Right to Work Blog

Colorado voters oppose the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill like the rest of the nation.

Sen. Michael Bennet is sending one response to freedom-loving constituents who write him urging to oppose S. 560, and another to union militants who write him urging him to support S. 560.

Columnist Mike Rosen quotes from both responses.

Sen. Ben Nelson seems to get the Card Check quandary:

You  might think that statement would come from a Republican, but it’s actually from a Democrat.

Reports that there might be a deal near on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), or “card check,” as critics and now some proponents call it, appear to be vastly overwritten.

Sen Tom Harkin, D-IA, a lead negotiator, is in talks with the Senate’s newest Democrat, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, but there are MANY more pieces to this complicated puzzle, namely a number of other Dems who do not want this.  Harkin and Specter have known each other for decades, so it is natural they would work together, but Harkin has a heavy lift to get a deal out of this Senate.

Sen Ben Nelson, D-NE, told me he does not see a deal happening this year at all. He sees no way to put a compromise together that’s pallatable.

“You take away the arbitration issue, and you still have the ‘card check’, so that doesn’t work. You take away the ‘card check’ and you still have the arbitration problem. And if both go away, you’re left with nothing. It’s a fool’s errand to do this. I just don’t see an agreement happening,” Nelson said.

Harkin must please a number of skeptical Dem colleagues in the Senate, among them, Dianne Feinstein (CA), Jim Webb (VA), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Mark Warner (VA), and Mike Bennet (CO).

One of them, who asked to remain anonymous because of the intense lobbying campaign underway by big Labor, tells Fox, “You cannot find a way to make this work. I’ve heard all the arguments, and I just don’t see it.”

Still, Harkin said he’s trying. He has Labor and a number of business concerns in the loop and is working hard to find a compromise.

However, a senior Senate Dem Appropriations Cmte aide tells Fox, “This isn’t happening anytime soon, if it even happens.”  And this aide works for a Dem who supports EFCA.

“Card Check” is a top priority for labor unions this year. It is a bill that would make it easire for workplaces to unionize.  Under the legislation, workers would sign cards rather than by voting in secret ballot elections to start a union.  The provision also calls for mandatory arbitration to set the terms of the first contract if companies and unions can’t agree within 120 days.

The whole meaning of this confusing talk is clear!  Keep the pressure on these Senators.  It is the only thing that is holding this forced unionism monster down at this point.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) is refusing to take a position on the Card Check Scam; certainly making it harder for the union bosses to jam the bill through the Senate in its current form.  Unfortunately, it appears that he is trying to “increase his position to forge a compromise in Congress,” according to the Denver Post.  Of course, there is no room for compromise on issues of forced unionism.  

Now is the time to let Senator Bennet know that there is no compromise on worker freedom and that he should vote NO on S. 560 or any subsequent card-check legislation. 

E-mail the Senator using his online web form here

Washington, D.C. Office
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5852

Fax: (202)-228-4083

San Luis Valley Regional Office
609 Main Street, Suite 110
Alamosa, Colorado 81101
Phone: 719-587-0096
Fax: 719-587-0098

Pikes Peak Regional Office
409 North Tejon St., Suite 107
Colorado Springs, 80903
Phone: 719-328-1100
Fax: 719-328-1129

North Central Regional Office
11 Old Town Square, Suite 260
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Phone: 970-224-2200
Fax: 970-224-2205

High Plains Regional Office
109 East Railroad Avenue, #4
Fort Morgan, Colorado 80701
Phone: 970-542-9446
Fax: 970-542-3088

Northwest Colorado / I-70 West / Highway 50 West Regional Office**
225 North 5th Street, Suite 511
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Phone: 970-241-6631
Fax: 970-241-8313

Four Corners Regional Office
835 East 2nd Avenue, Suite 203
Durango, Colorado 81301
Phone: 970-259-1710
Fax: 970-259-9789

Denver Metro Regional Office
2300 15th St., Suite 450
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone: 303-455-7600
Toll-free: 866-455-9866
Fax: 303-455-8851

Arkansas River Regional Office
129 West B Street
Pueblo, Colorado 81003
Phone: 719-542-7550
Fax: 719-542-7555

The Pueblo Chieftain in Colorado refuses to sing to Big Labor’s tune:

There’s a relentless drive by organized labor to get its way legislatively where it hasn’t been able in the workaday world.

In Colorado, the latest manifestation of this is SB180. If enacted, this bill would mandate that local governments allow their firefighters and law enforcement officers to unionize, whether the taxpaying public of those governments approve or not.

A hearing has been scheduled today on what’s titled the “Firefighter and Law Enforcement Officer Collective Bargaining Act.” The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, and Rep. Casso Edward, D-Denver.

Colorado law now allows city and county residents to decide whether workers employed by local government should be able to organize. Some communities have approved collective bargaining and others haven’t.

SB180 would take the decision-making out of the hands of local taxpayers. All compensation for unionized public safety workers would be decided by a system that favors employees over taxpayers. And if unionized workers didn’t like their contracts, they could force them unilaterally to be renegotiated.

This bill would be an unfunded mandate on local communities which up to now have declined to have union pacts with firefighters or police or sheriff’s officers. Why should legislation carried by metro-area lawmakers be forced down the throats of small communities in Southern Colorado?

Local employment decisions should be made at the local level. They should not be mandated by lawmakers in Denver who dance to the tune of Big Labor.

Right now local governments are seeing their tax revenues decline. This is not the time to force them to reallocate finite finances because lawmakers who live a hundred miles away want to please union bosses who have been unable to get their way.

SB180 is an anti-democratic assault on local government and the taxpayers who foot the bills. It should be given a fitting last rite – say a funeral pyre on the Statehouse steps.

Big Labor is making its presence felt at the Democrat convention in Denver and it hasn’t gone unnoticed by the Wall Street Journal.

We all know of Big Labor’s desperate effort to enact the Card Check Scam Law. But wait, there’s more:

Card check is merely the start. Next on the agenda is a campaign to repeal “right to work” laws in the 22 U.S. states that have them. Right to work laws allow employees to decide for themselves whether to join or financially support a union. Former Michigan Congressman David Bonior told a union event in Denver on Monday that limiting right to work laws is essential both to lifting union membership and promoting more Democratic political victories. He pointed out that John Kerry didn’t win a single right to work state in 2004, while Al Gore won only one — Iowa — and only by a few thousand votes in 2000.

As you watch the Democrat convention in Colorado, keep in mind that over one quarter of all delegates are union activists. With a receptive audience, the AFL-CIO promises to “. . . charge up delegates for the convention and a hard-fought election season. They’ll discuss the Labor 2008 grassroots political program and key issues in the election, . . . ” including the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill.

Big Labor’s organizers will brief delegations as to why the law is priority number one for the union bosses.

It’s sad but true, the party that claims to champion voting rights for all now supports repeal of secret ballot elections for some. With so many union operators pulling the strings at the convention, there is little hope the Democrat party will stand up for workers’ right to choose whether or not they want to join or pay dues to a union.

The United States Supreme Court has overturned a 9th Circuit Court ruling that tried to legitimize a massive Big Labor forced-unionism scheme.

As reported by Tony Mouro of the First Amendment Center:

By a 7-2 vote, the Court ruled that federal labor law prevents California from restricting the ability of employers to speak out against union organizing.

The state law, according to the Court, violated “Congress’ express protection of free debate” concerning unionization, and congressional desire to avoid regulation within “a zone protected and reserved for market freedom.” . . .

The California law, similar to statutes on the books or under debate in 20 other states, said that any employer receiving state funds through grants or contracts cannot use those funds — even when commingled with other money — to “assist, promote or deter union organizing.” The law also established what the Court said was a “formidable enforcement scheme” that required employers to maintain records that would establish whether state funds they received were used for purposes related to union organizing. . . .

“The law was nothing more than an underhanded attempt by union officials to use public funds to corral California workers into their forced dues-paying ranks, and the high court was correct to find that the law is pre-empted by federal labor law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which advocates measures that prevent employees in unionized workplaces from being coerced to join unions.

Steven Law, chief legal officer and general counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, applauded the decision as well. “Today the Supreme Court declared that it’s unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act for a state to muzzle employers’ speech rights.”

The Denver Post ran a column by Al Lewis that questioned the need to enact a Right to Work law in Colorado and the reaction has been visceral. Dozens of citizens have taken it upon themselves to teach Mr. Lewis a thing or two about the unfairness of forced unionism. A sample of the reaction:

* . . . I am 72 years old and had been in the work force for 50 years prior to my employment with the City of Boulder and this is the FIRST time that I have ever been in a union. $10.00 a month is deducted from my pay and to me it is a waste of my money. Don’t feel that I get anything for my money. Can’t even write it off on my taxes. A lot of us are part-time employees, so we don’t make that much anyway and I know most of my peers don’t like the fact that we have to pay union dues. . . .

* I work for Qwest Communications. As a condition of employment with the company, (union requirement) I am forced to pay union dues. I do not have to join the union, however.

I am happily NOT a member but still am forced to pay. . . .

* I was surprised you were unable to find people forced to pay union dues. Perhaps not everyone reads the newspaper. Nonetheless, I do and am grateful to be able to vent about my union dues obligation.

The International Association of Machinists Union (IAM), cover flight attendants employed with our major airline. We are REQUIRED to pay union dues. ([O]ur carrier has a policy against talking to the media, but I can tell you we used to have a large base here – until 1995.) There are still approximately 500 to 1,000 flight attendants residing in the Denver area who commute to work either in Houston, Newark or Cleveland (our three remaining hubs) and must pay dues.

We pay Colorado State taxes, so I’m guessing we all would be covered under Amendment 47 – should it pass.

I unwillingly have $44.75 taken out of my pay check every month. Should I request my employer cease from having the dues paid to the union – contractually they are required to fire me.

My opinion of the IAM union is — we are nothing more than a ‘cash cow’ to them. Their representation is feeble or lame at best.

I hope Amendment 47 passes the vote!

Why do union bosses so desperately want to enact the card check scam? The enactment of a state version of the bill in Colorado shows the reason why:

The Denver Post reports:

At least 22,500 secretaries, prison guards and other state employees will soon fall under a union monopoly bargaining contracts following a vote tallied Wednesday, though the majority of eligible workers didn’t cast a ballot [emphasis added.]

With Colorado’s version of the Card Check Scam, less than 25% of the workforce was able to force the other 75% into the union. About 6,900 state workers from a pool of 22,500 who were eligible participated in the election, which gave them a choice between Colorado WINS (a coalition of labor unions who got together to ensure there would be no fighting over the expected revenue stream) or no union representation.