Just announced today from the Governor's office:
I am filing with the Secretary of State House Bill 09-1170, "Concerning unemployment insurance benefits for locked-out employees." I vetoed this bill as of 4:55 p.m. today, and this letter sets forth my reasons for doing so.
There are currently ongoing contract negotiations between the United Food and Commercial Workers No. 7 and several grocery stores, including King Soopers, Safeway, Albertsons, and City Market. The parties to these negotiations have been working hard for several months to try to reach an agreement. I believe it is ill-advised and counterproductive to enact legislation that materially impacts the relative bargaining position of parties in the midst of ongoing negotiations. In these troubled economic times, I am deeply concerned about the effect a strike or lockout of employees would have on grocery store workers and consumers across the state, and I am concerned that signing this bill into law will make a negotiated resolution of the grocery store contract more difficult, not less.
Therefore, under these circumstances, the state should not interject itself into these contract negotiations by enacting House Bill 09-1170 into law.
Unless there is some sort of negotiation taking place with the grocery chains and workers that included this veto as part of the deal, Ritter isn't doing himself any favors by once again vetoing a bill promoted by a labor union and passed by the legislature.
"I am deeply concerned about the effect a strike or lockout of employees would have on grocery store workers and consumers across the state, and I am concerned that signing this bill into law will make a negotiated resolution of the grocery store contract more difficult, not less," he writes. Well, Governor, you just did take a position on the contract talks - this veto basically strengthens the grocery chain's bargaining position.
This is a controversial bill, to be sure, but many legislators put their own asses on the line when they voted for it. Those legislators are now going to be subject to attack pieces in 2010 criticizing their support for a bill that their own Party's governor vetoed.
If Ritter was going to veto this bill, he should have gotten word to Democratic leadership before they passed it. These are the kind of vetoes that have angered many Democrats in the legislature, and for good reason; this has happened several times now, and not just with bills that were labor-backed.
And all of this is for what? To placate a business community that doesn't support him anyway?
Full text of veto explanation follows.
|
