeacher writes:
The Rocky Mountain News endorsing 49 or anything from John Caldara has once again proved to the free thinking world -- There is no major newspaper in Colorado which is for thinking people. The RMN is showing, yet again, it is just a mouth piece to a corporate greed machine hell bent on destroying our society even further.
September 19, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
once again we see the rocky's credibility tarnished by allowing itself to be a bully pulpit for the extremists at the independence institute.
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/item...
September 23, 2008
6:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tom writes:
It is the JOB of the teacher's union, for example, to lobby for the best interests of teachers. It's why they exist. What's wrong with that?
49 is an attempt by big-business-funded organizations to bust the unions. Don't let them! NO on 49!
September 23, 2008
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Tom writes "Since no one is forced to join a union in Colorado...."
This is bull. I tried to work for King Soopers several years ago, and a condition of employment was that I join the union after thirty days and pay back dues for the first thirty days that I worked there in addition to the normal dues. Forced to join a union.
Lucky for me, I was a college student with bigger prospects, so I waited for thirty days to pass and then quit, finger raised high in the air on my way out the door. Never paid a due! hah.
That is beside the point. If a specific store is organized by the union, it is Colorado law that they can force you to join too or deny you work. Hence 47.
Yes on 47 and 49.
September 24, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zowner writes:
I can't believe that some of you think that people can just "get out of the unon". I am sure you have never belonged to one or have had them harassing you to join. Why in the world should anyone other than the union remit their won dues? Why do you think it is okay for the employer to incur the cost to collect on behalf of the union? Union members should be happy to pay their own dues if they beleive so much in their union.
September 28, 2008
7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
For those of you who say "you don't have to join a union to work at a union shop:" you're right and wrong - you don't have to join the union, but you do have to pay the union dues. Period. As to why it has to be a constitutional amendment - if the executive and the legislature would leave it alone, it wouldn't. But as we see the governer just issues an executive order and changes it to the way he wants it or the legislature, depending on who's in power, does the same thing with statutes. I again want to emphasize, if you want the convenience and have access to a computer, you can enroll in automatic deduction from your checking account every month.
October 14, 2008
3:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
JINX writes:
John Caldera, Jake Jabs and the Coors family get to throw a temper tantrum on the backs of hard working citizens. Every employer I hav ever worked for allowed allotments to any orginization I wanted, including when I was in the U.S. Military. This is the weakest argument I have ever seen. Attack the vein and the heart will die is Caldera's M.O. Caldera doesn't understand innocent, hard working and proud citizens will be hurt in his little war with the governor. Caldera, this is a backdoor scheme and I for one don't appreciate it. I listen to you radio show and agree for the most part with your ideas, this one and 47 stink. Your weak argument that the money go's to lobbyists is just an outright lie. You pass this and you weaken everyones voice, where does it stop. You allow big business to throw heaps of money on the poiticians (Gas and Oil, Wal Mart, Halliburton, Coors) and limit a small police union for wanting money to buy protective vests. This amendment is horrible and the supporters are ultimatly selfish.
October 14, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
JINX writes:
Its just me - your outright lying. You don't have to join a union or be a member. You only have to pay for what your responsible for and are benefiting from. You have to pay a contract negotiation fee. You are misleading yourself and the public.
And by the way, lets make it across the board. Pay your health care by check, your 401k, your other allotments to charity. Oh no, that would affect you, that won't work.
October 18, 2008
7:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
JeffWK writes:
This is the exact reason we had Bush as pres the last 8 years...people are ignorant. First off, payroll deductions cost next to nothing...it is all done with computers. Further, if we can deduct everything else under the sun, why not union dues. Simple...it's because people will forget. If that happens, the union fund shrinks and it has less power to fight the business side of things which is just money hungry...look at the international financial fiasco...greed by big business caused it, just like it causes most other current problems.
As far as 47, same thing...less money in the union coffers, the more big business can get away with. If you don't want to pay union dues (which btw, get you better benefits and wages than most non-union jobs), then don't hire on at a union shop. Just like any other job...if you don't want to flip burgers, then don't apply at McDonald's...it's a rather simple concept. Further, the 22 states with RtW laws have an annual per capita income 6-7k less than those without. Again, it's simple.
NO on both!
October 25, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
blh1616 writes:
First of all, this would once again take away rights from public servants that the private sector already has. We often wonder why nobody really wants to be a public servant anymore. You make more money in the private sector, and you are treated like a regular, productive citizen.
What this does is descriminate. Employees can still give to politically active 501(c)(3) groups that lobby in Denver and Washington. So you can give money to advocates of the religions of Islam, Chrisitanity, Hindu or other religions. You can give still give money to the ACLU or pro-life groups.
All this does is target one group of VOLUNTARY deductions out of the loop.
And addressing cost, there is no savings in cost. The IRS says that the cost is negligible and not worth computing.
Think about it. Is the constitution about giving liberties or taking them away.
Vote NO on 49.
October 30, 2008
8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
Tom, what are the best interests of teachers? Do you think every teacher agrees with their union on every matter? A lot of teachers, a minority to be sure, would like to see a voucher system that the unions fight tooth and nail. The problem with unions is that they give money to one side of the political spectrum irregardless of the difference of opinions within their ranks. And just once I'd like to see a union supporter try and defend the card check system as anything but blatant intimidation.
November 3, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
JINX writes:
Defend our economy has it right their site - RTW states are in the top ten for BUSINESS. Worker be damned, screw them. Vote no on this scam.