| Vote Yes on Amendment 47 |
 |
 |
| Written by Delta Chamber of Commerce | |||
| Friday, 10 October 2008 18:48 | |||
|
Right to Work Advances Freedom for Colorado If you start your own company, nobody would say you must join a chamber of commerce in order to stay in business. If you grow corn, nobody would say you must join the Corn Growers Association. Or the Cattlemen’s Association if you raise cattle. Yet thousands of Coloradans are forced to join or pay dues to private organizations against their will at many workplaces across Colorado. Seem unfair that someone could force you to join a private organization as a condition of employment? It is. But this is what thousands of Colorado workers endure by being forced to join a union in order to get a paycheck. There are plenty of reasons to join private organizations that might benefit you or the community at large, but we don’t think anybody should be forced to join. That’s why we support Amendment 47. Amendment 47, the Colorado Right to Work Amendment, is simple – it says that a worker cannot be forced to join a union or pay union dues in order to get or keep a job. But it also preserves a worker’s right to voluntarily join or financially support a union. Take for example, the Plumbers Union Local 3, the Colorado Education Association, or the Fire Fighters Local 1290. All are unions whose members choose, freely, to join. They exist because their members see something of value in being part of these private organizations. Amendment 47 affords every worker the same right to freely choose to join or not, without risking their job. Amendment 47 is not anti-union; it’s pro-freedom and pro-worker. The benefits are two-fold. 1) It’s a freedom issue. We believe all workers should have the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union or pay union dues. Current law in Colorado allows some unions to force workers to pay dues, whether that worker wants to or not. That’s un-American and fundamentally flawed. 2) There are 22 right-to-work states already, and studies consistently show that right-to-work states perform better economically than non-right-to-work states. That means more jobs, higher paying jobs and a better economic environment for the entire state. In the West, we value individualism and personal responsibility. Forcing thousands of Coloradans to join a private organization in order to keep a job is wrong. The loss of revenue might be feared by union bosses who get paid whether they do a good job or not, but the freedom to associate with whom we choose is a freedom we all deserve. Amendment 47 doesn’t prohibit unions in Colorado. In fact, it might actually strengthen the collective voice of workers. By making a union boss actually earn his membership, he’ll have to better represent workers, be more responsive, and make a bigger difference for those workers. If a union is truly effective and does a great job for its membership, it only makes sense that a worker would voluntarily join. Amendment 47 is about guaranteeing worker rights for all Coloradans, because the freedom to associate with whom we choose is too important to ignore. It’s also about strengthening this economy by bringing new companies, higher wages, and a better job market. Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federation of Labor and considered by many to be a father of America’s labor movement, believed that unions should be voluntary institutions. Right to Work compliments Gompers’ vision, affording every individual that basic freedom to decide for him or herself whether or not to participate with a labor union. It’s the American way. It’s the Colorado way. Amendment 47 will make Colorado a better place to live, work, and to do business. In America, freedom is among our highest ideals. Let’s advance freedom together in Colorado. Please visit www.VoteYESon47.com for more information. These views are supported by The Delta Area Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 1871 Comments (12)
  written by Richard Myers , October 25, 2008 Passing along this link to a site with information about Amendment 47: http://www.voteno47.com And, a site with info about Amendments 47, 49, and 54: http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/ report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by Kenny Hall , October 15, 2008 There is a legal term called "coming to the nuisance" that I think is analogous to "forced unionism". If you buy a home along the flight path of an established airport, you can make no claim against the airport for the noise that existed when you bought the home. The reason you would have no claim is that a) the airport was there before you were b) you should have known that the house was on the flight pattern, had you used due diligence in investigating the conditions before you bought the home, and c) you did know about the airport and purchased the home anyway. This principle protects existing businesses from being sued or having compalints filed against it by people who knowingly and willingly come to the nuisance and then attempt to have the nuisance removed, thereby causing the company harm or to go out of business. If you apply for a job at a company that has an existing agreement between the employer and employees that states "all employees who fall within the bargaining unit as determined by the NLRB will be required to be a member of the union", what right do you have to decry that condition of employment. The "hazard" of union membership existed before you applied, you knew that there was a union before you applied and you had the opportunity to decline that condition of employment. Let's stop fooling around here... what sane person, using logic and reason, would advocate for such an illogical restriction on a legally binding agreement between two legally recognized entities, the employer and the employees organization? Only someone who has something to gain from the nuisance being removed, like the National Right to Work Foundation and their benefactors. If a person does not want to be in a union, they should not "come to the nuisance" and then cry "foul". report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Richard Myers , October 14, 2008 One line in my original message was converted to this: "...Xcel Energy (d**k Kelly)..." !!! How strange, the censorship software even changed the first letter of his name to lower case... Now the censored word looks like it is meant to stand in for something obscene, when there was nothing obscene at all about the original post, LOL. Best intentions, and all that... i think the censorship folks ought to go back to the drawing board. (Until then i guess i'll call him Richard...) best wishes, richard (and not D*i*c*k) myers report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Kenny Hall , October 14, 2008 Penguin, you make me blush... I am not a paid spokesperson. Just a well read- articulate long time union member. Yes, some of us read between knee-capping activities. Your first point, that the amendment "takes away a strong recruitment tool from the unions" says it all. The amendment is designed to do just that and was created by idealogues who don't like unions. This is not a referendum on whether unions are "good" or "bad" but whether a third party, an applicant, can insert themselves into a legally binding agreement between two other parties (the company and the employee organization). The anti-union forces have NO concern for worker's rights but, rather, how they can destroy the efficacy of unions. The rest of your post has nothing to do with how this amendment would positively impact the working man or woman and deals only with unions alleged negative impact on business. So just say it... anything that can be done to destroy workers ability to negoatiate with their employers should be done. Just don't couch it in terms of how concerned everyone is with the poor worker who is "forced" to be in a Union. I'll say it again... If you are afraid of heights, don't apply for the job of window washer at the Empire State Building. Opposed to abortion? Don't apply for a job with Planned Parenthood. Afraid of drowning? Don't try to get a job on a fishing boat. A person who lives by their principles will not, for any reason, compromise their principles for mere economic gain. Stay true to your hatred for unions and seek jobs only at non-union companies. You will earn the respect of your fellow low-wage earners and will be able to sleep soundly at night. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Richard Myers , October 13, 2008 Thanks for the response, Penquin. As a retired union person (39 years of membership), i have the time to sort through some of these issues. The chairman and CEO of Oakwood Homes, Pat Hamill, is likewise a businessman. He apparently strongly disagrees with you. He has written in the Denver Post: "The backers of Amendment 47 would like you to believe they are supporting this amendment to protect the working people of Colorado. But what they won't admit is that carefully crafted, long-honored federal law already provides all the protection that they say they want. Under existing law, no worker can be forced to join a union against their will. Amendment 47 has been drafted to isolate employee groups that advocate for safe workplaces and reasonable health care programs for employees. No responsible Colorado employer could share this goal of minimizing the voice of working families on such important issues. "That's why businesses like EchoStar, Xcel Energy, HealthONE, GE Johnson Construction, Wells Fargo and Qwest Communications have come out in opposition to Amendment 47. When the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce came out in opposition to Amendment 47 in June, they agreed that there was no economic benefit to passing this measure. Today Colorado enjoys a business friendly climate, with lower unemployment rates, higher wages and a larger percentage of Coloradans with employer-covered health care than can be found in many other states — all which could change drastically if Amendment 47 were to pass." http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10671312 Here's a list of businesses that oppose Amendment 47: Black Chamber of Commerce Colorado Club 20 (Western Colorado) ( Opposed 47 and 54, neutral 49 ) Colorado Bankers Association Colorado Economic Leadership Coalition Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute Dan Ritchie, Denver businessman, Denver Performing Arts Center Chairman Denver Business Coalition Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce Douglas County Business Alliance EchoStar Jim Johnson, GE Johnson Construction Golden Chamber of Commerce HealthOne donated to Amendment 47, but has now endorsed Protect Colorado's Future Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Jeff Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer, ProLogis Joe Ellis, chief operating officer, Denver Broncos Pat Hamill, chairman and CEO of Oakwood Homes Pat Stryker Qwest Communications South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce Walter Isenberg, hotelier, Sage Hospitality Resources Wells Fargo Xcel Energy (d**k Kelly) That's mostly the big companies, there's a list of small businesses here: http://www.voteno47.com/whoweare Those are fairly interesting lists of businesses opposed to an "anti-union" measure. The reasons are fairly complex, but i think it ought to give pause to anyone who automatically assumes Amendment 47 is a good idea. best wishes, richard myers IBEW retired report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
 written by Randy Sunderland , October 13, 2008 Judging from Kenny's well-crafted talking points, he is probably a paid spokesman for the union lobby . . . but the long and short of it, Amendment 47 takes a strong recruitment tool away from the unions. It gives employees a certain measure of power from strong-arm union intimidation, and it certainly makes for a more business friendly environment in Colorado. The shopping club example is flawed. Instead of turning to a legislative solution to outlaw the competition, Main Street businesses work on competitive solutions. From a rural perspective, unions are not very relevant in Delta County's businesses. Most of our private sector are small, independent businesses working to attract employees in a tight labor market. This means successful businesses find ways to attract and retain the best and brightest employees. It means successful businesses find ways to build loyalty and respect from its work force. It means our small, independent businesses are innovative in ways corporate and union bosses seldom understand. And as we face the biggest economic challenge since the 1930s, it is important to keep Main Street strong and able to respond to the Wall Street meltdown. It's not about union influence, but maintaining a positive business environment which attracts good workers and businesses to locate in Colorado. Let the be no doubt, I am a small business operator in Delta and have never dealt directly with union negotiations. I'm sure there are plenty of good and bad examples to cite from both the business and union camps. So it really boils down to personal beliefs. My position is all about a free and independent work force, and a positive business environment. Vote yes for the Right to Work Amendment 47. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Kenny Hall , October 13, 2008 The long and short of it is, if you are diametrically opposed to unions and paying union dues is not an option for you, apply only to those companies where the employees do not have a union. If you are afraid of heights, don't apply for the job of window washer at the Empire State Building. Opposed to abortion? Don't apply for a job with Planned Parenthood. Afraid of drowning? Don't try to get a job on a fishing boat. A person who lives by their principles will not, for any reason, compromise their principles for mere economic gain. Stay true to your hatred for unions and seek jobs only at non-union companies. You will earn the respect of your fellow low-wage earners and will be able to sleep soundly at night. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Kenny Hall , October 13, 2008 “There can’t be people who are so irrational as to want to enjoy the benefits of an organization or group and not contribute to the group that created and maintains those benefits” you say? Not so, if you look into the reasoning behind so called Right-to-Work legislation. It is an outrage, supporters say, that a person can’t walk into an office, apply for a job, and demand to be exempt from the organization that has, most likely, made the wages and benefits at this workplace better than those down the street or across town. It is the right of the individual, they claim, to enjoy the benefits that the group has secured without having to pay for membership in that group. Who could be behind such a counterintuitive piece of legislation? The National Right-to Work Foundation is who. This group claims to be outraged that working people are being subjected to “compulsory unionism” when they apply at a place of business where the employees have voted, democratically and under the supervision of federal agencies, to form a Union. They argue that any negotiated agreement between an employer and employees that limits employment to those that are members of the employees’ organization is unfair and restricts a person’s “Right to Work” wherever they want. Why would an organization promote legislation that restricts such agreements? Why would they spend millions of dollars to argue that an applicant, who has to agree to many, many other conditions of employment before they begin work at a particular workplace, NOT have to agree to the one condition that the employees have negotiated? They could be a group of well intentioned advocates for the rights of working people who have, unfortunately, taken an illogical approach to defending those rights. This could be the case but it isn’t. The NRTW Foundation is, rather, a well funded advocacy group for business interests that have a financial stake in seeing labor unions weakened. How does this legislation weaken unions? Let’s look at the wholesale buyer club example from above: Suppose there was an organization of traditional grocery store owners who felt it was in their economic best interests to find a way to get rid of the wholesale clubs. They understand that they can’t attempt to make them illegal, given the popularity of the wholesale clubs, and even attempting such a move would cause great uproar. They need to find another way to limit or reduce the effectiveness of this type of business that is not so obvious. So they fund a group that calls itself the “National Right-to-Shop Foundation” and get busy soliciting the kind of people like the woman in the example. The foundation writes and promotes legislation that requires the clubs to grant non-members the “right” to shop in their stores without paying the membership fees. They know that soon enough, the original members will see that others are getting the benefits without paying for them and they, too, will begin to drop their membership. As more and more drop out, the club is unable to use the collective buying power of the membership to provide quality products at discounted prices. The store is unable to hire and pay enough staff to stock the shelves, clean the store or provide the services to their many customers. As a result of drooping sales and revenue, the member-driven buying club goes out of business. The grocery store owners have, without actually outlawing the wholesale clubs, found a way to reduce the ability of the clubs to provide services to their members and to survive, using legislation driven by the lofty language of ensuring “rights”. If membership in a Union is not palatable to a working person, that person should seek employment where there are no union or membership requirements. Principled people understand that if you want to enjoy the rights and benefits offered by an organization, whether it is a union or buying club, a health club or a church, they must commit to that group by contributing a share to fund its mission and obey the agreements the organization makes. Any legislation that encourages otherwise is counter productive and creates a threat to all membership organizations. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Kenny Hall , October 13, 2008 A woman, concerned with the increasing cost of groceries for her family, is told by a neighbor that there is a grocery store in town that has great food at great prices. The store, her neighbor explains, is actually a wholesale buying club, where the membership fees allow the club to buy large quantities from producers at a reduced cost and then pass the savings on to the members. This savings then, in turn, offsets the costs of membership. The following day, after visiting the store and seeing the fantastic prices for quality food, the woman fills her cart with groceries and pushes it to the check-out counter. The young lady at the register asks to see her Membership card and, when the woman can produce no card, she is told that she cannot buy the food she has chosen. The woman is furious that she is being kept from purchasing the food at the discounted rates and storms off, complaining that she should have the right to shop wherever she wants without having to pay a fee to belong to some group. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Randy Sunderland , October 13, 2008 Kenny is right, Amendment 47 is about weakening unions. In Colorado, unions have not played a significant role in worker/employee relations in the private sector for years. Amendment 47 would help continue to keep unions from expanding their influence.nnWhen an employer must include union membership as part of the terms of employment, the employee is still being forced to join the union . . . or to pay "in lieu of membership".nnTalk to my father about working in a union shop, in a state without a "right to work." As a non-union member, he was intimidated and pressured to join. And when he chose not to join, his foreman saw that his hours were cut until he no longer could afford to work in that job. At the same time, he witnessed inefficiencies because of internal turf wars between different unions. As Kenny suggests, he moved on . . . out of the town and out of the state. Does that sound like a reasonable situation?nnThis is about the ability for unions to gain a stronger foothold in Colorado. As a small independent businessman, I support Amendment 47 as a way to keep the playing field level on Main Street Colorado. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Kenny Hall , October 13, 2008 The claim that an applicant for a job is subject to “compulsory Unionism” by accepting employment at an establishment where the employees have, democratically and under protection of the law, made the choice to form a Union is cynical and is, most often, made by those who would benefit from the dismantling of Unions. It also diminishes the significance of the decision of those employees who exercised their right to form a Union at that workplace and to collectively bargain with their employer. The fact that they did form a Union may explain why the wages, benefits and terms and conditions of employment at their place of employment are more attractive than those at others. The truth is, there is no unconditional “right” to work in the United States: a potential employee must, in order to get any job, submit to every condition and requirement that the employer specifies, including the requirement to become a union member. The very idea that an adult, who lives by the morals and principles that they profess to carry with them, can be “forced” to join a Union demeans anyone who fills out an application. Each of us has to make the decision whether or not to take a job that has, as a condition of employment, a requirement for membership in a Union. We either have the capacity to make reasoned decisions on, and take responsibility for, the many choices we are confronted with in the search for employment or we do not. A responsible and principled person who does not want to be in a Union should, when applying for a job, make their first question “Is there a Union here?” If the answer is “Yes”, they should move on and seek employment with a company that will not present them with a condition of employment that they find contrary to their principles. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Richard Myers , October 11, 2008 Much of this is simply not true. But the confusion expressed here may result in part from the fact that Amendment 47 is itself misleading. Under federal law, employees already have the right not to join a union. They also have the right not to pay union dues, per se. Specifically, the American Bar Association offers this language to interpret the National Labor Relations Act: "Full union membership cannot be compelled under the NLRA." http://www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/special/us.pdf#page=51 By failing to acknowledge these facts, the proponents of Amendment 47 have written ballot language, and have publicized the measure in a way to deceive voters. There are, understandably, a lot of angry working people who object to the idea that they can be forced into anything that is not of their own free will, and 47 backers mislead in order to get their votes. Now, there is one aspect of Amendment 47 that would change current law. The situation is as follows: Unions are required by law to represent employees in the bargaining unit, whether they are union members or not. In return for those services, employees may be required to pay a "fee in lieu of dues", or an agency fee. This is the bare-bones cost of services provided by the union. Amendment 47 would take away those fees, but would not release unions from their obligation to provide the services. Thus, Amendment 47 would require unions to provide something and get nothing in return. This is nothing less than a prescription for destroying unions. richard myers IBEW retired report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed