The following preview has been approved for all votes. The constitutional amendment featured has been rated NO-47. Voters are strongly cautioned to vote no due to misleading ballot language. Amendment 47 is risky, reckless, and wrong.
Starring Senator Ken Salazar, Congressman Ed Perlmutter, former State Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, and State Representative Morgan Carroll.
Considering the language of Amendment 47 isn't telling the truth by the third sentence
No person shall, as a condition of employment, be required to: be a member of a labor union;
you have to wonder about the motives of the the entire campaign.
Their messaging is based around:
Protect Worker Rights and the Freedom to Choose
However, isn't it a right of workers to decide what kind of union they want? A bit of background. The Colorado Labor Peace Act (pdf) sets up a unique second vote when establishing a union. If a super majority of 75% votes for it, then non-members must contribute some fees to support the bargaining process and filing grievances. If the vote fails, non-members don't have to pay a dime, but they do get that union support. Amendment 47 would do away with this vote. So, workers already have plenty of choices and freedom to decide what kind of union they want. Amendment 47 would also then nullify parts of contracts already established by these super majorities of workers. It sounds more like Amendment 47 takes away rights and choices Colorandans have had since 1943.
Another line from the backer's website (abettercolorado.com) says, "This November, Colorado voters will have the opportunity to decide whether workers in the state will be free to choose for themselves whether or not to join a union. It's Amendment 47, the Colorado Right to Work Amendment." Again, lying about long established law on the books in Colorado. Here we also see the name commonly used for these amendments. There's even a national right to work committee who works to get these measures passed in various states. They've put at least $200,000 into this battle in Colorado.
Other key messages from the site's front page:
* Protects worker paychecks by ending the practice of forcing workers to pay dues that support political causes without their consent..
Again, a complete fabrication. Members and non-members have always been able to assert their Beck rights to limit their contributions to a union.
So now I've ripped to shreds their messaging, let me show you what they're really about. A certain other blogger (Hi Dave) forwarded me a letter he received from the National Right to Work Committee. On page 1 it says:
Right now, The Big Labor Brass at the AFL-CIO are spending hundreds of millions of forced-dues dollars to seize total control of our federal government in November...But unless you and I act today, big Labor's dream of stamping a union label on the White House, increasing its majority in the U.S. House and installing a filibuster-proof U.S. Senate may very well become reality
The letter is actually meant to target Mark Udall and praise Bob Schaffer, but it's clear this committee cares nothing about freedom and choices for workers. Their main goal is to get union membership and power to zero. That's it. The next time these folks come talking about benefiting folks like Joe the plumber, run far away.
Looks like a deal is coming between union and business leaders:
As Salazar arrived at his office on 15th Street, he told the Rocky he expected a formal agreement "by next week." He declined to elaborate. "We're working on it," Salazar said.
The latest offer that sources say is on the table: businesses would kick in about $5 million to help fight three measures unions are trying to defeat...
That would be 47 (right to freeload), 49 (no auto deduction of union dues for state workers), and 54 (no political contributions from sole source government contractors). In exchange the ballot initiatives 53 (criminal liability for corporate executives), 55(just cause terminations), and 56(requiring health care coverage from almost all employers) would be removed.
Just like with Ref C and D we have unions and business working together while there's a far fringe element in Jake Jabbs, the Coors family, and the Independence Institute who are hell-bent in remaking this state in their conservative self-image. We can see how that's working out on a national level with the banking industry. So by all means fellas, continue to cling to your beliefs, as you and the rest of the neo-cons continue to slide into irrelevancy.
Called by it's proponents the "Right to Work" it's more accurate name is the Right to Freeload.
An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning participation in a labor organization as a condition of employment, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting an employer from requiring that a person be a member and pay any moneys to a labor organization or to any other third party in lieu of payment to a labor organization and creating a misdemeanor criminal penalty for a person who violates the provisions of the section.
This would make union dues optional. As it is in every person's interest for all others to pay dues, but for each individual to not pay and get a free ride from the others - this would end union dues and thereby end unions in Colorado.
Well, it finally happened. Andy Vuong at the Post finally reported on Amendment 47, the work for less amendment, correctly! I had written two posts here earlier urging posters and readers here to email/call Andy and urge him to accurately describe what Prop 47 does.
Andy had consistently claimed 47 bans forced unionization. This is not true. Federal law prohibits forced unionization. So 47 only allows non-union workers who are represented by a union to not pay the union a small fee to offset the costs of representing them.
This is wrong, as it is already against federal law to force workers to join unions.
All 47 does is stop forced 'agency fees' from workers who are non-union but are represented by the union in its collective bargaining. In union shops the union is required to represent everyone, and in those circumstances the union can charge nominal fees to the non-union workers for representing them.
That is what the amendment does. Not very easy to explain, but there it is. We need to continually pound Andy on this until he gets it right.
If we do not, the public may get the wrong impression of what 47 does and vote in favor of it due to their huge misunderstanding. Once people know what 47 actually does, they will be less likely to support it.
I wrote about this before and apparently he did not get the message. Let's try again - but this time much louder and more often.
Here is Andy's contact info. Please email or write him and ask him to quit carrying water for the right-wing and do his job by reporting the facts.
It's been a busy week here at Protect Colorado's Future.
On Monday, we were one of several groups that submitted petitions to the Secretary of State to place initiatives on the November ballot. We are proud to say that over 130,000 Coloradans joined us in signing petitions on behalf of the Just Cause initiative, a common sense measure that will protect good workers from being fired arbitrarily. Many voters who signed the petitions were shocked to learn that in Colorado you can be fired "at will" for taking a sick day, for your political views or even for having a bad haircut. With the unemployment rate in Colorado higher than it's been in almost 3 years, we believe this measure is critically important to Colorado's families and we are looking forward to seeing it on the ballot.
Last week we also submitted petitions signed by more than 123,000 Coloradans for the Colorado Corporate Fraud initiative, a proposal aimed at holding corporate executives accountable for the fraud that happens within their companies. Colorado taxpayers spend billions every year cleaning up the messes made by corporate criminals. One only has to look at the case of Joe Nacchio, former CEO of the Denver-based communications company Qwest, to see why this initiative is important to Colorado. As the New York Timesexplained in an article on the issue earlier this year, this measure would bring "unprecedented individual accountability" and make Colorado a leader in the crackdown on corporate crime.
(I.B.Z and Solon take on the papers and the propositions. - promoted by Aaron Silverstein)
I presume most of you have seen the love letter written by Andy Vuong of the Denver Post this week. If not, check it out here: http://www.denverpost.com... Anyway, this is the umpteenth time (okay, probably not that many) that Andy has said the Prop 47 would ban mandatory union membership. Problem is, you cannot be forced to join a union. It is against the law. So Andy is either horribly misinformed or is deliberately trying to make it look like we need Prop 47 to stop the heinous crime of forcing folks to join unions despite the fact that we cannot do such a thing.
Either way, we need to pressure Andy to start reporting on this issue correctly. This is kind of a big deal, because forcing someone to join a union vs. forcing them to pay their share for services rendered are two entirely different things in the public's mind.
It seems the father of current 'right to work for less' ballot initiative 47 is off the legal hook for allegedly accepting illegal campaign contributions. Well, at least in terms of having to hand over his public campaign contributions records. An Arapahoe County judge threw out the case on a technicality, saying the city was the proper defendant, not Frazier.
Basically, Frazier took some money from an out of state engineering firm both immediately before and after a vote on the Aurora City Council that awarded a lucrative contract to said firm. A local citizen was trying to get to the bottom of this and asked for Frazier's records. When they were not forthcoming, the citizen sued.
But he sued Frazier, not the city, and the judge said he should have sued the city.
So hopefully he will, and even more hopefully, will get the documents in enough time before the elections to show that the leader of the anti-family Prop 47 is corrupt.
And get this quote from Frazier, "I would never deny any citizen access to my public records."
Um, then why did you just not hand them over in the first place and spare us all this legal nonsense?
These commercials are LYING to Colorado. They are trying to scare people with the sarcastic suggestion that even if you work harder you'll be paid less because of "seniority" rules in unions.
Working in a non-union shop does not mean that you will be rewarded with raises and promotions for your hard work. In fact, working in a non-union shop doesn't guarantee anything. Union contracts and workplace organizing are, in fact, the only way to guarantee stability.
The commercial also sarcastically suggests that union bosses intimidate workers into joining the union.
This statement neglects to mention the 100+ year history of boss intimidation, harassment, firings, assassinations, and even massacres of workers in Colorado. This still happens today, and much literature has been published for companies to bust up union campaigns with divide and conquer tactics of instilling paranoia and fear in the workers. Curiously, I could not find any literature on how to intimidate union members into becoming dues paying members.
There is a lot of misleading bullshit floating around in various campaigns this political season. It is really important that we respond to it and call it out as it comes. Does anyone know who is behind the "Center for Union Facts" that is making these dishonest ads?
With recent developments in the fight over Amendment 47, the 'right to work for less' initiative, it seems that the forces fighting this misguided and unneeded amendment have gained the upper hand.
Most recently, it was the decision by the Denver Chamber of Commerce to not support Amendment 47. Instead, they chose to combat some of the propositions that would have far more impact on business than 'right to work for less' ever will.
Low and behold, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), who introduced four of these measures, dropped two of them right before the Chamber vote. This was done after negotiations with the Chamber and Gov. Ritter's office. These initiatives promoted by the UFCW were largely seen as bargaining chips when they were introduced. Seems that understanding was correct.
And it has paid off. With the Chamber not officially not supporting 'right to work for less', a huge potential bastion of support for the amendment has disappeared. Along with the inexplicable lack of money going into the coffers of the group supporting Prop 47, could 'right to work for less' be in serious trouble?
Hopefully so, as struggling Colorado families do not need their wages sapped by implementing Prop 47. Right to work laws almost always decrease wages, and that is the last thing we need in a stagnant, if not recessive economy.
But given how much action there has been around these thorny business/labor issues so far this year, I am sure there will be more interesting twists and turns.
Here in Colorado there is a fight over unionizing going on. Conservatives are trying desperately to turn Colorado into a so called "Right to work" (for less) state by introducing a ballot initiative for same.
This battle has been rife with controversy and the initiative is currently being challenged by unions on the grounds that there has been massive fraud in the collection of signatures for this odious initiative.
In many states around the country, voters are becoming all too acquainted with slickly worded ballot initiatives that have appealing names that often hide the true nature of their intent. It turns out that there are several agencies with Right Wing agendas that are behind these bad laws being passed, including laws like the recent "Personhood" initiative that if approved, would most likely become the first challenge to Roe Vs. Wade.
But not so fast - it turns out that one group, Protect Colorado's Future has gathered enough information to prompt Reverend Daniel Klawitter and Reed Norwood to file a lawsuit as citizens against the Secretary of State, Mike Coffman to address the validity of the approval of this petition's place on the fall ballot. (Coffman, incidentally is running for Tom Tancredo's vacated seat).
Saw this on Denver Post's website. Probably old news to some, but I thought it was a great editorial on why Colorado voters should reject Amendment 47, the right to work for less initiative, and vote in favor of the two ballot initiatives promoted by Protect Colorado's Future, one to make it harder to fire employees for no reason, and one to make it a crime to be an accomplice to white collar crime.
The primary argument used, one that I forcefully advocate, claims the allowing workers to freeload off unions by not paying administrative dues in 'union shops', (i.e. workplaces where the unions collectively bargain for all employees) interferes in the free market.
The author, James Hansen, points out the hypocrisy of the right wing, free marketers, and anti-worker advocacy groups since they support laws that regulate or interfere with the free market when it benefits them, but then cry foul when government regulation actually tries to help families and everyday Americans.
When trying to convince your skeptical neighbor on why they should vote against Amendment 47, try this moderate argument. In other words, it is hard to form 'union shops' in CO. Very few exist. But if they do, that is an agreement negotiated between the workers and the management. The market determined that in these cases, a union shop was in order. So if you are all about the free market, then you should oppose Right to Work for Less.
And for crying out loud, make sure they understand that no one can force anyone to join a union, despite what supporters of Amendment 47 say. It is against federal law. That takes a lot of rationale out of passing Amendment 47.
I just got back from the Post Office, sending off a huge chunk of my hard-earned, small business money to the Federal Government. It's quite depressing.
Why should I have to pay Federal Taxes at all?
I didn't vote for Bush.
I didn't vote for this War.
My Congressional Representative didn't vote for this war.
I didn't vote for the budget. I would be against being in the red. I'm against a $1 Trillion a year Defense Department (when you include the Occupations, "Homeland Security", and the myriad of other "Defense" operation).
So since I don't support the things my government is doing, I shouldn't have to pay a single dime! I don't care if a majority of others decided differently.
In other words, they are coy with who is backing them, who is paying them, and what they are doing with the money.
Maybe it is clean, but maybe not, like Ryan Frazier. Thanks goodness Protect Colorado's Future, a group looking out for the interests of hard-working Coloradoans, has kept tabs on this front group (the effort is largely backed by National Right to Work Committee). They filed a complaint this week alleging the Colorado Right to Work Committee (CRWC) might be violating campaign finance laws.
Hopefully Protect Colorado's Future's efforts will shed some light on the dark recesses of the individuals and groups trying to pay CO workers less money by passing the 'right to work for less' amendment. At the least, it will educate CO voters on the immorality and corruption of the 'right to work for less' leaders, like Frazier and Jonathan Coors, and how they care nothing about the well being of CO families.
Maybe they will get lucky and actually stop it.
However, stopping 'right to work for less' from getting on the ballot this November seems a very big long shot. We need to assume it will get on the ballot and start working to defeat it.
In case you have not heard the news, labor interests have filed five new ballot initiatives this week. All of these proposed amendments are aimed at helping working Colorado families.
Labor filed these amendments to partially counter the out of state right wing groups' efforts to harm unions and working families by passing a 'right to work' (for less) amendment.
But some of the proposals are good, such as requiring annual cost of living increases for workers and denying state tax breaks for firms shipping Colorado jobs overseas.
I certainly hope labor, if they go to the table with business, do not give away the farm. If they do, then in the future both sides might throw up amendments just to stop the other side's initiatives. Then everyone sits at a table and agrees to drop the competing amendments.
If so, good progressive policy might never get enacted though the ballot initiative process, and that would be a shame.
We have a chance to move the state in a more progressive direction with some of these ballot initiatives, and it would be a shame if Ritter forced labor to drop all of them in exchange for the out of state groups dropping 'right to work (for less)'.
But it does seem that with labor backing seven proposed amendments already, they could afford to drop some of them. I just hope they keep a few of the better ones.
(Thanks for airing this dirty laundry. - promoted by johne)
Looks like one of the main backers of the 'right to work (for less)' initiative in CO might be a bit dirty.
Apparently, Ryan Frazier, a councilman in Aurora, may have recommended an out of state engineering firm for a contract which they eventually won. Frazier got money from the firm both on the day he recommended them and then a few days after the vote.
For more background, the RMN has more, although the story is a bit biased in favor or Ryan, but hey, its the RMN, whaddya want?
Look, if he is innocent, he should push to have the records released and thus clear this matter once and for all. He knows the timing of the contributions looks bad, so if he can clear up any doubts he should do so. The fact that he is not certainly raises even more suspicions.
If Frazier is guilty of a little 'pay to play', then it will be good if we can expose it. Corruption in public office should not be tolerated from any politician.
Either way, such a legal mess for one of the main proponents of the anti-family right to work (for less) amendment should help us defeat it this fall.
Back a few years ago, conservatives were considered tactical geniuses for putting anti-gay-marriage initiatives on the ballot as a way to drive up Republican turnout in critical elections. Whether their ploy worked to do that or not is an open question - but their focus on ballot initiatives continues today. Fortunately for progressives, as the Republican Party has imploded nationally, they have turned to the ballot initiative strategy of Richard Nixon - a strategy that Rick Perlstein's brilliant new book Nixonland shows drove the GOP into the ground. As I show in my new newspaper column out this week in the Denver Post, Ft. Collins Coloradoan and Vail Daily, Republicans in 2008 could face the same failure that Nixon faced back in 1958.
If people knew that unions could only force workers to pay 'agency fees', and not actual membership, they would certainly be less keen on supporting 'right to work (for less)' laws. Another damning fact: agency fees only cover administrative and collective bargaining costs - but no political work.
And do not forget that unions can only charge this agency fee if they have negotiated a union shop contract with the owners. This does not happen often.
If the Post will not explain that unions cannot force membership or charge non-union workers for political work, do not expect the proponents of 'right to work (for less)' laws in CO to bring it up either. Because if they do, they are undercutting their own agenda to make life more difficult for working CO families.
Every time the RTW (for less) proponents neglect to mention this fact, we should call them on it. Because if the debate is framed as 'they are forcing you to join a union' then it will be an uphill battle to defeat this harmful amendment.
The narrative needs to be about protecting working families from an unnecessary amendment.
Bottom line, there is no need for a 'right to work (for less) amendment in CO. Unions cannot force membership and the fees they charge to non-union workers (they can only do this in union shops) cannot cover political costs.
RSS Feed
