Ryan Frazier Attacked in Cable Ad

I'm sure he has a completely legitimate explanation

I don't know which is more offensive: his obvious corruption, or his sheer stupidity in having 20 employees of the company he sold his vote to sent THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT of contributions.

This guy SHOULD be the poster child for "Right to Work." He deserves to be summarily fired.  

"Why not do the right thing for the American people, even though it's not exactly what we want." - Speaker Boehner

---

by: Half Glass Full @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:00:22 PM UTC

Shared Prosperity

---

by: Libertad @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:12:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

She has the right to work..

....anywhere she wants to.  Including a non-union (i.e., usually lower paying) job.

Another freeloader wanting the benefits and to not pay for them.  

"Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth." Paul Krugman, 9/2010

---

by: parsingreality @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 14:32:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh yeah

Companies have the right to negotiate a closed or open shop.

Parsing sings for Hoffa and compromising fat cat corporate interests!

What say you about the rights of the worker, her right to choose, her right to not affiliate?

Therefore, are we to assume you support employers taking $50-100 monthly from all employees paychecks to fund the costs of their personnel departments and use the extra cash to fund their political activities?

---

by: Libertad @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 14:58:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Inactive Teamsters Local #435

Organized labor built the middle class.  Thank organized labor for the defined work week, over time pay, health benefits, pensions, women and minorities getting a fairer shake in the worlkplace, mine safety (until the Bush administration), and workplace safety, OSHA.  The latter has decreased work place deaths 25% since it started.  Anything wrong with that?  Anything wrong with anything on my list?  You are probably one willing to reap the benefits w/o paying the dues, literally or through govenment policies and taxes.  

The girl said her dues would be $30, not $50-100.

She is free to work (for less) anywhere she damned well chooses.  Allegedly the father says that the union wasn't willing to accept the collective bargaining fees in leiu of dues.  If that is the case, the union is wrong.

If capital can organize to hire expensive lobbyists, why not labor?  I'm sure business has many, many times the lobbyists that labor does.

What have you got against people getting compensated fairly for their labors?  

"Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth." Paul Krugman, 9/2010

---

by: parsingreality @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 17:14:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope

What have you got against people getting compensated fairly for their labors? Nothing, its her paycheck and she should have the choice to join the union, join the United Way program, or the companies 401k. You sir appear to have an issue with her protecting her paycheck.

She is free to work (for less) anywhere she damned well chooses.  Allegedly the father says that the union wasn't willing to accept the collective bargaining fees in leiu of dues.  If that is the case, the union is wrong. There you are - she is free to work anywhere - inferring she should work elsewhere 'for less' and that she should be let go by management for not joining the union. She applied and was hired by the store - her boss is the store manager, not the union organizer.

If capital can organize to hire expensive lobbyists, why not labor?  I'm sure business has many, many times the lobbyists that labor does. Both ownership and labor can; more then that it is the millions of dollars that flow into 527s, etc... It is disgusting and is the new coruption of our campaign finance reforms (Mccain-Finegold).

Some will say it doesn't matter. They are wrong it does matter.

This is an employee choice issue. Allowing a third party to take your earnings and support political efforts would be like taking your money and supporting a religious organization that aligns with their cause.

It is un-american.

---

by: Libertad @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 20:27:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Read the Initiative

 

(5) As used in this section, "labor union" means any organization of any kind, or agency or employee representation committee or organization, that exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of work, other conditions of employment, or other forms of cmpensation; any organization that exists for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning grievances; and any organization providing other mutual aid or protection in connection with employment.
 

This is the most severe section of the anti-worker initiative.  This prohibits any and all representation of any kind or type to the employee when dealing with your employer.  It prohibits you from going online to look up comparable wages when you are thinking of asking for a raise.  It prohibits you from filing EEOC claims.  If you are falsly accused of an action by a co-worker you are not allowed to ask a lawyer for help.

The national organization along with a local business owner are funding this travesty and horrible attack on all employees in any business in this state.  That is ALL employees.  They are making sure the anti-union part is emphasized so nobody actually reads the whole inititiative.  This is another TABOR which will reduce all employees to minimum wage and no benefits.

Read the whole documment at the SoS website. Don't just rely on those wanting to destroy our working families words.  Read it for yourself.  The words "ANY" are in there to completely preclude you as an employee have help when asking for a raise, dealing with any situation in your workplace, or having a tyrant boss always hitting up on you.  The wording in Section 5 prevents you from seeking legal help.

In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority. Edmund Burke

10/26/11 Colorado Ex-Pat; S/V Sisu Catalina 30

---

by: Pam Bennett @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 21:33:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One more point

Section (5) has nothing to do with unions.  Frazier wrote that section defining "labor unions" in his own way.  His way is not the definition of unions.  Notice it is in quotes. There is nothing about labor associations or common.  
This section is purely to prevent any employee in any company from having any help when dealing with the employer.
Do not be fooled by him defining anything that is even remotely associated with employees as a union.  It is his way of creating a definition that does not exist.

In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority. Edmund Burke

10/26/11 Colorado Ex-Pat; S/V Sisu Catalina 30

---

by: Pam Bennett @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 21:51:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"It's her paycheck."

Come on, are you a fool or something?  We live in a complex society of giving and taking.  We are taxed, we as voters have approved doing so.  

Albertson's and the union have a contract.  If you don't want to abide by that contract, go find another job where you aren't leeching off of those paying their dues.

Frankly, when I hear opinions like yours, all I can think of is a whining kid taking his football home.  The word self-centered also comes to mind.

So, how many labor created benefits did you use this week?  

"Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth." Paul Krugman, 9/2010

---

by: parsingreality @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 21:51:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So what you are saying essentially

is that if you don't want the money you work for to be taken from you and used for political purposes you don't agree with, say the Democratic Party, you don't have the right to work where you choose, only where there is no union influence, and at lesser wages.

Is that the essence of your argument, that in order to make a living you have to give to the Democratic Party?  Because that's where the majority of the union dues go.  And as to the "So, how many labor created benefits did you use this week?" question, what have they done that is remotely beneficial lately?  Using the same logic, (I'm gonna get heat for this) every time a black person votes Democratic, they are dismissing the sacrifices of those who fought against slavery, namely Republicans.

Forcing someone to join and give money to an organization that support political causes with which one disagrees is no different than paying them in script that is only good at the "company store" and forcing them to live in the "company town".  If the only people who have the right to a living wage, vacation time and medical benefits are those who pay union dues, then the union members are the only ones who have any rights and the rest of us are then second class workers.  Is that what you are saying the way it should be?

---

by: cologeek @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 00:09:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Welcome to second class worker status

You hit the nail on the head.

It was the unions over many decades that brought you the "living wage, vacation time and medical benefits."  Just because it was then, and not now, doesn't negate how the unions have benefited you.

You really don't get it.  You can pay union dues, and generally get a better income.  Or find a job where you don't pay, and don't get the benefits.  Second class citizenship is your choice.

Since folks like you that don't want to carry the weight of the benefits you get, what's wrong with the policy of paying a fee for collective bargaining?  None of your money goes where you don't want it to, but you can reap the benefits of speaking with one voice.

BTW, there's a reason the majority of union members have historically voted for Dems.  Until the Reagan years you just would not find many R's in union jobs.  They're the bankers, remember?  

"Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth." Paul Krugman, 9/2010

---

by: parsingreality @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:25:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whine

Maybe you and Pam can run a ballot item that says employers with unions must offer another benefit set to those that aren't in the union. Then the employer could choose to screw the unaffiliated employee as you suggest. This would logically lead to the unaffiliated joining the union. Your problem solved, kind of.

Your real problem is that you are a blog-tooting thug for union hall.

Sir, you have no logical basis to avoid the issue of choice, yet you disavow your true beliefs when union hall calls to say 'hey this is bad and Democrat political funding will be crippled'.

End of the day the funding will not decline much if at all...

Based on this theory all right to work states would only have republican elected officials.

Your wrong and a fear monger. You dump the issue of the individual, individual rights and choice.

Shame on you and Pam.

---

by: Libertad @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 00:25:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Principle of Majority Rule...

Nobody is "forced to join a union".  But If they choose to work in a union shop and not become a member then the union can and should charge agency fees.  That is a union security clause. Why are millions of people required to pay dues to homeowners associations?  Often they do not use the pool or clubhouse, but if they choose to live where they do, they must pay, right?  They should pay when they getting the service, so they cannot opt out, same principle.  

Dues money cannot be used for direct "political" donations.That is the LAW, but union bashers always miss that fact.  Most attacks on labor are for purely political reasons.  Unions like business and other organizations have every right and reason to get involved in politics and they normally support the people and party who support them, so what?  Get over it. The question to ask is where is the balance of influence on government?  It is sure not with labor. Corporate influence on public policy is pervasive.  That does mean it is always bad, but such influence should swing both ways to promote the common interest.  We union members intend to keep making that critical point.  That is what these battles are about.    

And, of course union workers (front line employees) have higher pay, benefits, pensions and job security than non-members.  Most of our opponents even concede that fact.  People jobs are a critical part of their lives and well being, so when democracy is removed from the workplace, it is removed from society. Joining a union is a right, not a privilege.  A country that defines itself on democratic principles should lead by example, but this country condones union busting as a matter routine. It needs to stop.  

---

by: tallport @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:40:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unions are the oppressed

Yeah, right.
A few informed responses

Nobody is "forced to join a union".
According to the National Labor Relations Board, 5,233 complaints filed against unions in 2005 (82% of all filed) were for "illegal restraint and coercion of employees".  In other words some sort of threat was involved.  There was a time that this sort of activity was called extortion.

Dues money cannot be used for direct "political" donations.  
The question to ask is where is the balance of influence on government?  It is sure not with labor.
And yet in 2004 $925,000,000 was spent by unions for political purposes. Eight out of ten of the top political contributors are unions.  No one denies that unions have as much right as anyone else to support political causes, but when 95% of that money goes to support Democrats and 38% of the union member vote went to George Bush, you have to wonder how much they truly "represent" their members.  Add the fact that upwards of 67% of union members are unaware that they have the right to withhold mandatory dues for politics you have to wonder how much of that money spent was voluntarily given.

Joining a union is a right, not a privilege.
Remaining free of union dominance should also be a right.  Every person who wants to join a union should be allowed.  Every person who doesn't should be free from threats and coercion, both subtle and overt.

A country that defines itself on democratic principles should lead by example, but this country condones union busting as a matter routine.
There are many laws on the federal books  protecting the rights of workers to organize and strike.  No one has used physical violence on strikers in my lifetime, and there are laws in place to prevent it.  "Union busting" hasn't existed for over 50 years, with the possible exception of PATCO, who were Federal employee's engaged in an illegal strike.

Unions are hardly an endangered institution.  They are finding new venues of revenue in the public and service sectors.  But unions have also earned for themselves a reputation for corruption and unfair practices that many Americans don't want any part of.  I am thankful for what unions were, and what they have done, but I want nothing of what they are now.

---

by: cologeek @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 18:09:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cross check

You do not need a security guard  or a billy club to bust a union. According to "American Rights at Work",  30% of employers fire pro union workers".  82% bring in law firms to drive the organizers out and 91% call mandatory meetings with employees to "persuade" then not to join unions, ect. This research is confirmed by independent researchers.  Joining a union is a right by law and in my opinion.  If CEOs and business owners can live under contracts then why not employees?  The laws to protect collective bargaining have been transformed into mincemeat and need to be reformed.  Yes, unions give a lot of PAC money to their friends (that is what this whole issue is really about)  but no where near as much as corporations. Do you want to count official lobbyist monies? I hope you know better than that. Unfair labor charges against employers FAR outnumber charges against unions.  
I have never had a charge filed against me in 23 years.  You said, "Add the fact that upwards of 67% of union members are unaware that they have the right to withhold mandatory dues for politics you have to wonder how much of that money spent was voluntarily given"  I am not sure how you are coming up with one Geek.   You must be on "Union "facts". Again, union DUES are not used for political donations.  Those who give PAC money know it goes to pro-labor candidates so what?    

---

by: tallport @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:19:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So...

If a union worker pays $50/Mo. in mandatory dues, none of that money will find its way to a political contribution?

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 13:20:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correct ....

Correct. That is based on the Supreme court Beck decision, which is no problem with labor. That is the law. Again, if somebody in a union shop (based on majority vote) chooses not to join a union, they can opt for agency fees, but most people choose to join.    

---

by: tallport @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 22:57:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting

Where are the ads for the other 10 yes votes.  This vote was 11-0.  Oh that's right, this is union speak....

---

by: guesswho @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 19:04:48 PM UTC

Did they all get contributions as well?

---

by: Tyler Chafee @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 19:15:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who paid for the ad...

Tyler?

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 19:53:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Protect Colorado's Future"

More: http://www.denverpost.com/head...

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 20:06:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obviously SEIU

The Post says Mark Grueskin is an attorney for "Protect Colorado's Future." He's also SEIU's lobbyist at the statehouse.

Pols is obviously SEIU's soapbox. The only time they frontpage inside baseball at the municipal level is when they shill for SEIU concerns. Paul "Labor" Lopez, anyone?

Does Jeffco know that a Polster and SEIU operative is running for county commissioner?

---

by: blue too @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 20:43:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why Does that Matter?

Even if unions are asking the questions, he is a public official and as such has to abide by certain laws.  He may not have.  

And even if no laws were broken, but simply actions taken whose motivation was not entirely pure (i.e. because the firm sent Frazier money, not because they were the best firm for the job), the voters of Aurora should know.

The person asking the question is irrelevant.  Even so, it is an Aurora resident asking for the records.

---

by: vercingetrix @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 20:09:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Innocent, come clean

Look, he is hiding his records.  If he is clean, he should prove it.  The fact is the way the contributions came in, 15 employees sending the exact amount the day Frazier recommended them for the contract?  Then five more a few days after the vote?

Its not just the recommendation for an out of state firm, or the vote.  It is the appearance of impropriety.  Frazier knows it looks bad, so he should realize that in order to clear up any concerns about corruption, he should see to it that the open source records requested are released.

That is, unless he has something to hide.  Again, these are open source records, so he has no excuse not to have the proper authorities release them.

---

by: vercingetrix @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 20:03:55 PM UTC

Holy background noise

Could anyone make any sense of what the narrator was speed talking about above all the background noise? Sheesh.  

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 20:04:55 PM UTC

Yeah its a bad ad

very amatuerish

---

by: Danny the Red (hair) @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 20:09:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cute ad

Frazier scares the hell out of Big Labor and the Dems, seeing that he is a legitimate contender to be a Republican leader in this state, is articulate, intelligent, etc.

I'd be desperate too if I were the Unions, seeing that 90% of this state is non-union, and really has no legitimate reason to go Union.

Ahhh, hardball politics

May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather-Jack Burton

---

by: Ben Stein's $$ @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 20:33:53 PM UTC

Nonsense .....

If people could freely join unions without their jobs being threatened their numbers would easily double, but that would mean fixing broken law.  This union busting work for less garbage is a solely designed to cripple unions, but I know it is easier to state that people have "no reason to join".   Give people the option to join without putting unions in the cross hairs and see what happens!   But of course that would mean democracy for all. Remember that idea?

---

by: tallport @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:44:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If people

could refuse to join unions without their persons being threatened, that would be more democratic. Infinitely more so than the "card checking" that unions want to replace the private vote with.  But I guess that being able to cast a ballot without having to inform the union which way you voted isn't your idea of democracy.

---

by: cologeek @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 17:09:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Employee Free Choice Act

The nation's history and many current practices allow voice votes and other open votes.  Signing a membership card is a vote.  Although the EFCA only provides that option.  It does NOT eliminate a secret ballot contrary to what our opponents like to claim. Check your facts.  People choose not to join unions all the time without a problem.  On the other hand, all too often people get fired for joining unions and in some cases for even suggesting the idea.  Is that what you call "freedom"?  That is why the Employee Free Choice is needed.  Surely, you do not believe that union membership in this country would only be 12% if people could join unions as they wish?  If you believe that, you are off the chart, way off.  

---

by: tallport @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:59:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Surely, you do not believe that union membership in this country would only be 12% if people could join unions as they wish?

What percentage do you think want to be unionized?  25%, 50%, 80%?  If there was an overwhelming demand by Americans to join a union, they couldn't be stopped.  The fact is, that most Americans don't view unions favorably.  They have earned a reputation for corruption that they are unlikely to overcome anytime soon.

---

by: cologeek @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 18:56:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree Geek...

I disagree that a majority of Americans view unions unfavorably, but that varies according to regions, ect. I work in a very conservative place and most people choose to join the union. (they are allowed to freely) But people are stopped from forming and joining unions all the time. Look at the outrage from the right wing here in Denver over minor changes by the Ritter Administration.  What percentage do I think would join?  That is a fair question.  I would state that the private sector would equal the numbers in the public sector at least.  That is the best yardstick.  That is about 33% as you may know.  80%, no way and no reason in today's market in my view, but that is not really my concern.  My concern is that people be allowed to join unions.  Most CEOs and business owners live by contracts so employees should have the same option like they do in Europe, Canada, ect. Unions are not perfect, but are no more corrupt on average than businesses, no way.  But our arguably our opponents have effectively painted us as such.  

---

by: tallport @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:31:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where are your dues?

---

by: Libertad @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:39:32 AM UTC

Try again....

You could find more cases of corporate crime, but that does not make most businesses bad does it?   This ad is more of the same, lumping the few into one and attacking for purely political reasons. Unions bring needed balance and that is what really bothers you.

---

by: tallport @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:36:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Typical NEO-CON

Ryan Frazier is a typical disingenuous Neo-Con WEASEL who is only looking to pad his pockets via his political affiliations.  Ryan has deceived the voters of Aurora for too long by running as a non-affiliated candidate, since then he has claimed the Republican party and he's starting to act and do what many neo-con Republicans do..take money for favors..get in bed with lobbyist..create spin to deflect the truth...suppressing accountability.  It's pretty obvious he is a Rovian disciple.  I know the Republican party believe they have an up and coming star that they can parade around the country, however, he needs to do some due diligence and have a long talk with J.C. Watts before pursuing his political aspirations.    

---

by: WEASELWATCH @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:38:43 AM UTC