New to SquareState? Learn how to play here.
Wanna see your ad here? email ads@... you know the rest.



The Progressive Political Blog for Colorado
(HOME)

[mobile edition]
Got a hot tip?


SquareState Ads


About
The progressive community blog on all things Colorado. Blogging since 6/17/2005.

You're encouraged to join. This blog is what we make it.

About/Disclaimer

by: johne

10/01/08 @ 12:21:09 AM MDT


Per the secretary of state's website, Amendment 47 says:
Shall there be 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?

The tricky or sneaky part of that is that mandatory union membership is already illegal in every state according to the Taft Hartley Act of 1947.  Before this bill, unions could have closed shop agreements where every employee had to be a member of the union.  The next step down is simply called a union shop, where new employees usually have 30 days to become members of the union.  Then there are agency shops where not everyone is required to join the union but they do have to pay some amount of fees or dues to the union for their representation.  However, federal law allows non members to have money meant for political purposes to be refunded.  That doesn't sound so bad does it?  If you don't want representation then don't join the union.  Isn't that what Amendment 47 would do?  Nope.  According to many documents and case files, unions are required to represent all employees of the company with which there is an agreement whether that employee is a member of the union or not.   This is spelled out most clearly by this document from the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco.  Considering that the language of Amendment 47 does not at all address changes to this provision, know as "duty of fair representation", we must assume this would remain intact.  This, in effect, creates union free-loaders.

If that's the case, why would anyone pay union dues if the union would continue to bargain for them and be forced to represent them in the case of a grievance?  This is simply an effort to further weaken unions.

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that 8.7% of Coloradans are members of unions why is this even important?  Because Jon Caldara (who just called union members terrorists), Pete Coors, and Jake Jabs want no unions what so ever in Colorado.  

Disclosure:  I'm working for Coloradans for Middle Class Relief because I think our workers and economy have enough problems without this needless amendment.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License

johne :: Why you should vote no on Amendment 47


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Actually, its worse than that (4.00 / 1)
You can never be forced to join a union, even in union shops.  Pay dues used to cover the cost of representing you, yes, but not forced to join.

Interesting thing is, restricted bargaining in states that have passed amendments like 47 results in lower wages (big surprise there).  So save a few dollars in you paycheck but end up seeing your wages stagnate, health care coverage eliminated, overtime disappear, etc...  Sounds like a great deal for working CO families.

What I do not understand is why conservatives would want to legislate how workers and owners negotiate?  If employee/employer can negotiate a union shop agreement, then so be it.  Why interfere with the free market?  Seems very unconservative.


Good point (0.00 / 0)
The opposite of a "right to work" state is a "free bargaining" state.

Illegal is not a noun

[ Parent ]
More I Don't Understand (0.00 / 0)
Admittedly, I'm not a labor-law-union expert - I really don't get a lot of the reasoning both for and against this amendment.  

Seems to me, if I were in charge of the union, I would make it absolutely clear to my members and potential members what the benefits of joining are, and if I can't convince them, maybe I need to take a look at what services my union is providing or what services the union will be unable to provide if I don't have X number of members.  

On the con side of the amendment - if the union will not be able to negotiate for decent wages, health care coverage, overtime, etc. if, say 90% of the employees don't join, then the union should be able to convince 90% of the employees to join by explaining this to them.  The benefits of joining should be self-evident.  

When a workforce begins the process of unionizing, those for the union have to convince enough of their fellow employees to join the union to establish a quorum that allows for effective collective bargaining. Why is it that once a union is established, it feels that it no longer has to convince anyone of its worth?

If the amendment passes and the union fails because no one joins, and then wages stagnate, health care is eliminated, etc, then I bet workers would be clamoring to join.  So why not just make the case for the union from the get-go? I think it's insulting to employees to think that they are too short-sighted or selfish to see the big picture - the long-term benefits of the union, if the union delivers on its promises.

On the pro-amendment side - I can see in a stagnating economy how companies could be looking for ways to save money, but again, it feels like sacrificing long-term sustainability for short term gains.  Happy and healthy employees are more cost effective and productive than disgruntled and sick workers, right?  So give them decent benefits and fair pay, and they'll stick around and work hard.  

So what does a voter do?  

Moose

On the

Moose Mamet

Contrarian

http://moosemamet.com



[ Parent ]
DavidThi & JohnE agree - wow (0.00 / 0)
After all of our sniping back and forth on some of the others, this is one we agree with. So I'm thrilled to be able to say - yes John is right - vote no.

http://www.coloradoballot.net/...


it will happen from time to time (0.00 / 0)
:-)

[ Parent ]
The deciding factor (0.00 / 0)
The fact that supporters of so-called "right to work" such as Jon Caldara, Bill Owens and Bob Schaffer have to lie about current labor law in order to promote Amendment 47 is telling.

cross-posted (0.00 / 0)
I wrote slightly different version at DailyKos

Union Membership (0.00 / 0)
John,

You ask rhetorically, "...why would anyone pay union dues if the union would continue to bargain for them and be forced to represent them in the case of a grievance?"

This happens all the time in education.  (Granted, teaching is probably not what you had in mind, but there may be some carryover).  Not every teacher is required to join the union, but the union still negotiates for and represents everyone.  So some people join the union, and some people don't,  but I wouldn't categorize those that didn't as freeloaders.  

There are many legitimate reasons a person might not join the union.  I thought seriously about not joining because the NEA continues to support legislation that requires the nation and states to do things that I disagree with.

Even if I agreed with the legislation, I still don't think it's the union's place to decide what the nation or state should do, I believe it is largely the responsibility of the school boards and the citizens.

The list of legislation pushed by the union is long, and can be found here:

http://www.nea.org/lac/priorit...

So what do you do if you disagree with what the union is doing outside of contract negotiation and representation?  In teaching you don't have the option of paying just for the negotiations or representation, it's whole hog.

So, I believe that you should have the option of joining or not joining a union based on what the union provides you.  The benefits of the union should sell themselves, and the contract and representation stuff is why I joined.  The politics however annoyed the hell out of me; I continued to try to express my opinion that the NEA get out of the political stuff, to no avail.  If the union continued to do things that I thought were beyond its pervue, I might have decided to leave.  And I respect the right of those that already had, or had not joined in the first place, and I don't consider them freeloaders.

I still wish there was an alternative to the established unions (NEA, AFT) that would provide contract negotiation and representation in grievances or from unwarranted legal attacks, but stay out of politics.  I wish there was another organization that I could join, that would help me negotiate a fair contract with the school district and provide me with legal representation and liability insurance in the event I am accused of something I didn't do or am hurt physically or otherwise in some way on the job, because obviously I need that support, but I resent my union trying to push through NCLB national testing, for example, or national standards for education based on an educational model that I strongly disagree with.  (The specifics are not really relevant to this discussion, but I support a much more progressive view of education than current legislation and NEA-backed proposals call for.)

I don't know if that means I support this bill or not, but it is another perspective on whether people should ever be forced to join a union, especially when there is no alternative available.

Thanks for listening,
Moose

Moose Mamet

Contrarian

http://moosemamet.com



You missed half my article (0.00 / 0)
Unions are required to represent everyone working for the company that has the union agreement, members, non members paying representation fees, and if 47 passes non members paying nothing. It's this latter case that's free-loading, or getting something for nothing.  Even teachers have the ability to ask for the percentage back of their agency fees that would go beyond what's needed to represent them, i.e. political action.  That's clearly written in the law.

[ Parent ]
No I didn't (0.00 / 0)
I didn't miss half your article, I understand your point, but I am giving a perspective from a different union.  

As it stands right now, even before the passage of 47, the National Educators Association negotiates on behalf of the teachers, and teachers are not required to pay into the union at all, not even representation fees.  So the free-loading scenario that you are saying will arise with the passage of 47 already exists with the NEA.  

And again, I am saying that as a member of the NEA, I understood and respected those that chose not to pay dues because they disagreed with the politics of the NEA.  I did not and would not consider someone a free-loader because they opted out of a union that pushed a political agenda that they disagreed with.  Like I said before, if there were another union that I could join that only did negotiation and representation, I'd join that one.  But their isn't, so I was forced to choose to support the NEA or opt out on principal.  I chose to support the NEA and try to create some change from within - revolution from within, right?

Now, if the law is currently written so that teachers have the option of paying only fees that go toward representation and negotiation and nothing else, I wasn't aware of it, and the union certainly does not advertise this or go out of its way to make it's members aware of this option.  I don't know for certain, but I suspect that if they did make clear this option, they would lose a significant amount of dues, since teachers as a group tend not to want someone speaking for them.  Obviously I'm generalizing, but I think there's a point there somewhere.

It seems to me that a significant portion of your argument for voting no on 47 is based on the idea that this will allow people to freeload and would weaken the union to the benefit of the corporations, but I'm just not seeing it that way.  If a union is really beneficial to its members, people would want to join it, and not have to be forced to - that to me seems unamerican.  So what is being proposed in Amendment 47 sounds to me to be logical and fair, and I'm inclined to vote for it.

But I'm open to other viewpoints on why I should vote against it, I just haven't been convinced that it's a bad thing yet.

Cheers,
Moose

 

Moose Mamet

Contrarian

http://moosemamet.com



[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Blog Roll
What we read
- Andrew Hyde
- Code Neon Blue
- Colorado Dems Blog
- Colorado Independent
- Colorado Pols
- Congresspedia
- Coyote Gulch
- CritterThink
- DemNotes
- Democracy For Colorado
- Dem Conv. Watch
- Denver Ozone
- Ed Stein Ink
- Employee Free Choice - CO
- Great Education Colorado
- Green Chile Democrats
- Junction Daily Blog
- Lefty Blogs
- Liberal and Loving It
- Liberal Latina
- Mario Solis-Marich
- New Era Colorado
- Outta the Cornfield
- Politics West
- Progress Now Colorardo Blog
- RafaelNoboa.net
- Raw Story
- Rocky Mountain Activist
- Scholars and Rogues
- The Seminal
- Think Outside the Cage
- Senate Guru
- Ultimate Politics
- Unbossed
- Wash Park Prophet
- WeatherDem - the blog
- Wide Streets (northern colorado)

What We Listen To
- AM 760 - Boulder's Progressive Talk
- KCFR 1340 AM
- KUNC 91.5 FM
- KGNU 1390AM Denver, 88.5FM Boulder
- KRFC 88.9FM Northern CO

Politician Blogs
- Morgan Carroll
- Pam Bennett for Aurora

Get Involved
- Democrats Work
- Progress Now
- Progress Now Action

Powered By
- SoapBlox



Colorado Reference
Maps (via COMaps.org)
Current:
- US Congress
- State Senate
- State House

2010 Elections
- Michael Bennet CO-Sen
- Andrew Romanoff CO-Sen
- John Flerlage CO-06
- Amber Tafoya HD4
- Jennifer Coken HD4
- Steve Harvey HD28

Past Elections

2008 Elections
- Mark Udall CO-Senate
- Diana DeGette CO-01
- Jared Polis CO-02
- Betsy Markey CO-04
- Hal Bidlack CO-05
- Hank Eng CO-06
- Ed Perlmutter CO-07

- Joe Whitcomb SD23
- Jan Hejtmanek HD20
- Anna Lord HD21

- Coloradans for Middle Class Relief
- Opposes Amendment 47

- Protect Colorado's Future
- Opposes Amendments 47, 49, 54

- Protect Families Protect Choices
- Opposes Amendment 48

2006 Election
US Congress:
- CD 1: Diana DeGette
- CD 2: Mark Udall
- CD 3: John Salazar
- CD 4: Angie Paccione
- CD 5: Jay Fawcett
- CD 6: Bill Winter
- CD 7: Ed Perlmutter

Governor:
    - Bill Ritter
Treasurer:
    - Cary Kennedy
CU Regent-at-large
    - Steve Ludwig
Legislature:
    - Colorado State Sentate
    - Colorado State House

State Board of Education:
- CD 2: Evie Hudak
- CD 4: Bob Schaffer
- CD 7: Karen Middleton


Drinking Liberally Denver
2nd and 4th Wednesdays
7:30 PM @ Skylark Lounge
140 S. Broadway
Denver, CO
 
Denver South Metro
2nd & 4th Thursdays
of Each Month
start-time varies
Lansdowne Arms
9352 Dorchester St
Highlands Ranch, CO
 
Centennial
Every Monday
7pm
Bistro Al Vino
15352 East Ida Suite E
Centennial, CO
 
Boulder
1st & 3rd Thursdays
of Each Month
7:00 PM
Murphy's Grill
2731 Iris Ave.
Boulder, CO
 
Boulder - Downtown
2nd Tuesdays
of Each Month
7:00 PM @ Pearl St Pub
1108 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO
 
Colorado Springs
2nd Tuesdays of Each Month
7:30 PM
The Margarita at Pine Creek
7350 Pine Creek Rd.
Colorado Springs, CO
 
Castle Rock
Fourth Wednesdays
5:15pm
Pegasus Restaurant and Bar
313 Jerry Street
Castle Rock, CO
 
Longmont
1st & 3rd Wednesdays
of Each Month
7 PM @ Redzone
540 S Main St
Longmont, CO
 
Ft. Collins
2nd & 4th Thursdays
of Each Month
5PM - 7PM
The Crown Pub
144 South College Avenue
Ft. Collins, CO
 
Berthoud
1st & 3th Thursdays
of Each Month
5:30 pm
Wayside Pub
505 Mountain Avenue
Berthoud, CO
 
Cañon City
1st & 3rd Wednesdays
of Each Month
5:30 PM @ McClellan's
413 Main St.
Cañon City, CO
 
Greeley
2nd Tuesdays of Each Month
6:30pm
Kress Cinema & Lounge
815 8th Ave.
Greeley, CO
 
Frisco
2nd Wednesdays
of Each Month
7pm @ Po' Boys
620 Main Street
Frisco, CO
 
Carbondale
3rd Saturdays
of Each Month
7pm @ Pour House
352 Main Street
Carbondale, CO
 
Avon
4th Wednesdays
of Each Month
5:30pm @ Loaded Joe's
82 E Beaver Creek Blvd
Suite 104
Avon, CO
 
Grand Junction
1st Wednesdays of Each Month
5pm @ Kannah Creek Brewing Company
1960 N 12th St
Grand Junction, CO
 
Durango
3rd Thursdays of Each Month
6pm @ Joel's
119 W 8th St
Durango, CO

Active Users
Currently 1 user(s) logged on.

RSS Info

RSS Feed





Add to My Yahoo!



Add to Newsgator

Add to Feed Lounge

Add to Pluck

Add to Feedster

Add to Bloglines

Add to My MSN

Add to My AOL

Add to Rojo

Site Stats



Listed on BlogShares

view site stats

Search




Advanced Search


SquareState.net is wholly owned by SoapBlox Network, Inc.
Powered by: SoapBlox