Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Knowledge Messenger

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Amendment 47 - Right to Freeload

by: DavidThi808

Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 07:25:09 AM MDT


Called by it's proponents the "Right to Work" it's more accurate name is the Right to Freeload.

An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning participation in a labor organization as a condition of employment, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting an employer from requiring that a person be a member and pay any moneys to a labor organization or to any other third party in lieu of payment to a labor organization and creating a misdemeanor criminal penalty for a person who violates the provisions of the section.

This would make union dues optional. As it is in every person's interest for all others to pay dues, but for each individual to not pay and get a free ride from the others - this would end union dues and thereby end unions in Colorado.

This initiative was the first shot in attempting to destroy the Colorado Labor Peace Act of 1943.

Further info at Colorado Ballot - The misnamed Right to Work Initiative.
DavidThi808 :: Amendment 47 - Right to Freeload
Arguments Against
To quote the Chamber of Commerce - "Continued support of these initiatives creates an adversarial dynamic between these groups and threatens Colorado's economic peace and vitality," the Chamber said in a statement, adding that the current Labor Peace Act has "served Colorado well for 60 years in allowing for cordial relations between management and labor."

Right to WorkFreeload states do not perform significantly better in wages, economic development or business growth than Colorado.

States with laws like Amendment 47 are often viewed as less worker friendly. Under Amendment 47, employees can avoid paying their fair share for representation to improve wages, health care benefits, and workplace safety because federal law requires that all private-sector employees receive the benefits of collective bargaining, whether they are union members or not. Labor unions with fewer resources are not as effective in standing up for the interests of all employees.

Amendment 47 may define labor union too broadly. By defining labor union to include organizations that provide mutual aid or protection, employers may be banned from requiring employees to belong to organizations that promote workplace safety or provide job-related education programs.

Arguments For
This will enable companies to increase profits by reducing compensation for their employees. In the present difficult economic times, companies need this assistance to improve their bottom line.

States with laws like Amendment 47 are often viewed as more business friendly. Labor laws are a factor that businesses consider when deciding where to relocate or expand. Therefore, the measure may help the state as it competes with other states for new jobs and business investment from companies that wish to pay low wages.

Vote NO! Devastating Impact Vote No
At present the balance between labor and management here in Colorado slightly favors management. Passing this amendment will change that to an overwhelming advantage to management. With no union dues there is no union. In practice this eliminates unions.

Unions are not perfect. But they are a critical counter-balance to the natural impulse of companies to maximize profits at the expense of the employees. This counterbalance benefits all workers, including those in non-union jobs.

In addition, to continue with the incredibly successful Colorado Labor Peace Act of 1943, this (and the other 6 peace act violators) must be defeated.

Update:
If you want to make Ballotpedia a more evenhanded discussion of this initiative click here register, and you can then edit the page.
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Amendment 47 - Right to Freeload | 139 comments
There is a reason that organized crime had a history with Unions....
They have a legal term for forced Union dues; it's call racketeering.  I followed your link....my what an objective "independent" review of the ballot issues.
Do You Work at a Unionized Company?
If not, what are you complaining about? And if you do work at a unionized company, why did you choose to work there? Why should you enforce your opinion on all union workers?  

Matthew
[ Parent ]
I have. You just made my point.
If Unions and their membership "choose" to work there; why should they be able to "enforce" their DUES on me?  Big pockets?  Intimidation?  
[ Parent ]
The Principle of One Man One Vote
One man one vote is not the same thing as one man one veto or one opt out. Sometimes we all have to pay for things we don't want. That's a basic principle of government. Sometimes roads are built that a minority think are a bad idea. Sometimes wars are financed that a minority think are not necessary.

Likewise if you are in the minority at a company that does not want a union but a majority of your coworkers want a union, as my mom would say, "tough tortillas buddy."  You want to stop paying union dues? Convince your co-workers don't go to the rest of us whining about how unfair it is.

Matthew

Matthew

[ Parent ]
Right to Work makes Unions stronger
Being more responsive to your members will mean better results for all members.

Its is sad that government employees have the Right-to-Work, yet our elected leaders want to restrict those same rights for the rest of us.

Even the Boulder Daily Camera supports Amendment 47.

[ Parent ]
In that case let's make taxes optional
Because that will make government more responsive. Come on Libertad - THINK IT THROUGH. It's fine that you don't like unions and want to kill them - but be honest about it.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
The Boulder Daily Comrade, you mean?
No wonder they support the right to mooch.
[ Parent ]
Bob, did Sidney call?
The Denver Chamber has finally backed out of sponsoring "Union Corruption Tour 2008".

The kidney now knows what letters are right: its ABC: A Better Colorado

p.s. Bob your missive drivel-lings are topping my fact based posts today.

[ Parent ]
You have no fact-based posts, Wide Stance boy!
and you misspelled missive.  You meant massive. See the problem when you substitute spell checker for a brain? You also meant it's not its.  Spell check is for wimps!
And, gee, it just may be that my musings led to the meeting that you so desperattely wanted to crash ;-)
Now, get Julian his coffee. Two sugars, one milk.
[ Parent ]
Ewegen channeling lusty larry again
What meeting did I want to crash? Do tell more.
[ Parent ]
Comrade, Boulder, Liberal ... Bob that is beneth you

[ Parent ]
OMG, it's beneth me.
I guess spellcheck doesn't work in headers?
[ Parent ]
Nope spellcheck doesn't work in the header...another opportunity for the coders to add value

[ Parent ]
Here's the trick on spellcheck and heders
I use this on our blog:

Put your headline in the text, just above the text.  spellcheckthe whole thing, then define the hed, delete with control x, then put the cursor in the subject line and hit control v, which puts the deleted heder in the public line. Of course, you will still be subject to the whims of spellcheck saying there is a bare in the woulds, but it's a way around the heder problem.

[ Parent ]
Yes, it was, in the U.S.S.R.
Sometimes we all have to pay for things we don't want. That's a basic principle of government.

The basic principle of the U.S. government was and still is  

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they

are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable Rights, that among these are

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are

instituted among Men, deriving their

just powers from the consent of the governed.

Some men see things as they are, and ask why! ...I dream things that could be and ask,  Why Not !

[ Parent ]
Like the poor 7,000 citizens of Wasilla
paying for a 24k SUV and 50k of redecorating for the new mayor.  

"[McInnis] already appeals to those of us who have half a brain..."  ChenWui
[ Parent ]
Palin, ya gotta love her
There is a clear disconnect union bosses and rank-and-file workers. USW Union Boss Leo Gerard -- who as a Canadian citizen makes over $180,000 to maintain his forced dues funded salary -- loves to berate people about who they should vote for in American elections. Although when it comes to a secret union vote, he proclaims an open card check is the way.

Here is what the USW had to say about member Todd Palins wife:

Presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain, on his 72nd birthday, announced a selection that revealed the depths of his cynicism and the shallowness of his judgment - and his disregard for women's intelligence.

After looking into a pool of vice presidential candidates deep with qualification, he plucked out the least experienced person.

What would Americans think if Jill Biden's workplace or one of her associations came out with a press release stating that ... Obama was a cynic, had shallow judgment and disregarded a man's intelligence by picking the least qualified person Joe Biden?

[ Parent ]
Big what if, Tard
perhaps, however, if it rang true--like this charge does--I'd say the reaction would be about the same. Say what?

What if Elanor Roosevelt could fly?

"[McInnis] already appeals to those of us who have half a brain..."  ChenWui

[ Parent ]
The use of that slang [t**d] is offensive
Boy, didn't your father teach you any respect.

No self respect = no respect for others.

[ Parent ]
Libertad, buddy
Considering some of your vile, hateful posts, I don't think you have any right to call anyone else's offensive.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)
[ Parent ]
Sorry, got my vowels mixed
I meant Turd.

"[McInnis] already appeals to those of us who have half a brain..."  ChenWui
[ Parent ]
Also...
What on earth does whether I work for a Union shop or not have to do with anything?
[ Parent ]
Legislating From Ignorance
Whether a person works at a union shop or not speaks to the source of information. Is it experience or is it rather like the ignorant anti-gun, anti-hunting city dwellers who've never even talked to a gun owner before deciding that all guns should be banned. Or people who want to ban a book without having read it.

How do the majority of union members feel about their unions? Because I think that's a better group to be answering this question than those of us in the general Colorado population who'll never actually be in a union. Why should we ban unions? I think this speaks to freedom. When a majority of workers at a workplace want a union why shouldn't they be allowed to have one? Why does a minority get to outlaw their preference?

Matthew

[ Parent ]
Read Amendment 47 - the right to choose
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

Section 16. Right to work.

(1) THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE "COLORADO RIGHT TO WORK AMENDMENT".

(2)(a) NO PERSON SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, BE REQUIRED TO:
(I) BE A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION; AND
(II) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO A LABOR UNION OR TO ANY CHARITY OR OTHER THIRD PARTY, IN LIEU OF SUCH PAYMENTS.

(2)(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM VOLUNTARILY BELONGING OR VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A LABOR UNION.

(3) ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE MOST STRINGENT MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY LAW.

(4) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNION EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL APPLY TO ANY RENEWAL OR EXTENSION OF ANY EXISTING UNION CONTRACT.

(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 COMPENSATION; 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.

SECTION 2. Effective date. This amendment shall take effect upon proclamation of the vote by the governor.

[ Parent ]
Ritter right on Right-to-Work
Colorado's government workers had the Right to Work solidified by the Governor when he handed them over to the Union [ColoradoWINS].

Now he opposes Right-to-Work for the rest of Colorado?

I think it will be publicly apparent in days. Our Governor must oppose the anti-Colorado Union backed measures targeting small business and support Amendment 47.

[ Parent ]
I'm afraid you are demonstrating your ignorance
This has absolutely nothing to do with banning Unions.  There is nothing in this that prohibits Unions.  
I am trying to understand you logic; are saying that if an employee chooses not to be in a Union they should be subject to termination?  How about for not joining the Fri. morning donut club?  What's the difference?  
If Unions go the way of the Dodo because of this, good riddance, it would be because they didn't add enough value to enough employees.  We are talking about freedom.  You support taking away an employee's Freedom to work at a company because they don't want to pay Union dues, but you want to give Unions the freedom to force through the use of coercion the payment of Union dues.
Given your previous statements I'm guessing you don't so much support Unions as much as you support their FAT checks going to Dem candidates.
[ Parent ]
A Question
This effectively outlaws unions. Just as making taxes voluntary wouldn't explicit outlaw government, but it would have that effect. Who would pay taxes if they were voluntary?

We're taking away the right to freeload in rejecting this amendment.

Matthew

[ Parent ]
for reading impaired Precinct854
(2)(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM VOLUNTARILY BELONGING OR VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A LABOR UNION.

- Amendment 47
[ Parent ]
Read What I Wrote
Not what you think I wrote.

My rhetorical question was, "Who would pay taxes if they were voluntary?"

My position is that if dues are voluntary the union is effectively outlawed just as government would become an infective shadow if taxes were voluntary.  

Matthew

Matthew

[ Parent ]
Princinct admits it, they want to take away rights
We're taking away the right to freeload [sic have a choice] in rejecting this amendment.

They know these rights are fundamental American principles, yet they reject these rights for all Coloradans.

The fat freeloading union bosses [Ernie Duran and Jess Knox] need to gorge on forced union dues to affect one-sided political funding.

Follow the money.

[ Parent ]
Don't tell Harry Reid that taxes aren't voluntary.
I sure hope you don't work in marketing.  Comparing dues to taxes doesn't exactly help your cause.  By your logic then we should only provide welfare programs to the rich because those pesky poor people are just "freeriding."
[ Parent ]
Unions aren't the government.
Unions are not the government, they do not have the authority to demand a contribution, thus comparing dues to taxes is pointless.

OTOH, I think providing welfare (well, social spending) to the rich is actually a great idea, not because the poor people are freeriding but because tying benefits negatively to wages makes it financially disadvantageous to work harder. If taking that slightly better job (without insurance) means losing Medicaid, one would be irrational to take the job. The lack of universality in our social programs is a major problem with our safety net. If unions spent a bit more time worrying about universal health care through state or national government and worrying a little less about the health care provided by the employers, we might be better off right now.

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up." - C.S. Lewis

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't it be easier...
if your real concern is non-dues paying "free riders", to pass legislation (or, heck, even just a union rule) that requires all members to pay dues?  If you don't pay dues, you are not entitled to benefits that result from a union collective bargaining agreement.  You have to negotiate your pay/benefits on your own.

This amendment appears to FORCE all employees to participate in collective bargaining, whether they want to or not.  How does limiting their choices benefit working people?    

[ Parent ]
McQuade has the bottom line ... follow the money
Fat union bosses gorge on forced union dues.

Forced union dues are paid to high government officials (Ritter).

These elected officials provide the union with 60,000 new members from the state. Thank God these workers have the protection of Right-to-Work.

Then we have the Chamber acting as the corrupt proxy of the sole source dealers and the forced union dues crowd. (Post article today). Trying to pay the union to oppose Amendment 47.

Hey person in the Governors office monitoring this ... why do you support newly unionized state workers having the Right to Work, yet you oppose the equal right for RTW for all Coloradans?

[ Parent ]
There You Go Again
"Fat union bosses. . ." That is a blatant and ignorant statement. But, expected from someone who does not care about working families and Colorado.
I notice Mccain is a bit portly, is that from feeding at the K Street lobbyist trough?
The anti-union Mccain and the bush administration really do hate working families.  8 years of destroying unions and the NLRB. 8 years of destroying all hopes and dreams of working families trying improving their lot in America.  We are all worse off for 8 years of Mccain/Bush economics and anti-working families.
After 8 years of Mccain/Bush working to destroy working families; it comes down to Colorado as the final battle ground of working families and the Mccain/Bush anti-union minions.
 Amendment 47 is purely and with only one purpose designed which is to eliminate any support for working men and women.  It is designed purely to make Colorado a minimum wage state without any healthcare.  
Without any doubt the writer of this terrible amendment, Ryan Frazier, does not like working families, of which Aurora is home to many wonderful families working hard to live in this economic climate after 8 years of Mccain/Bush.
This is another attack against hard working people for the profit of a few here in Colorado and many on Wall Street.
This must be defeated to keep Colorado a place where people want to work and companies can hire the best workers from around the country.  

This movie has been rated PG-13 for sci-fi violence and destruction
@pambennettauror
[ Parent ]
No it's not.
It's an attack on the folks that have ordained themselves the representatives of hard working people, and often have lost sight of that mission.

See: Teacher's Unions.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

[ Parent ]
And...
They have ordained themselves to the point where they are trying to legislate away a freaking secret ballot.

Nobody can (with a straight face) tell me that moving away from a secret ballot enhances the democratic process.

If you want people to vote for a union, make it worth voting for in their eyes, not yours.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

[ Parent ]
You are confusing two points, lb.
The right to freeload issue is very different than the card check/secret ballot issue. I have to admit I think card check is overreaching. I'd rather have the NLRB start putting some of the lawbreakers like WalMart in jail for unfair labor practices and deliberate flouting of immigration laws than push the card-check thing.  So let me assure you, when you vote for a union shop, you have the right to do so by secret ballot under the Colorado labor Peace Act.
[ Parent ]
Teachers Unions
funding political resistance to school reform for decades.

What do we have ... DPS 30%+ drop out rate and 50%+ rate for minorities.

[ Parent ]
Worse
30% minority graduation rate.

It's a disgrace.  Thank you Mike Merrifield.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

[ Parent ]
Teachers Unions are a large part of the problem with schools
But they are not the source. The source is voters who elect school boards that bend over for the teacher's unions. We as the voters bear ultimate responsibility.

Also, saying you should eliminate unions because one union is terrible and others are imperfect is like saying lets eliminate all banks because of the problems on Wall St. right now.

Unions perform a very necessary function - and I say that as the president of a company.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
Let's be honest about the teacher's unions...
Yes, many of them are standing in the way of reforms that they see as threatening their bargaining strength.

However, so long as teachers receive the comparatively low pay that they do, and are continually buying school supplies with the contents of their own wallets, perhaps the teachers have a right to feel they need unions to advocate for them.

And in the end, that lack of pay and the lack of supplies still comes back to the taxpayer - not because we elect school board members who hew too closely to the union line, but because we aren't doing a good enough job of providing for our childrens' future.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
Well...
The source is voters who elect school boards that bend over for the teacher's unions. We as the voters bear ultimate responsibility.

How is a non-union candidate supposed to compete with union-financed candidates that wage brutal campaigns on anyone that dares to oppose them?

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

[ Parent ]
LB have you ever heard of Michelle Rhee?
I think you would really like her. She's the chancellor of Washington DC schools, and she scares the shit out of the teachers union.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/...

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

[ Parent ]
No, but I like her already.
Thanks for the link.  DC schools are the worst dollar-per-graduation district in the country, if I'm not mistaken.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  
[ Parent ]
I didn't say it was easy
But are you going to give up the good fight just because it's difficult? Besides, when't the last time there was even a credible slate of reformers running for any school board anywhere here in Colorado.

No one's trying.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
I would say
Jared Polis was someone tried his best with what he had.

He pissed off a lot of Democrats by trying to work with conservatives on the education issue, but he saw that the approach that the establishment was using wasn't working.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

[ Parent ]
Very fair point
and one of the reasons I support Jared

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
Employees have choices
If a majority of workers at a workplace want to be part of a union and their employer doesn't want to be a union employer, why don't the employees

a) go to work for a union shop

or

b) take the risk and open a union shop

[ Parent ]
Why can't they just stay where they are?
Your argument is as absurd as the people in New Orleans had the entire country to live in they should have moved.
[ Parent ]
They don't own the company
Why should they have the right to decide how somebody else's business should be run?

BTW, I don't support right to work, but I also don't support giving employees the right to decide how somebody else's business should be run.  

[ Parent ]
What?!
You do understand that Union Bosses elbow their way into companies right?  The Unions are trying to tell business who they can and cannot employ.  Thank you for opposing it; but your logic needs some work.
[ Parent ]
Read the National Labor Relations Act, MG.

[ Parent ]
The Employees are not excluded ......
Employees are part of the business.  They are not expendable parts. Being wrong is not "moderate" and being "moderate" is not ok when the country is on the extreme path we have taken.  

"Labor is superior to capital because labor precedes capital"
- Abraham Lincoln

"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as 'right to work.' It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights... Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone... Whenever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote."

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[ Parent ]
It makes you a moocher
If you take the union benefits, including wages that average more than $9,000 a year more than nonunion jobs, and don't pay your share of the cost. If you disagree, lend me your car keys. I didn't pay for your car but I want to drive it to California.  Of course, I'd let you pay for the gas.
[ Parent ]
Your analogy is unintelligible
Are you the same folks that say that we should tax the rich more?  
Let's take the example of a newly hired employee working in at a company that has a Union.  He/She makes $15/hr; he/she has a spouse; is the major bread winner; and two children.  He needs all of the income that is left over after our favorite Uncle takes his share.  
Now we have an employee that has seniority and is making $25/hr.  Isn't it fair for that employee to pay the dues and not the lower paid employee?
I don't know you at all, but I would guess you are not nearly as passionate about the labor issues themselves as much as you are about the $$$$$$ that comes from them.
[ Parent ]
So, you're in favor of the right to mooch?
I'm borrowing your car this weekend, make sure you have it filled with gas.  It's my turn to be a free rider.
[ Parent ]
I don't understand
Is your "theory of moochment" based solely on the fact that nobody but union negotiators would be able to negotiate fair wages and benefits for any workers?

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  
[ Parent ]
It's based on federal law.
Unions are designated as the "exclusive bargaining agent." That means they must negotiate wages and benefits for all members of the bargaining unit, dues paying members and moochers alike. Workers who pay those dues or, if they  prefer, lower agency fees (which cover the cost of negotiations but not political activity) get the same benefits as the moochers who enjoy those benefits without paying for them.
It's not "my theory," it's the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
On average, union workers earn more than $9,000 a year more than non-union workers, so I think that shows what happens if individual workers just trust to the good intentions of Wal-Mart.  By your theory, I shouldn't have to pay the share of federal taxes that go to the pentagon if I don't want too _ a theory seriously proposed by leftist imbeciles and which I fiercely reject.
[ Parent ]
C'mon...
You can't really be ignorant of the argument by this point.

  • Unions fight for worker rights - higher pay, better benefits, greater safety.
  • Unions collect a fee that goes toward the work they do, including the pay of negotiators etc..
  • Workers will receive the benefits of the union's work regardless of their union status; this comes from (a) knowing other workers' pay and (b) the desire of the company to keep employee HR relatively standard and easy to administer.
Therefore, all workers at a union shop should pay the negotiating fees charged by the unions because all workers at the shop are receiving the benefits of the union negotiator.

Anything less is, as the diary title and Bob quite simply point out, freeloading.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
Not ignorant
Just in disagreement that the need for the current union structure (especially the teachers unions) needs to exist.

I think a reformation is in order.  Too much politics, not enough activity associated with their original function, especially in certain areas.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

[ Parent ]
Two points for you Bob
First, you have now quoted the $9K more in compensation twice.  You must think it is important, and you have probably done some homework on it. So as a dollar amount how much of that $9K goes to Union Dues?

Second, your second attempt at the car to California fell about as flat as your first.I am going to try to relate my point using your example.  You have three pieces: 1.) The car 2.) The gas 3.) the trip.  

Fair?  

Alright, let's apply this to our discussion.  Let's call the car wages that come from a company in return for a service.  Let's call the gas needed the Union dues.  And finally the trip is the opportunity to work.  The car is the most expensive part of the equation in terms of capital to acquire.  The gas comes next and finally the intangible is the trip.  Intangible because we can drive to CA from Denver via Grand Junction or via Spokane.  
If we are to reverse your scenario and you were offering me a car and all I had to do was pay for gas to get to CA, I'd take that deal any day and I would go through Grand Junction to save money.  If you were going to give me the car and the gas; I wouldn't give a rat's ass how much gas it took to get there.  I might even go through Toledo.  

But if you were going to give me the car and I would have to use part of the car's value to pay for gas.  I might not be able to afford that and not be able to go to CA.  Now if I need to get to CA to support my family this is a problem.  As others have alluded to even if I need to get to CA to support my family; I do have the choice to go somewhere else to support them.  
My question is if I used my talent/knowledge/strength/innovation to get the Car(Job) why in the hell can't I go wherever I damn well please.
I apologize for being verbose, but you're the one with the preposterous analogy.

[ Parent ]
Don't worry about being verbose, Loon Woof McCain.
Nobody reads your posts anyway;-) The exact figure, IIRC, is that union workers average $9,131 a year more than non-union workers.  How much of that goes to dues?  Probably about $600 a year in most cases. In the specific case of public employees, SEIU/CAPE charges just $15 a month, $180 a year. But since wages for state employees are set by a salary survey and their jobs are anchored by civil service rules, unions can't really do much for them.
So, have your car gassed and ready for me. I didn't pay for it but I have a right to ride and if you can be a free rider, I can be a free rider.  I hope it's got an automatic, we free riders don't like to do our share at anything!
[ Parent ]
I am not even sure that YOU
have anything to do with anything, Loon Woof!
[ Parent ]
Vote No.
Even though this is all Bill Ritter's fault for allowing/encouraging 32000 state employees to unionize, it is still stupid.
The Colorado Labor Peace Act has worked well. WHy mess with it?
It's all Bill Owens fault...
...for issuing an executive order that Bill Ritter then had to undo with his executive order. And you are 1,000,000% right with

The Colorado Labor Peace Act has worked well. WHy mess with it?


My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
Forced Union Dues = Political Corruption
The Unions get handed 60,000+ state workers to unionize under Right-to-Work rules by Governor Ritter.

Now Unions and Ritter oppose Right-to-Work (Amendment 47) for the rest of Colorado?

Something smells like a fat union bosses ... gorging on forced union dues.

[ Parent ]
So, are you trying to say...
...that State workers are being forced to join the union and are having dues taken from their paychecks?
[ Parent ]
State workers have the Right to Work
according to Bob Ewegen, it is in the constitution and was further reinforced by the Governor when he took away the union security clause.

Shouldn't the rest of Colorado enjoy the choice of RTW and Amendment 47?

[ Parent ]
It's actually civil service rules in the constitution that
provide job security, libertine, but that wide stance of yours makes it hard to understand fine points, doesn't it?
[ Parent ]
Can't answer a simple question, eh?
Duly noted.  
[ Parent ]
No union security clause from Ritter = Right to Work
YES on 47 for choice.
[ Parent ]
There You Go Again
". . . fat union bosses. . ." That is an ignorant statement. You do need to improve your strawman vocabulary.  
You seem to be stuck on fat, try "fat cat" company owners, or huge CEO pay, or outrageous "golden parachute" for destroying a company and firing non-union employees.

This movie has been rated PG-13 for sci-fi violence and destruction
@pambennettauror
[ Parent ]
Owens is as responsible for this mess…..
...as Kennedy was for Vietnam.  He was doing what seemed appropriate at the time.

This conflagration sits squarely on the lap of our current Governor and the Legislators that wrote and passed HB 1072.  That was like using a tactical nuclear warhead against protesters throwing rocks.  
I find it hilarious David that you come out against the Pro-Labor initiatives because they affect you and your company directly.

Hypocrite.  

I'll add you to the long list of people who could care less about the labor issues as long and the green keep rolling in.  

You are pretty transparent.

[ Parent ]
a Pro-Labor initiative
that labor hates.  That's a new McCainian twist of logic.

"[McInnis] already appeals to those of us who have half a brain..."  ChenWui
[ Parent ]
So your point is...
When Owens did something it was appropiate.

When Ritter un-did it it was a nuclear attack.

Gee, you're not biased are you?

And how is it hypocratic to say all 7 initiatives are a disaster? They are. The Colorado Labor Peace Act has done a good job for 66 years and we shouldn't throw it out because Jonathan Coors decided to get 47 on the ballot.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
Ritter was right.......
There was nothing stupid about it.  Joining a union is a RIGHT. Employees should be allowed to join unions in most cases. The Colorado Peace Act is a union busting law, nothing more and nothing less, so in that regard it has "worked well". Why not have two elections for State representatives with a super majority vote?  It would "work well" to ensure the person with the most money won every time, huh?  But oh yeah, that is the same purpose for RTW laws and that "peace act"law, to stack the deck in favor of the wealthy.  
[ Parent ]
constitutional amendment
vote no
We'll quote you on that when we get to SAFE

[ Parent ]
ahhhh, constitutional amendment of a different ilk
SAFE is a measure that has every right to be constitutional since it is aimed at fixing part of the fiscal mess we are in because of other crazy constitutional amendments passed.

It may seem like splitting hairs to some, but my reasoning is 90% of initiated measures Coloradans vote on shoot for constitutional amendments because they are just as easy to place on the ballot and are guaranteed to stay there (whether they should or not).

[ Parent ]
CAR31, there you go again believing your the authority in deciding who has what rights, what should be in the Constitution, and what deserves to be voted on by the people
According to Ewegen state workers have the Right-to-Work via Colorado's constitution.

Shouldn't the rest of Colorado have the Right-to-Work via the Constitution too?

Or at the very least ... the right to a secret vote on it ... per the Constitution?

dahhhhhhhhh. I'm guessing you're fumbling through Ernie Duran's talking points right about now.

[ Parent ]
I'm not the authority
I'm the decider!

Just kidding.

IMO the CO Constitution is jacked up. A constitutional amendment to help fix it is worthy and a constitutional amendment about unions isn't.

[ Parent ]
We need to have a vote on a Constitutional Convention, SAFE and Right to Work
...and a whole lot more until the CC corrects the LT issue.
[ Parent ]
Place you bets here...
Libertine will post +/- 30 posts on this thread today.

I am going with 27.


"[McInnis] already appeals to those of us who have half a brain..."  ChenWui

21

[ Parent ]
I'll try to keep it to 10, but it will be a tough slug with the worker anti-choice crowd here at Pols
Right to Work - its fair, sustainable, tested and simple. People get to choose.

Kinda like real employee free choice. Just ask Union Udall about your right to a secret ballot. He and Obama has promised to take away.

[ Parent ]
I'm going with zero posts by libertine
but then, I only count the intelligent ones.;-)
[ Parent ]
Hey, at least he is 100% on topic here :)
[ Parent ]
Ewegen
Did Sidney get word to you about the meet up?
How's that wide stance thing working out for you, Libertine?

[ Parent ]
Ewegen enjoys "channeling sessions" with Lusty Larry
Surprised Sidney didn't clue you in on the meeting. Did you talk to Sidney about the letters? Call the kidney from Devonshire.

Have you asked the Governor how he can support and promote Right to Work for some Coloradans, but be opposed to it for all Coloradans?

[ Parent ]
Ewegen still stradling the fence with Ritter?
Have you asked the Governor how he can support and promote Right to Work for some Coloradans, but be opposed to it for all Coloradans?

As the Governor he is interested in EcoDev, right?

How is he doing with his Union buddies on those hostages they proclaim to have holed up?
http://www.denverpost.com/sear...

[ Parent ]
Don't base vote on bad statistics
Unions are quick to point out that states without RtW have higher GDP and wages. Relying on mere correlations is usually problematic. Unfortunately, they don't mention that this gap is actually because of educational attainment differences or because of union membership itself, NOT whether or not the state has RtW laws.

I repeat, passing Right To Work will have no impact on our economy one way or another. It will however give workers the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union, which seems like it should be a fundamental right. Forcing someone to join a union as a condition of employment violates our right to assemble because that right implies the right not to assemble. That the survival of unions in their current form is claimed to rely on coercion is probably a good sign that their current structure is misguided.

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up." - C.S. Lewis

By the way, Bondo
I'm going to park my boat in your garage. I won't pay rent, of course, but you are on record approving of free riders, so I'm sure you won't mind.  
[ Parent ]
Bob
All it's going to do is make the Unions work for their political piggy bank, instead of legislating its filling through employee paychecks.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  
[ Parent ]
Why are unions different than other interest groups?
The solution to the free-rider problem isn't to coerce those who don't want to pay, it is to provide incentive so that they DO want to pay. Every other public (and special, though much of what unions fight for counts as public) interest group has to provide something to its members so that they'll join, such as the AAA providing tow service, why should unions have a special right to force people to pay, using access to jobs as leverage?

BTW, your boat->garage analogy was just dumb, that isn't an example of free-riding, it is an example of violating my property rights.

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up." - C.S. Lewis

[ Parent ]
If we want to have a debate
about union reform, that is one thing.

But can't we have that debate BEFORE completely destroying Colorado unions?

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

[ Parent ]
Rumors of Unions Demise Greatly Exaggerated
The effect of unions in promoting greater wages exists even when controlling for Right to Work (which has no independent effect). What this means is that Right To Work does not destroy unions. Unions are able to achieve benefits for workers just fine without coercive rules. The fact that there is less unionization in RtW states has more to do with the industries that operate in those states relative to high unionization states (that are not RtW).

Ultimately, if we want to help GDP, wages, worker safety, etc, the best thing we could do is to fix our education system (which is not broken for a lack of unions).

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up." - C.S. Lewis

[ Parent ]
Making Unions acountable to their members is called ... accountability
grab Webster's and thumb to ac-
[ Parent ]
Government workers have the right to work
yet their numbers seem to increase year over year. How has RTW destroyed membership in this sector? I don't see it.
[ Parent ]
The right to mooch is the right to mooch, Bondo.
If you can be a free rider, I can be a free rider.  Clean out your garage, my Chris-craft will be there Saturday. (OK, I ain't got no stinkin Chris Craft, but clean it out anyway, it needs it.)
[ Parent ]
The right to work people remind me of the tale
of the little red hen.
They don't negotiate the contract, but they get the wages, have the job security, and even have the grievance procedures. I once had a free rider who was fired by the company ask me to get his job back.
I pointed out that federal law did require the union to represent him but not me, personally. I also noted that, while it req
[ Parent ]
cont.
while it required us to represent him, it didn't require us to WIN. Funny thing is, we lost the moocher's case.
I cried all night;-)
[ Parent ]
Slow down bob...
You're starting to respond to yourself too much - reminds me of AS... :)

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878
[ Parent ]
Somehow, I broke in the middle
of that post. But, hey, AS is my evil twin!
[ Parent ]
You don't seem to understand the free rider problem.
Again, your garage example is NOT an example of the free rider problem. Due to property rights I can prevent you from using my garage. Where a good can be excluded, it will not suffer from the free rider problem. The free rider problem that RtW would entail exists because by law, and to some degree by the nature of collective bargaining, the benefits of that bargaining is not excludable.

FWIW, I do not have a garage and I am not a free rider...I pay ACLU dues voluntarily even though I would benefit from their  efforts to protect our rights without giving them money. Well, to be sure, we all free ride on something, I theoretically benefit from the NRA's efforts to protect gun rights without being a member. It is my right to free ride on these public interest groups. And it is their duty, if they want to succeed, to convince people not to free ride. Just as it should be the duty of unions to convince workers not to free ride.

Finally, as a younger person trying to break into the working world, I'm less concerned about job security and more concerned about excessive job security preventing job opportunities from opening up where I might be more effective or cheaper than the person currently holding it. I'm not one to bash France carelessly, but they do have massive unemployment and it is because of excessively strong unions and job security.

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up." - C.S. Lewis

[ Parent ]
David
Your story isn't even close to being fair.

How about this for a compromise.....
Why can't these union shops charge their customers, and pay their employees, based on whether they are union or not?
In other words, say a carpenter shop goes union. But several employees say they don't want to pay union dues or accept union representation. Why can't they be paid at a pay rate somewhat less than their union conterparts?
And as such the employer can charge the employees labor at a lower rate to their customer?

Kinda like when we have to work at a government job. We have to charge Davis-Bacon wages. But only the guys actually working there get to collect those wages.

Why can't the employee make up his/her own mind on whether or not he/she wants the supposedly better pay along with having to pay the dues? Why should they be FORCED to pay or leave?

It is really a bullshit proposal. What if slightly more than 1/2 of the guys at my work decided to start a union shop. I have been here for going on 24 years. Why should I either have to join and pay their extortion fees, or quit.

Legalized strong arm tactics that Colorado does not need. There are better ways to solve this.

NoBama .... NoBamaCare either

We make you pay taxes
And those taxes we made you pay went to pay Bill Clinton's salary for 8 years. I'm pretty sure you would prefer that you were not paying for that.

When a company implements a health plan for it's workers, it impacts your pay at the company because the more a company pays for insurance, the less they can pay in salary. Now you may not like the fancy plan they got, and the lower pay you got - but medical plans come in one size fits all (occasionally a choice of 2) - that's the only option a company has to purchase.

When the employees elect by a majority to be represented by a union - same thing. Because a union doesn't work when it represents some, just as medical coverage doesn't.

You live in a Democracy and sometimes your vote is in the majority, and sometimes it isn't. But it sure beats any other system.

ps - welcome back.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
Limits of Democracy
I agree, one of the things about democracy is that if you are in the minority, you will have to accept your loses until you can win a majority. But not every institution should be democratic. I certainly know that in the classroom, a majority of my students would have been likely to vote that they all get As and do no work, but that would lead to disastrous results. It is very important that the military is not a democratic institution. I don't understand why we should assume that a workplace should be a democracy.

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up." - C.S. Lewis
[ Parent ]
How about the students, union members
who work and pay their dues get the As.
The slackers, cheaters and free riders fail.
Sounds good to me, Bondage man.
[ Parent ]
Not a workplace, but those wo represent the employees - yes
Keep in mind a union does not run the workplace, they are an agent for the workers. The negotiate the contract the workers work under. The business then runs the workplace within the constraints of the contract.

In most cases where you have a union, individual workers have virtually no power vs-a-vis the company. Only in total do they have the ability to exert some pressure. Therefore, they must band together in a union to succeed.

Now, for the group representing the workers - what methond other than democracy would you suggest? I think when selecting who represents them, it has to be a democratic system.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
Good to have you back, Gecko!
I've missed the glazier/philosopher. You keep us rooted in the real world whether or not we agree with you.
as to your question:
Why can't (non union employees) be paid at a pay rate somewhat less than their union conterparts? And as such the employer can charge the employees labor at a lower rate to their customer?
   The answer is that the 1935 National Labor Relations Act says that if a majority of employees vote to form union, that union is the exlcusive bargaining agent and must negotiate for all members of the bargaining unit, union members and non members alike. The base pay and benefits, job security, grievance procedures, and all else are identical, by federal mandate.
  Unions negotiate minimum wages per category and I used to get paid well above that, before I was demoted to management and had to leave the union. In theory, a management could decide to pay union members more than the minimum and non-union members the minimum, but don't hold your breath. That would probably open employers up to a lawsuit and, if they won, they would have handed the union an immense advantage. As a general rule, enlightened managements live with unions, but they don't love them.
Hope you're doing ok, I've missed your posts.
[ Parent ]
Thanks for your insight Bob
Every single day you do a great job explaining this issue to us laypeople.

It's so much more complicated than the folks who are pushing 47 make it out to be.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

[ Parent ]
Aww, shucks, Ma'm
twarn't nuthin.
[ Parent ]
More like nuthin but Ernie Durans talking points
Hey Bobby,

Maybe, just maybe we should pay BASED ON PERFORMANCE.

Sidney call with the news yet?

[ Parent ]
If you were paid by your performance
you'd starve to death!
[ Parent ]
Bob I school and outwork the anti YES on Amendment 47 crowd every day
Why do you have so much hate in your heart for me?
[ Parent ]
If
by out-work, you mean out-copy and out-paste, then you are correct.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)
[ Parent ]
Dry your tears, Libertad
Nobody hates you, but you are fighting way, way, out of your weight class. For one thing, you've denied being paid to blog here, then when you lead with your chin and talk about being paid for performance, I joke that if you were paid by your performance you'd starve to death...and you respond by saying how hard you work.
Uhh, doesn't that mean you are being paid to blog, by Julian or somebody like that?
But get real, you're using shaky talking points and repeated (and discredited) shibboleths to debate an issue in which I happen to have a masters degree, while others here have years of experience dealing with actual union issues.  You're trying to gtraft an alien anti-union agenda on a state law that is all-but-right to work, an bonehead plan condemned by the mainstream business community, and you think your pathetic cut and paste stuff will change our minds? I come here for information, to trade gossip, and actually learn things.  Squelching you is easy and fun.
When you actually mention your own views, as opposed to somebody's tired talking points, as you did the other day about fdr and the depression, you can actually join a dialogue. But shilling for RTW on this board is like taking on an Abrams tank with a pea shooter, one filled with boiled peas at that.
[ Parent ]
Bob, my RTW passion is the principle of choice and a personal situation of management-shop steward abuse of a worker
its the accountability of it ... so when the business liability amendment comes up I would hope David posts the specific language we are voting on. As you might guess based on its flavor I'll probably like it.
[ Parent ]
The language of the anti-business amendments is simple:
All business in Colorado is hereby ordered to leave within 24 hours and move to Wyoming, where the government hasn't been taken over by anti-business zealots.
[ Parent ]
WY has Right to Work
This whole ballot and your opposition is an abortion on the peoples choice.

At the end of the day Ritter needs to come clean and correct his mistakes. If not the governments tax base will erode on his watch.

Great job Bill, hell of a Colorado Promise you have delivered.

[ Parent ]
So, the answer is to destroy business in Colorado root and branch?
Great idea, Libertine!
First thing we do, let's fire all the shills.  
[ Parent ]
Hey Bob
Did Joe Blake and the Gov call you for your $ commitment. Word is they want to get $6m from the business community, hand it over to the unions to oppose 47, 49, 54. Then the unions take their $6m they were going to spend on opposition and plow it into local races and Obama.

You in for $100-500k?

Oh that's right, the 4th estate is lives in its own little corporate word. How many reporters did you layoff today?

[ Parent ]
None.
How many shills did Julian lay off?
[ Parent ]
?
dont know his business or his relationship to YES on 47 committee.

Your the reporter, go ask him yourself, its your job.

[ Parent ]
I agree with David the name is flawed
It should be named FREEDOM to Work
Because unions stop you from working today?
Wow - I wasn't aware of that. Can you give us a link or two showing how unions presently stop people from working?

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
Why don't you scroll up to look at...
Not exactly...ModerateGal's post about choices.  Hang your hat on that one!
[ Parent ]
Still not seeing it
But a link showing where a union stopped people from working to back up your assertion will be sufficient...

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
Seriously underestimated Libertine's cut & paste abilities
He's already in the double digits by 11 AM.  I'm revising my estimate upwards to 39 posts by 6 PM.  Will he say anything new?  No.

"[McInnis] already appeals to those of us who have half a brain..."  ChenWui
I hope Libertine's shill contract
includes medical care for repetitive motion syndrome. Probably not, because he is probably not a member of the United Brotherhood of Shills. But surely Julian Cole will pay for his health care out of the goodness of his heart...
[ Parent ]
I think Libertad has been fine in this diary
Yes he's been posting like crazy - this is what he/she lives for. But they've been on-topic and speaking to the comment he/she is replying to.

I still totally disagree with him/her, but that doesn't mean his/her post's are off-topic.

And yes there's a lot of repitition, but there are only 3 or 4 lame talking points in faor of Right To Freeload.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
David's right
When it comes to any topic even remotely close to Amendment 47, Libertad can post all he wants.

Maybe it will get it out of his system enough that he'll cut it out on threads that are unrelated to this issue.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

[ Parent ]
Right to Work for Less Union Corruption
Union's have until early October to pull their union and job busting measures. How is the Governor coming on that front?

Get the TUMS out girls, gut check time is early October.

[ Parent ]
Please, please, please tell your boss
to pull 47 if the unions will pull their 4 initiatives. That would be a wonderful solution and we would then all sing your praises and thank you.

As to the unions pulling their 4 and leaving 47 on the ballot - even you should understand that that would be a dumb move.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
Libertad has been busy recruiting other shills
jjgittes registered sept. 5.
Bondo registered today, sept. 17
Long Wolf McQuaid registered Sept. 16.
  And they say that being a shill is a lonely job;-)
Did jonathan give all you interns the same talking points, or are some of you using Julian's?
 And you wonder why your arguments don't impress anybody.
Thanks Bob!
I wish!  If you know of a way I can get paid for this please do tell.  I am going to be up all night catching up from all the time I "spent with my new friends today."  

I graciously accept your name calling and will wear it as a badge of honor.  You truly have a daziling intellect.  

I really don't work for Jonathan Coors, but if you think they are watching you, who am I to say they aren't.

[ Parent ]
ditto fat man

[ Parent ]
Amendment 47 - Right to Freeload | 139 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?



Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com

Active Users
Currently 23 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search

Colorado Pols Network


Jeffco Pols
  More >

Denver Pols
  More >

















RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Terms of Use/Privacy Policy



Pols Posting Policies



The Pols "Mailbag"

Mailbag #1



Relevant Links

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

Ultimate Politics

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Western Democrat



 
Colorado Pols is wholly owned by www.ColoradoPols.com, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com
Powered by: SoapBlox