We wrote earlier about the importance of Amendment 46 being defeated in Colorado and how it may spell the end of Ward Connerly’s efforts to ban affirmative action throughout the country.
Colorado’s defeat of Amendment 47, the so-called “right-to-work” measure, probably won’t stop anti-union folks from trying to pass similar measures, but Colorado was home to an historic decision. Amendment 47 was handily defeated in Colorado, and while it cost opponents millions of dollars (the Rocky Mountain News called it the costliest ballot fight in state history, along with battles against Amendments 49 and 54), it was money well spent for the message it sent.
Colorado has traditionally not been a labor-friendly state, and when unions started to make some gains in recent months, it scared some local business goons (namely Jonathan Coors and Jake Jabs, getting mauled by the lion above) into helping fund and organize a nationally-based effort to get “right to work” laws on the books in every state. They didn’t like the union gains, so they tried to break their collective necks with a law that would have essentially destroyed most labor unions in Colorado. Given that no state had defeated a “right to work” measure in decades, labor leaders were rightfully worried.
But in the end, an unlikely coalition of business and labor leaders joined together to help out state become the first in recent memory to defeat a “right-to-work/work for less” measure. While labor unions were forced to spend more money than they wanted, leaving the well dry for many working family-friendly candidates, the end result was worth it. “Right to work” was long thought to be the silver bullet for anti-union activists, but it didn’t succeed in Colorado; no doubt others around the country took notice.
With less than 9 percent of Coloradans members of a labor union, Colorado is nowhere near a union-friendly state. But in 2008, Coloradans showed that they didn’t want to be an anti-union state, either. The political repercussions of this victory should also resonate for years to come, showing elected officials that voters don’t look down on labor unions and their members after all.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: joe_burly
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: harrydoby
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: Pam Bennett
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: ParkHill
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: ParkHill
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Lauren Boebert Picks Up George Santos’ Favorite Side Hustle
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
…oops I forgot to get approval from the denver chamber and colorado concern. Someone call those compromised bastards and verify.
p.s. Does Dan Ritchie use Depends?
The only “gains” unions seek is simple – the right to form and join unions in accordance with Federal law.
I never had anything against AFW until now, but I certainly won’t ever buy anything from them when I get a house (hopefully this year).
What kind of moron alienates half his potential customers with something like this?
Too worried about their own pocketbooks and not at all about their workers and possibly what some customers think.
However, you might be among a small group of people that feel that way. Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t think about such things when they shop. There are many fairly liberal/progressive people that shop at Wal Mart on a regular basis.