-
Website
http://coloradoindependent.com -
Original page
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/3596/right-to-work-initiative-certified-for-ballot/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- John Andrews’ strange, clueless ‘Coloradan of the Year’ column
- Report of ‘secret’ immigration detention centers raises rights concerns
- Stimulus funds aimed at rural areas dumped into metro regions
- Freshman Year, the gay marriage episode: Polis versus Chaffetz
- The pro-government anti-capitalist anti-American worldwide science hoax
GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
U.A.W. == U Ain't Workin'
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?
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?
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?
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?
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" ....