Colorado Independent » ‘Right-To-Work’ Initiative Certified for Ballot

‘Right-To-Work’ Initiative Certified for Ballot

By Erin Rosa 4/28/08 5:16 PM

The Colorado Secretary of State’s Office announced today that a proposed “right-to-work” measure will be on the 2008 ballot after state officials found that enough petition signatures were collected to put the proposal up for a vote.If passed, the legislation (now officially titled Amendment 47) would prohibit mandatory dues or agency fees for employees joining a unionized workplace covered by collective-bargaining agreements.

According to a statement from the state office, a projected 94,546 signatures out of approximately 136,000 submitted by initiative supporters were determined to be valid.

A little more than 76,000 petition signatures are required to put a proposal on the state ballot. The state office verifies a random five-percent sample of signatures for certification.

A Better Colorado, the group supporting the initiative, did not immediately return a request for comment.

Protect Colorado’s Future, a group opposing the measure, has said it will seek to independently verify the petition signatures, much like the process completed recently recently with a ballot proposal that would ban affirmative action programs in the state.

“Based on the election screening, we will in the coming days conduct a more a more detailed analysis of petition signatures,” said Jess Knox, spokesman for the group.

Protect Colorado’s Future recently filed a complaint with the Secretary of State alleging that right-to-work signatures were gathered illegally.

Financial reports detailing supporters of both groups will not be available until early May.

Viewing 10 Comments

thegrunt 6 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 47 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

reply edit reblog flag

SASQUATCH 6 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

U.A.W. KEEP THE "DETROIT SOLUTION" IN MICHIGAN:

U.A.W. == U Ain't Workin'

reply edit reblog flag

www.abettercolorado.com 6 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

AMENDMENT 47, A POPULIST POLLER 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 Colorado's Right to Work, Amendment 47. If passed, this Amendment will strengthen Colorado's economy, protect the rights of all employees and ensure that no one can be forced to join a union to get or keep a job.

Here's why Colorado needs the Right to Work initiative:

No one should be forced to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Under current Colorado law, workers can be forced to join a labor union to get or keep a job. Some companies in Colorado have what is called a "closed shop," meaning that union membership is compulsory for certain jobs. This unfair practice limits employment opportunities for many Colorado workers and is an unfair infringement upon their freedoms. A right to work law will give workers in ALL industries and in ALL companies the right to choose whether or not to join a union, and will make this necessary right a part of the Colorado Constitution.

Right to Work protects worker rights, including the right to strike, collective bargaining, and the right to organize and belong to a union.

The new amendment simply removes the requirement that workers MUST join a union as a condition of employment.

Right to Work protects workers' paychecks.

Unions have played an important role in promoting worker safety and improving wages and benefits for many Colorado workers. But today, unions are far more likely to spend their membership dues on politics than on negotiating better salaries and working conditions. In fact, studies have shown that UP TO EIGHTY PERCENT of union spending goes to political campaigns and purposes not related to negotiating with employers. No one should be forced to pay dues when union bosses spend the vast majority of their members' hard-earned money on political candidates and causes that might be contrary to a member's political beliefs. Right to Work will stop the unfair practice of forcing workers to pay dues that support political causes without their consent.

Right to Work will strengthen Colorado's economy, create jobs and make our state more competitive.

It is more important than ever that Colorado takes the necessary steps to keep jobs in the state and attract more businesses in the future. States that have adopted Right to Work laws similar to this amendment have seen an increase in economic productivity and job growth. This will be an economic engine for Colorado, spurring the creation of new and better paying jobs today and in the future.

Right to Work works for Colorado's state employees; shouldn't all Coloradans enjoy the same right to choose?

reply edit reblog flag

bmenezes 6 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Attention all trolls
You're failing to mention that under federal law all Coloradans already have the right to choose whether or not to join a union. Closed shops have been illegal for years, at most an employee must pay agency fees -- but they don't have to join the union.

Why are you trying to mislead readers about that important fact?

reply edit reblog flag

astroglide 6 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Ok then What state agency handles that process for me, do they have an automated website or do the unions? You know, I'm looking for the do not call list process or the unsubscribe kind of process.

Beyond that unionman, why should I pay agency fees? Doesn't Taft Hartely or somehting allow states have Right-to-Work laws.

Shouldn't all Colorado citizens have the Right-to-Work, not just state employees?

reply edit reblog flag

Truthteller 6 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Attention media matters FORMAL

OPINION

of

DUANE WOODARD

Attorney General

No. 88-10

AG Alpha No. LO AD AGAQY

December 16, 1988

Tim Schultz

Executive Director

Department of Local Affairs

1313 Sherman St., Room 518

Denver, Colorado 80203

RE: Colorado's status as a "right to work" state.

Dear Mr. Schultz:

This opinion letter is in response to your November 11, 1988 letter, in which you inquired whether Colorado is a right to work state.

QUESTION PRESENTED AND CONCLUSION

Your request for an attorney general's opinion presents the question:

Whether the provisions of the Colorado Labor Peace Act, or any other law, causes Colorado to be properly described as a "right to work" state?

No.

ANALYSIS

The origin of the phrase "right to work" is often attributed to a 1941 Dallas Morning News editorial which urged the adoption of an amendment to the federal constitution protecting the right of employees to work without coercion with respect to joining a labor union. See William B. Ruggles, Dallas Morning News, Tuesday, January 12, 1965, "An Open Letter to the President." However, the phrase "right to work" has developed over the past 50 years primarily in connection with state constitutional or statutory provisions permitted by section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 29 U.S.C. Section 164(b) (1988). As commonly understood, a "right to work" state is one which, either by constitutional or statutory provision, prohibits contractual terms conditioning employment on membership in or financial support of a labor organization. See generally, Anno., Validity and Construction of Right to Work Laws, 92 A.L.R. 2d 598, 599; Note, International Union of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry Local 141 v. NLRB: Closing the Door on Representation Fees in Right to Work States, 1983 Wisc. L. Rev. 1231, 1231 n.2; Eissinger, The Right to Work Imbroglio, 51 N.D. L. Rev. 571, 573 n.8, 575 (1975). See also, e.g., United Steelworkers of America v. Johnson, 830 F.2d 924, 925 (8th Cir. 1987); Meade Electric Co. v. Hagberg, 129 Ind. App. 631, 159 N.E. 2d 408, 413-14 (1959).

Colorado has neither a constitutional nor a statutory provision prohibiting labor agreements which condition employment upon membership in or support of a labor union. In 1958, Colorado voters rejected the opportunity to amend their constitution to explicitly include such a provision.FN1 The Colorado Labor Peace Act, (the "CPLA"), Sections 8-3-101 to 124, C.R.S. (1986), which was enacted in 1943 as a comprehensive labor relations regulatory scheme, 1943 Colo. Sess. Laws, does not include such a provision either. The CPLA provides, in pertinent part:

An employer shall not be prohibited from entering into an all-union agreement with the representative of his employees ... if such all union agreement is approved by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all employees eligible to vote or three quarters or more of the employees who actually voted whichever is greater ... in favor of such all union agreement....

Section 8-3-108(1)(c)(I), C.R.S. (1986) (emphasis added).

Because this provision only regulates, rather than prohibits, union security agreements, Colorado does not qualify as a "right to work" state. Building Construction Trades Council v. American Builders, Inc., 139 Colo. 226, 337 P.2d 953, 960 (1959). See also Communications Workers of America v. Western Electric Co., 198 Colo 128, 551 P.2d 1065 (1976).

SUMMARY

An agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment is, under certain circumstances, permitted in this state. The Colorado Labor Peace Act explicitly provides that employers "shall not be prohibited" from entering such agreements, provided certain preconditions are met. Consequently, Colorado does not fall within the traditional meaning of a "right to work" state.

Sincerely,

DUANE WOODARD

Attorney General

DW:13818:wp

AG Alpha No. LO AD AGAQY

AG File No. OHR8806303/AQY

LABOR UNIONS

ELECTIONS

EMPLOYEES

Section 8-3-101 to 124 (1986)

29 U.S.C. Sections 141-187 (1988)

LOCAL AFFAIRS DEPT.

Colorado is not a right to work state. The Colorado Labor Peace Act explicitly authorizes execution of agreements conditioning employment on union membership or financial support if a qualifying referendum has been voted favorably upon by a majority of employees eligible to vote or 3/4 of those voting.

Has that changed since 1988? Or are you trying to mislead readers about that important AG's opinion?

reply edit reblog flag

thegrunt 6 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Truthteller, correct as usual VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 47 - ALL COLORADOANS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE

reply edit reblog flag

Erin Rosa 6 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Pleae don't spam the stories If you have something to say, once is sufficient. For more information, see the site commenting policy. Thanks.

reply edit reblog flag

Truthteller 6 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Hmmm.....no response from Media Matters. Gee, I wonder why not?

reply edit reblog flag

tallport 6 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Choose What? The choice argument is a sham. The work for less lobby could care less about employee rights.

Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, completed a study in 2001 which found that the mean nominal "effect of working in a right-to-work state results in a 6% to 8% reduction in wages" with the average reduction being 6.5%, and that even after controlling for cost of living differences, there is still a 3.8% wage penalty for living in a Right to Work state (Mishel). Mishel's study was based on a sample of approximately 150,000 salaried workers between the ages of 18-64, with average hourly wages of $15.54 and median hourly wages of $12.25 (Mishel).

Washington AFL-CIO sums the issue up quite well -

http://www.wslc.org/...

LABOR POSITION -- Proponents of right-to-work laws say no one should be "forced" to join a union and that they are defending workers?rights to get a job. As with all other parts of a contract, union security agreements must be approved by the workers and employer. If the majority of workers don't want a "union shop," they won't ask for it.

Right-to-work is plain-and-simple union-busting. It is designed to encourage "free riders," and to weaken or destroy unions. And that exactly what it has accomplished in the states that have these laws. Worst of all, it has translated into lower wages and benefits, a diminished standard of living, substandard legal protections and more dangerous working conditions for workers in right-to-work states.

In 2003, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that 19 of the 25 states with the highest worker fatality rates were right-to-work states, while just three of the bottom 25 states were right-to-work states. A 2001 study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that workers in right-to-work states earned an average of 6.5% less than their counterparts in states without the law. None of the 22 right-to-work states have an average annual pay level above the U.S. average.

When wages fall, state tax revenues fall. That means less funding for education, transportation and other vital programs. Right-to-work is bad not just for union members, but for everyone.

We are living in an era of relatively stagnant wages, diminishing benefits and less retirement security. We should be strengthening workers?ability to organize unions, not discouraging and busting them" ....

reply edit reblog flag