11 comments

• 

  thegrunt

  9 months ago

  Union Bosses promote ballot box terror on Colorado citizen's
  
  YES on 47, 49, and 54 to curb inside dealing sole source Corporations and their Union partners.
  reply
• 

  knuckledraggingguard

  9 months ago

  NO on 47,49,54 to curb corrupt business bosses and thier anti-union flunkies
  reply
• 

  thegrunt

  9 months ago

  Union Bosses promote ballot box terror on Colorado citizen's; politicians and "businessmen" work to fund a reward for the ballot terror.
  
  YES on 47, 49, and 54 to curb inside dealing sole source Corporations and their Union partners.
  reply
• 

  tallport

  9 months ago

  When duly elected union officials leave office, they do not take golden parachutes with them. Your bitter attacks on labor epitomize why labor management relations is strained in this State. Your contempt for democracy in the workplace is obvious, but organized labor will continue to fight for their right to expand. No on 47, 49 and 54.
  reply
• 

  thegrunt

  9 months ago

  Try real employee free choice in the workplace, that is Amendment 47.
  
  Tim Allport represents the private sector Union Bosses, too lazy to work hard for their members.
  
  Tim look at ColoradoWINS. State workers have the Right to Work and ColoradoWINS has been very successful.
  reply
• 

  knuckledraggingguard

  8 months ago

  Just so you know, Colorado WINS is not a supporter of ammendment 47. At least thats what I get at our meetings. As a matter of fact many of us are telling all of our family and friends not to vote for it. Thank You for noticing that we are successful, its been alot of hard work. we are just starting to get the ball rolling. We will get better the more we organize.
  reply
• 

  tallport

  8 months ago

  Unions represent free choice by giving employees a legal voice as opposed to no voice at all grunt. 47 weakens the voice of firefighters, law enforcement officers and other employees all over the State. Your comment about WINS is ignorant. Private sector laws are often different that the public sector.
  reply
• 

  KennyHall

  8 months ago

  The simple fact is that Amendment 47 is a solution looking for a problem. If someone doesn't like Unions and doesn't want to belong to a Union, they should not apply for a job at a Union shop. If you don't like heights, don't apply for a job as a window washer at the Empire State Building. If you don't like the water, don't apply for a job as a fisherman on a commercial fishing boat.
  
  The fact is that every job applicant is confronted with many, many conditions of employment that they must agree to before they get a job. Fill the little cup, sign a form allowing the employer to look into your financial records, cut your hair, pay for uniforms etc... or you can't have the job. Why would it be a problem for the applicant to say "I don't like unions and won't belong to one" and go down the road to look for a non-union job? Well, because the union job generally pays better, and has better benefits and working conditions BECAUSE the employees voted, democratically and under federal supervision, to collectively bargain with the employer.
  
  There is no need to pass a prohibition on closed shops... they are agreements that the employer and employees have reached together. There is no legal standing for a third party to insert itself into the relationship and demand immunity from that agreement. If you are diametrically opposed to unions don't go to a Union shop, demand the pay and benefits and then claim you shouldn't have to contribute to the organization that made the pay and benefits so attractive. Stand your moral high-ground and find an employer who will not make you agree to a condition of employment that you find repugnant.
  reply
• 

  Kenny

  8 months ago

  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".
  reply
• 

  RICKDAY

  8 months ago

  Not only Our history but the history of the world IS Labor History.
  Have none of these morons ever read anything the bible or the national inquirer?
  When Unions were strong in this country (Hell, in any country) that country flourished. You don't have to take my word for it; read any history book. Before Labor Unions People worked every day, seven days a week. They worked at least twelve hours each day. Oh, If they had children, they didn't have to worry about day care. They could bring the young ones to work... as long as the kiddies could produce like an adult.
  But if the girls-brought to work by the parents- were old enough (say, nine or older) they could hang out with the boss all day. BEHIND CLOSED DOORS! Women would never be hired unless they had offspring old enough to share the load of the mother. If a mother was pregnant, that bitch had better not take off a day to give birth; when she returned another woman, with a cute young daughter, would have taken her place.
  I know, without a doubt, that there are some who might think that I’m making this up or exaggerating. I ONLY WISH THAT I WERE.
  This, not only happened right here in the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave”, IT WAS THE NORM, NOT THE EXCEPTION.
  Yet, when people finally banned together to protest the inhumanity of the sweat shops, the mills, the foundries, the amber waves of grain. The owners and bosses, the hot shot business men of the day, (the republican contingent)
  Ordered the police, Who they controlled to shoot to kill. Women and children, fathers and mother were beaten and jailed. They were prosecuted on charges that they could never understand, partly because they had actually broken NO law, but mostly because they were always kept ignorant.
  School was only for the rich mans kids.
  I never pass the opportunity to thank a veteran for their sacrifice to make my country free. By the same token YOU should never, ever pass up the opportunity to thank a union member for putting his/her life on the line in the struggle for workers rights.
  It’s because of us that you have an eight hour work day, a weekend, holidays off, overtime pay, healthcare, a minimum wage; for that matter any rights what so ever in the work place.
  But if you still are willing to be led around by the nose by corporate America you rally to your feeble little hearts content for the “right to work” for a third of what you’re working for now. Kiss goodbye your eight hour day, your 401k your benefits (all of them).
  Will your children give up all their high tech toys, school, playtime, weekends, sports, family time to work their butts off from daylight to dark? Seven days a week?
  
  Oh by the way: Keep your replies to yourself. You cannot shock me. I’ve heard all the asinine dribble possible from the narrow minded yahoos of your planet!
  reply
• 

  Jacob T.

  8 months ago

  Interesting history less from RICKDAY. I am sure glad the bad ol' days when labor unions were actually needed is long, long gone. Today, almost every employee in this country has paid vacation, paid holidays, works a 40 hour week (or gets overtime bonus if beyond 40), health insurance that covers even basic medication and doctors visits. Almost every employer pays greater than minimum wage and provides all these benefits, because they compete for employees. The market dictates that they pay well and provide benefits. Unions have become irrelevant.
  
  Unions are like terrorists in that they can incite fanaticism for no reason (like religious zealots who condemn all other faiths), and they also use fear and extortion tactics. They used fear in telling us firefighters and policemen will die if Amendments 47, 49 pass. Then, they sponsored the "poison pill" amendments (to punish both businesses and employees in Colorado). The unions, then withdrew the poison pills for pledges of money to fight Amendment 47. Sounds like clear and simple extortion. Sounds like terrorism to me.
  reply