U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 27, 2007 05:08 PM UTC

Anti-Union Ballot Initiative Proposed

  • 59 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Rocky Mountain News reports:

Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier wants voters this November to make it tougher to set up all-union workplaces and to establish Colorado as a right-to-work state.

Late Tuesday, Frazier filed a right-to-work ballot proposal with the state that would ban unionized workplaces from forcing an employee to join the union as condition of employment.

It also would prohibit an employer from deducting union dues or fees from workers’ wages to support the union…

The proposed ballot measure comes months after Gov. Bill Ritter angered fellow Democrats when he vetoed a controversial pro-labor bill to make it easier for unions to organize.

House Bill 1072, by Rep. Mike Garcia, D-Aurora, and Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, would have struck a provision in the 1943 Labor Peace Act that requires a second, supermajority election before a workplace can become a union shop.

Garcia said he would oppose efforts to weaken union shops.

“Right-to-work laws benefit corporate executives with six-figure salaries, period,” he said. “Unions are good for working men and women.

“If passed, the right-to-work initiative would make all-union agreements in the state illegal.”

Tweet
Share

Comments

59 thoughts on “Anti-Union Ballot Initiative Proposed”

    1. “workers of colorado… Get Screwed!”

      While this may become a national trend, or already is, the same is true that this will be harmful to workers.

      So much for free choice! Corporatists only care about profits. If they had it their way, we would still have child labor, no weekends, no vacation and no overtime.

  3. After Amendment 36, the pot initiative, and Ref. I, I think it’s high time for common sense to make a run at the ballot.

      1. The state has obviously changed and unions make up, what, 7 percent of the population now?  The number of workers belonging to unions has dwindled steadily over the years so I would expect a proposition like this to do better than last time–whenever that was.  I think it will be a close vote.

        1. for those who oppose right to work.

          It is not a burning issue on the other side.

          Right to Work (for less) will drive voters to the polls who oppose it, it will not work the other way.

          National resources will be put into the state, and motivated opposition voters will vote.  Also it is not just about the ballot question – that will fail.  It is more about what other votes are cast when motivated voters go to the polls.

          This is already a purple state, in 1958 Democrats were elected across the board in no small measure because of the right to work question.  That is why Rs have never really tried to put it on the ballot again.  They have tried legislatively (and failed), but they have never wanted to risk putting it on the ballot again.

          There is no ground swell and hue and cry from the populace to pass right to work- most folks just don’t care about the issue.  However there is a hue and cry from many to oppose it and they will be motivated to vote in larger numbers than is usual.

          1. It’s really a smart thing to put this bad boy on the ballot for THIS November–not the next.  That way the GOP can’t be faulted for creating a “wedge issue” and won’t risk driving more liberals to the polls in a presidential year.

            As to your other points, there is plenty of steadfast motivation in the business community to make Colorado right-to-work.  It also has the potential at widening the business/labor rift among the Democrats.  I mean, you’re bringing the Democratic National Circus to town on the heels of a vicious labor debate and then with this ballot issue there’s a potential to split the Dems even more.  Does Ritter come out strongly against it?  What about Chickenlooper?  How does the newly pro-Democrat business community react?  Could this divert some funds away from Udall and the Dems in ’08?

            Colorado has always been ground zero for the labor debate and I’m not sure it’s something the Democrats want on their hand when they are already in a whirl preceding the convention.

            I think it’s sheer brilliance…as well as a fine initiative.

              1. Current labor issues have nothing to do with Ludlow.  Why do you bring up such ancient history to try to justify contemporary union issues?  They don’t have any bearing on each other.

                1. “Colorado has always been ground zero for the labor debate “

                  lest we forget, how the that debate has played out in the past.

                  1. But I don’t see a print shop shooting down strikers and government nurses.  I do, however, see unions putting small businesses under with ‘living wage’ requirements.  THings have changed.

                    1. the unions perfectly coincides with the rise of the most prosperous, powerful, upwardly mobile middle class on earth.  The war on the unions, especially since the days when Reagan actually convinced Joe 6 Pack that if we just busted the unions we could all be millionaires, perfectly coincides with the present accelerating trend; increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a privileged few while the other 99+% lose ground steadily. Right to get screwed is more like it.

                    2. Guess we will need to take them to the street like we did with the minimum wage issue. I am confident that enough people will see through this and realize that union busting means keeping the collective voice of the people in check. Unions are essential to empowering the middle class. Unions are needed to bride the gap between runaway wealth and the people doing the work.  Cross posted at squarestate. 

              2. he would have oiled and greased the machine guns.  Then he would have tried to deny the dead workers the right to be buried in sacred ground. 

          2. 1072 motivated the right-to-work forces in the State.  The arrogance the unions showed with that one guaranteed that something like this would be on the ballot.  And once it’s on the ballot, all bets are off – just look at this asinine minimum wage amendment that passed.

            1. Led by Speaker Romanoff, the Legislature itself is trying to make changes to the Constitutional Amendment process to reduce the ridiculous placement of issues like minimum wage, Amdt. 23, and the most egregious parts of TABOR into our Constitution.  Minimum wage didn’t belong there, but there are no protections for I&R statutes once they make it into the law books.  If you’re pushing an initiative, chances are the reason you’re doing it is because the Legislature stands against it – hence a lack of desire to put things into the Constitution.

              The public PASSED the minimum wage amendment.  The public would have PASSED a minimum wage statute with even broader support.  Where exactly are the right-to-work (for less) forces again?

        2. This dweeb claims to be a part-time, underpaid, college instructor (which is what “adjunct” means.  I know, been there, done that) and he says “Dude?”  Ain’t that the cat’s pajamas?
          Quit trying to sound cool, Dobby, you’ll only embarrass yourself. Or was that your notion of speaking in tongues, working up to the part of the service where you handle the snakes?  Don’t forget your Band-Aids, those serpents can bite hard.

    2. Faith Based Work.  Who would Jesus Fire for no reason?  Just another stupid proposal from the cartoonish lunatic fringe of the Republican Party. 

    1. “right to work…for minimum wage.”
      Huh?

      This state does NOT need unions. That is not a requirement to make decent money.
      Hard work and applying yourself is what moves one up the ladder.
      Example: I got a raise recently. I now make $30.00 per hour plus overtime, working at a glass company. A NON UNION glass company, in a basically non union town.
      I do not make this kind of money because there are union shops pumping the labor rate artificially, I make it because I worked for it.
      I also have decent benefits, pay my own health insurance, and guess what, I did not go to college.
      So that blows the lefty’s theory that one must go to college and also join a union to make a living wage.
      Work hard, stand on your own two feet, ask for nothing, expect nothing.
      Liberals need to try that sometime instead of expecting others to support them.

      1. Congratulations on your raise.

        If you worked for a company that didn’t value you, and you were in an industry where the other companies around had similar views, would you (a) take it, (b) leave your job and find another industry, or (c) organize?

        Unions aren’t necessary in every situation.  But they are a necessary tool when fighting for employee rights in some situations.

        I propose a compromise between the two sides.  Right-to-workers get the first part of Frazier’s proposal: employees cannot be forced to join a union, or to have union dues subtracted from their salaries.  In return, union rights folks get the removal of the super-majority vote (since no-one *has* to join, it’s superfluous) and optional open vote as they wanted.  To enforce the new balance, any shop with union employees must set up a separate HR structure that hides union wage numbers from the non-union side, and vice-versa.  Any non-union worker who brings up the wages of a union worker or other purported compensation disparities in contract negotiations must join the union, and co-ordination between the two HR divisions shall be immediately punishable by severe fines.  No questions shall be asked about union loyalties in such shops during employment interviews, and salary shall be dependent on the employee’s choice on union membership after the hiring process is completed.

        The above is complex, but it’s the only way to enforce employee rights to join or not join a union as they so choose.

          1. If I want to hire a representative to do my negotiations, recognizing that I’m a bad negotiator, I want that ability – so I join the union, and pay to have my salary negotiated.

            But if I don’t like unions, why should I have to support it?  I shouldn’t, but neither should I get union benefits or be able to rely on the work of the union representatives.

            I got confused interpreting your comment…

      2. …people should not be forced to join unions if they don’t want to. 

        But if you think that hard work and applying yourself is a sure ticket to success, think again.  You, my friend have been lucky.  Some people have not.  And I have seen many a situation where the person who gets rewarded is the slacker who is also a kiss-ass.  They flake out on work and they don’t get their stuff done.  Yet sometimes these people get away with murder while hard-working people get run through the ringer.  This is the unfortunate reality. 

        This is why I don’t like “Right to Work”.  Because it further condones this kind of behavior.

          1. My guess is, the best most people get out of kissing up to a union official or boss is easier or more desirable jobs.  A lot of traditional union contracts are based more around tenure than anything else; a guy with 20 years of experience is much more likely to get a promotion than someone who kisses butt in that situation.

            CO Dem has it right, and I’ve seen it in action multiple times.  I was replaced in my lead position by the guy I blew in for not filling out work tickets (which blew our service goals, which got us in hot water with our client…); he was schmoozing the boss, I was the one offering solutions and suggestions honestly and openly.  My wife was fired after rejecting a co-worker’s advances; my wife had the experience and the results, the co-worker was a slacker who bragged they could get anyone fired and who got two more people fired before their number was called.

            Unions offer mediation, a cut-out between employees and employers, and contract conditions that minimize the reasons for this kind of behavior.  It’s not perfect, but it has its selling points.

            1. …is that until the unions, the average worker was powerless.  The powers that a modern anti-union worker does have have come because of laws and policies promulgated by organized labor. Now that the prize has long been in hand, they cry, “Who needs unions?” 

              When I was a Teamster at UPS, management came up with this marvelous idea: Any driver stuck in snow or mud that required a tow would be charged in his file as an accident!  Can you imagine thousands of individual drivers with no voice combatting this or living in fear of a simple misjudgement?  The union stepped in and took care of it handily, management backed off.

              I have photos of my father walking the picket line in NYC in 1938, believe it or not, as a photo labe employee, and one of my mother “womaning” an information table during a Florida Education Association strike in the early sixties. (My father’s strike succeeded, my mother’s failed.)

          1. I have a college degree so I guess I cant answer that question.

            Your obstinate refusal to even listen to alternative ideas and respond in a coherent, non-objectionable manner is what can go the way of the dinosaur. The idea that blithely passing through life getting, a five dollar raise every seven years in an industry that you have said isnt very stable, rife with cheaper competition, is an idea that will go the way of the dinosaur.

  5. hidden somewhere in this intiaitive (I have not seen it yet), it cannot go on the ballot this Nov. He can go ahead and start the process now, will have his full 6 months to collect signatures, but the measure will be on the Nov. 08 ballot.

    If he were trying to get something on the 07 ballot, he waited too late to be able to do it probably. Petitions for this years ballot issues have to be turned in in about 5 or 6 weeks. That’s a VERY short time to collect the 100,000+ signatures needed to ensure you have the approx. 66K valid ones needed to get on the ballot.

    1. I think he can do it by August 6th.  He’ll have more than enough help in the business community.  I think the marriage amendment had enough signatures in a couple of months simply by hauling boxes of petition forms into megachurches.  Using the same sort of en masse techinques I think it can be done. 

      If he can’t do it by August then I’d assume just stash it away until ’09.

            1. This is one of the Sexy Union’s demands.  Now the question is this: how does one get to be a United Sex Worker trainer?

              1. Well, first you have to read the Karma Sutra. Than you must practice three positions a day (with a partner). Once you master the ‘Flying with Dragons’ and ‘Toad Squatting on Lilypad’ than you are ready.

          4. Christ never had an issue with the hookers who repented. He had more problems with the rich businessman and fake religious ppl who used religion to get their way. Think about thimbles.

      2. this type of measure is not permitted on odd-year election ballots. Only measures that affects revenue or government spending are allowed in odd-years. From the subject matter, I do not see a topic that would be permitted on Nov’s ballot. So he will have to wait til ’08.

          1. Prior to TABOR’s passage in 1992, no state-wide ballot questions were allowed in odd-years. TABOR created an exception for tax/spending bills.

            Doug Bruce says his intention was that all ballot issues could go on odd-years too but that was not the way he wrote TABOR.

  7. Riogrande actually came up with not one, but two, posts that were intelligent and, in the latter case, used humor to make an effective point.  He may be barking mad on any aspect of the legal system but at least he understands that the “right to work for less” is the most vicious attack on the rights of workers since the Yellow Dog contract.
    By the way, Gecko, I make more money than you do!  And get better benefits, including health insurance.  Ahh, the benefits of trade unionism.  Never thought I’d be singing Solidarity Forever with Riogrande, but any friend of the Wagner Act is a friend of mine.  On this issue, anyway. 

    1. …provided, of course, that they can be part of them.  The modern Republican “union” is the merger and acquisition, as it is a lot cheaper to buy up your competitor than actually compete with him.  And this arrangement depresses wages, as you can’t go to Barney Kroger to work in his grocery store if you are unhappy with what Albert King or Joe Albertson is paying you.  The lawyers’ union is the Bar, which seeks to keep competition to a minimum and compensation at a maximum.  The mantra of selfishness is the same: “Brutal capitalism for you, blessed socialism for me.”

      It is my position that the Party that claims the mantle of Lincoln should occasionally listen to what he had to say.  By way of example: “Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.”  Or how about this one: “Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.”  Whether you respect the rights of others matters.  “Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors.”  How zealous you are in the defense of others’ rights also matters, because you will create a precedent that can reach you.

      Theodore Roosevelt put it this way: “Let the watchwords of all our people be the old familiar watchwords of honesty, decency, fair-dealing, and commonsense.”… “We must treat each man on his worth and merits as a man.  We must see that each is given a square deal, because he is entitled to no more and should receive no less.” “The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us.”

      All I have ever asked for is a fair deal — the same rights and liberties you blithely take for granted.  If I have to get in your collective faces a la Ann Coulter, it is because I’ve learned what Dr. Martin Luther King did: Asking nicely won’t get it done.

      How is it “barking mad” to insist that our judges follow the law in every case, as opposed to following precedent only when it takes them precisely where they want to go?  Again, I turn to Lincoln:

      Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

      And that would include judges, does it not?

       

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

203 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!