DISQUS

jenny · 1 year ago

It's great to see our firefighters and police officers and other public servants working together to defeat these amendments. They give some great examples of real-life reasons we need to defeat 47, 49, and 54 this year.

thegrunt · 1 year ago

State workers have Right to Work and we haven't seen any restrictions on their ability to organize. If fact its made them stronger.

YES on 47 for real employee free choice.

thegrunt · 1 year ago

YES on 54 too. Stop the source sole inside dealers from ruining the ability of government workers to select the best solutions in a competitive environment.

You know if the Denver chamber opposes it ... its gotta be the right thing for our smaller businesses that are the backbone of Colorado.

Gunnery_Sargeant_ Hartmann · 1 year ago

What does this interview have to do with amendment 54? Erin Rosa once again is carrying the water for Jess Knox and Protect Colorado's Future by lumping all of these initiatives together.

I am tired of the empty rhetoric, lies, and scare tactics that groups like Protect Colorado's Future are using to scare voters. Amendment 54 doesn't stop police and fire departments getting equipment that they need to provide their services.

Amendment 54 stops government contractors from scamming the taxpayers by making political contributions to politicians in exchange for the no-bid contract. It also creates a website so taxpayers can see where their tax dollars are being spent.

In fact, with the money that will be saved to the taxpayers when Amendment 54 passes, police and fire departments may be able to get more of the supplies that they need to protect us from harm.

In short, this is a sensible, pro-taxpayer amendment to stop the corruption between contractors and politicians and create transparency.

Check amendment 54 for yourself, visit their website http://cleangovernmentcolorado.com

VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 54 TO CLEAN UP GOVERNMENT, STOP CORRUPTION, AND BRING ABOUT TRANSPARENCY!

ErinRosa · 1 year ago

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the claims you make simply aren't supported by facts or evidence.

Amendment 54 reduces the political voice of labor unions and employee groups, and the veteran public servants I talked to in the story believe that it would affect their ability to lobby their employers for better safety equipment--two servants, who by the way, are doing all of their political work against 54 without a dime coming from Protect Colorado's Future.

To this day I have not seen one police officer or firefighter actually speak out in support of Amendment 54, 49 or 47. Why would they be for 54? It bans what political contributions both they and even their mother-in-laws can make. And that fact can even be found at the "clean government" site you link to.

I've always found it interesting that the Amendment 54 campaign claims to be about government transparency, when it won't even truly disclose where the more than $1.5 million in anonymous campaign funds used to bankroll the initiative came from.

They're not about transparency. If you read the text you'll see that it is a simple attempt to quash the political contributions from unions that may be favorable to political causes that certain special interests in the state don't like.

There are already numerous conflict-of-interest laws that already address contractor issues. For more information on that, just see the case of former Colorado corrections director Nolin Renfrow and how he got a state contract for the GEO Group.

If you have any actual facts or testimonials as to why Amendment 54 would help public servants bargain for safer equipment, I would of course, be happy to hear it. No money from Amendment 54 would go to safety equipment for public servants, and any insinuation that it would is simply wrong.

Thanks for reading.

Jan Michel · 1 year ago

I love the way you research your answers, using the grumbler's own quoted website. Keep up the good work, Erin.

Kenny · 1 year ago

54 is yet another way that anti-union forces attempt to deceive the public by advancing a good idea (reducing influece of sole source contractors) with anti-union ploys attached. The hope is that most people will weigh the positive impact of the legislation and, as they may not feel impacted by it, ignore the anti-union language. This is an attempt to limit the ability of working people to have a voice in the political process that all other organizations, like business or trade groups, enjoy.

This is just a cynical attempt to destroy unions by those who would benefit by that destruction.

Vote NO and let them re-run the amendment without the anti-union language.

Jacob T. · 1 year ago

I am sorely disappointed in anyone that would restrict the right of any worker to choose who they associate with and how to spend their hard earned salary. I read an earlier quote from Heinemann stating that Amendment 47 would restrict how he spends his hard earned money. Just the opposite. Amendment 47 gives choice and freedom, where today there is none for many workers.

I absolutely support Amendment 47, as it offers the freedom to support a union if you wish or refrain from financial support of a union if you feel they are not earning their keep! Yes on 47!

richard myers · 1 year ago

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/

RagsII · 11 months ago

I was glad to see my Uncle Rick Reigenborn getting his voice out about Ammendment 47, I just moved from Las Vegas Nv. Where they are a "right to work state." It is extremely hard to make a living there, the casinos bring in tons of money but pay barely minimum wage to their employees. Ammendment 47 would have ruined Coloradans lives.