Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Knowledge Messenger

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Amendment 49 - Eliminate Public Employee Unions

by: DavidThi808

Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:00:08 AM MDT


In 2001 Governor Bill Owens signed an executive order prohibiting government agencies in Colorado from using payroll deductions for unions. In 2007 Governor Bill Ritter signed an executive order essentially undoing Bill Owens order.

Call by it's proponents the "Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions" Initiative, this amendment will place in the constitution a rule similar to Bill Owens' prohibition of payroll deductions. The purpose of prohibiting the deductions is to eliminate union representation for public sector employees.

Further info at Colorado Ballot - The misnamed Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions Initiative
DavidThi808 :: Amendment 49 - Eliminate Public Employee Unions
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."

Amendment 49 interferes with the authority of local governments to decide which paycheck deductions are available to their employees. These decisions are best made by individual local governments based on the needs of each community, not by a statewide vote. Payroll deductions are a benefit that public employers can offer to employees; eliminating this benefit does not save any taxpayer money.

Arguments For
Amendment 49 reduces the potential for conflicts of interest that can occur when elected officials permit the use of government payroll systems to collect money for politically active groups, such as labor or professional organizations. These groups contribute to campaigns and lobby elected officials.

Vote NO! Vote NO! Vote No
Did you notice any change in labor/management relations with public employee unions before and after 2001? Any difference before and after 2007? No? I didn't either.

This is an attempt to reduce the power of the unions pure & simple. And creating conflict, where before there was peace, is blowback that the sponsors of this initiative are willing to accept. All for something that has made no noticeable difference.

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.

Ballotpedia
If you want to make Ballotpedia a more evenhanded discussion (it's presently very pro 49) of this initiative click here register, and you can then edit the page.
Poll
My vote on Amentment 49
Yes
No
Undecided

Results

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Amendment 49 - Eliminate Public Employee Unions | 45 comments
Gov. Ritter's E/O was intended to "open dialogue between management and labor for Public Employees"
Isn't he the CEO of the state?  YES

Can't he simply have an open door policy?  YES

Why does he need to allow Hoffa in?  $$$

Would there be a danger in Public employees striking?  YES

Did Democratic legislators vote against an amendment to HB 1189 that would prohibit them to do so?  YES

Was it the E/O a payback for vetoing HB1072?  YES

Yes that's what Ritter needs
That he negotiates with the employees one by one as each drops by to talk to him. That'll work, no problem...

For someone who espouses free-market views, you don't seem to have a very good grasp on how a business operates. A union is an efficient way to have the employees jointly negotiate with management. Yes there are downsides to that and yes unions have problems including corruption - but all that is true of most any system.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
Free-Market
If unions are so efficient for both employer and employees, then they would succeed even without being advantaged by statute.

I think as long as unions can endorse candidates and give campaign contributions, they should not get special treatment under the law. If they step back and can only advocate issues politically, then they could perhaps be justified in their special status.

"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 ]
You addressed the two, and conceded corruption
What about the rest?
[ Parent ]
Everyone's corrupt
Yes there's corrpution in unions. It also exists in government and in business - as most recently illustrated in the Dept of the Interior partying.

You seem to say if one approach is not perfect, then we have to go with your proposal. The thing is, your proposal is even less perfect.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
How many employees do you have?
If Unions are so "efficient" why not invite them into your company.  It may help the bottom line.  What do you think?
[ Parent ]
They're welcome to try
High tech companies tend to not work for unions because employees are not fungible while on a manufacturing line or construction site they by and large are.

But if a union rep wants to come by and talk to everyone they're welcome to do so. I'll do anything I can to make everyone here happy because that's how I get productivity. So if they want a union, why would I fight it?

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
Striking state employees
They could, I guess, but state law forbids it and they did so they would be subject to fines and the union that encourages it disbarred. Pretty risky, if you ask me.
[ Parent ]
LWM gets it right
These are the facts.
[ Parent ]
Need To Know More
My understanding is that most things that involve payroll deductions have tax implications. As far as I know the kind of deductions this initiative limits do not have tax implications. As such, why should these dues go through the payroll system rather than being ponied up by union members once they get a paycheck? I think it is reasonable to keep everything that does not have tax implications out of the payroll system.

Second, one of the concerns here is default status. It is one thing to default payment into a pension program and force someone to opt out, it is entirely another to consider payment of union dues to be the default. It seems like another trick by unions (particularly teachers unions in this case) to induce membership for reasons other than an individual wanting to be in the union.

On the other hand, if you change the default status wrt unions, I think I could overlook the first concern. If people really want payroll deductions going to things they support, I can live with that, even if there are no tax implications.

P.S. I don't see how "Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions" is misleading. That is precisely what it does. Your version casts judgment on whether those limitations are a good thing or not, but there is nothing particularly inaccurate about the title.

"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

Let's let Bob get involved…
How much are Colo. Public Employees paid compared to surrounding states?

Come on Bob it's ok; you can tell 'em.

If i recall, Colorado has the 9th highest
pay scale for the 50 states.  That is no accident, since Colorado has the 8th highest level of Private Sector pay.  By state law, wages for state employees are set by a salary survey--if you drive a truck for C-Dot you're supposed to get the same pay a truck driver doing similar work for a private paving company gets, etc. The system isn't perfect namely because they survey wages throughout 2008 for state wages in 2009, hence there is a time lag.  I could go into more detail but essentially, that time lag indicates the law is working exactly as it is intended to work and keeping state employee pay roughly comparable with similar jobs in the private sector.
 By the tone of your post, Loan Shark, I get the idea that you think I support public sector unionism. Actually, the explanation I just gave about how state employee pay is determined, coupled with the enormous (and excessive) job protection afforded by the Civil Service system, makes unions an unnecessary "second bite of the apple" in the state public sector (as well as most cities like Denver that have career service or civil service systems.)
In the private sector, unions are the middle class's first, and increasingly only, line of defense.  But the fact that Amendment 47, the Right to Mooch off your brother's labor, stinks to high heaven does not in itself make amendment 49 a bad thing.
 Gov. Ritter's order opening the doors to public sector unionism disturbed the balance of power. If you've read my columns about how the campaign finance law lets unions contribute $4,000 in dues money to legislative candidates while private citizens like thee and I can only contribute $400, you can understand why the practice of using public employee dues to elect legislators that decide  the non-wage benefits of those same employees, like health care, poses serious issues for the balance of power in state government.
  Vote not only no on 47, vote hell no.
  On 49, I'm undecided, but leaning for.
[ Parent ]
What I would like to see...
...is for the legislature to address the issues that 49 & 54 are trying to address. As you say, there are issues there. But fixing them by amending the constitution using wording written by the Independence Institute - not the way to do this.

If we have the legislature step up and try to come up with a good solution, then I think we'll get something that is more balanced and more effective.

And if that then fails to get all the votes needed, it can then be placed on the ballot. This is what Romanoff did with SAFE and because of that process, it's a well thought out proposal (convoluted only because TABOR forces that).

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
54 sucks rotten eggs, David, it deserves death.
But the problem with asking the legislature to reform the problem 49 tries to address is that this legislature was elected (a majority anyway) with the help of the very campaign finance law fed by union dues that 49 perpetuates. A republican legislature would, of course, write into law the Owens executive order that Ritter rescinded, but
Ritter would veto such a reform.  Generally, I favor the legislative arena to resolve public policy issues, but I am always a little skeptical of the Fox's claim that he is the one best suited to guard the henhouse because of his deep love for the hens.
[ Parent ]
Do Away With Direct Democracy
I definitely agree with the principle here. The process we have decided on in Colorado, letting voters (read special interests) put things to the vote rather than tasking our representatives to deal with the issues we elect them to deal with is getting us into all worlds of hurt.

The general public just isn't qualified for detailed policy analysis. It would be irrational for everyone to spend enough time to be qualified. Division of labor makes things more efficient, and in the political world, that means leaving decisions up to our elected representatives, providing them with the guidance of basic goals and principles upon which to act.

"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 ]
So should Public employees be able to "freeload"?
On the backs of good Union Dues paying workers here in Colo.  
If Colo. Public employees are 9th in the country based on overall wages being 8th.  (I would assume you think that is at least a small result of collective bargaining) How could you possibly oppose Public Sector Unionism.  Based on your repeated assertion Wed. that those who enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining should pay for it through dues.
As I said Wed. I don't think you really care one way or another on Unions; I think what you really care about is the money that comes from them.
[ Parent ]
Take a course in reading comprehension, Loan Shark.
Then, read my exlanationof the salary survey and civil service system.  You are dumb beyond belief to claim that those benefits result from collective bargaining when there IS no collective bargaining in the state system at this time.

The only thing dumber than that is your eructation: "As I said Wed. I don't think you really care one way or another on Unions; I think what you really care about is the money that comes from them."
 I write a post that frowns on public sector unionism precisely because I fear the impact of public sector dues being used to buy political influence because they can contribute $4000 per candidate while business and ordinary citizens can contribute only $400 -- and blast me for supporting the dues collections that I'm trying to avoid?
Boy are you dumb!

[ Parent ]
Why are Private Jobs 8th Bob?

[ Parent ]
Colorado ranks high in job pay because we aren't right to work!
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that an average worker in the 22 states with right-to-work laws earns about
$7,131 a year less than workers in free bargaining states ($30,656
versus $37,787). Nationwide, union members earn $9,308 a year more
than non-union workers, $41,652 versus $32,344.  
Boy, did you lead with your chin on that one!
[ Parent ]
Leading my chin..
..and ignoring me at the same time.

Huh.  I like you Bob.

And you keep dancing.  Where are the Union workers?  Big companies or small?  Urban or rural areas?

[ Parent ]
Correlation != Causation
Bob, you are factually correct, but that doesn't mean the implications are correct. The reason RtW states have lower wages is because there are large differences in educational attainment between the two sets of states. A proper statistician controls for other factors that might cause the outcome, and running this sort of multivariate analysis shows that RtW has no independent effect on wages. It is mostly about education and somewhat about unions (but the role of unions is not dependent on not having RtW).

I certainly agree that unions help with wages, but see no specific evidence that RtW will change this. However, much of the gap between union workers and non-union workers probably has much to do with the industries that are more likely to unionize pay more than those that don't, regardless of unionization.

"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 ]
You're right, of course,Bondo
but I love to yank the chain of ideologues who claim that jobs are being created faster in right to work states than in free bargaining states. Like the fact that wages are higher in free bargaining states, that fact is, currently, true but irrelevant.  Both elements are largely irrelevant to RTW. And, in any case, Colorado today is very close to a right to work state because of the CLPA, so, in reality, adding that final insult to unions would have little if any actual impact on our econonmy for good or ill. I'll concede that fact if you will.
[ Parent ]
Quite
Yes, I concede that Right To Work will have no particular positive impact on the economy either. The reason I mildly support it is that given no evidence that it will cause a drastic change either way, it seems better to not force people to join unions to get a job unless they want to. In fact, this is a principle I might be willing to abandon if I saw solid evidence that RtW did greatly diminish anything.

"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 ]
I would add onto this on the issue of wages
Colorado may be 9th, but our cost of living is higher here than in many states, so it's not that unreasonable that state employees are paid above the average.

On the other hand, the benefits are near the bottom of the range, in terms of both cost and features, so in some ways it balances out the higher than average pay.

On the issue of a year's lag between the total compensation survey, two points:
1. The total compensation survey is only a recommendation that the General Assembly and governor are free to ignore. They haven't paid what the survey recommended in at least several years, in both wages and benefits.
2. In the fiscal crisis of the early 2000s, the salary survey was frozen for a year; no raises given. Subsequent state law was passed to ensure that the gap would NEVER be made up. So there's more than a year's lag behind the private sector; I seem to recall a survey commissioned by one of the unions and done by a former department of personnel official that showed state employees were about $70 million behind the private sector. That was about three years ago.

[ Parent ]
There are also offsetting errors
that raise state wages above the private sector:
1-The salary survey doesn't include rural Colorado, where wages are generally lower than in urban areas.
2-The survey covers only big businesses, which average higher wages than small businesses.
It's not perfect, but it has kept our state wages competitive with the private sector, just as the law intends.  And that, to me, is a strong argument against letting public employees form unions to achieve collective bargaining benefits on top of that. Ritter claims he has no such intention, but if you really think 7,000 state employees have joined a union to meet and talk about how they can improve productivity for the taxpayers, I have a bridge in Alaska that I'll be glad to sell you.
[ Parent ]
Fred Astaire = Bob
That was some serious tap-dancing Bob.  

Now, answer my question!

[ Parent ]
Dumb=Loan Shark
I will ignore all future posts from you since you are too dumb to even understand when peopole are on your side.
[ Parent ]
I am politely asking you to reconcile your thoughts from Wed. and your comments today.
Amid your name calling and tap-dancing.
[ Parent ]
You're not polite
and you were too dumb to even underestand that I was essentially arguing your side. Go back under your bridge.
[ Parent ]
I didn't accept your offer...
...for that bridge in Alaska.  I would rather have you POLITELY asnswer my questions.
[ Parent ]
Sorry,
I don't know enough one and two syllable words that would explain the operation of the state personnel system at a level where you could understand it.  And this absolutely the last keystroke I will waste on you.
[ Parent ]
Does the $9K more in avg salary..
..for Union workers that you sited numerous times Wed. have anything to do with Colo. ranking 8th?

[ Parent ]
Good points
I'd forgotten about the rural issue as it relates to salaries, but then that also is offset to some degree by the issue of benefits. The state has struggled mightily at times to even provide health insurance, which it must do in every one of Colorado's 63 (I think) counties since there are state employees in every county.  
[ Parent ]
PS, about the unions
I'm with on the issue of why state employees joined the unions. It never was about "being able to talk to management and have a place at the table." A bigger line of bs I never saw.
[ Parent ]
Being able to talk to management
to represent their interests - which is a very legit thing for workers to do. I never said it was so they could improve the state.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
Bob, oh Bob!
Is the Colorado Constitution so slender that we need to bulk it up with this kind of crap?  Do we really need a constitutional freakin' amendment to dictate what can and cannot be deducted from state employees' salaries?

The executive order did precious little, it was a bone thrown to the unions.  They can't negotiate salaries, benefits, leave, or other financial issues; those are governed by the Civil Service Amendment and the State Personnel Act.  The unions can negotiate things like shifts and days off.

When I worked for the state (as an exempt employee), most of the classified employees I knew were indifferent or hostile to the unions.  These were office workers, though, who didn't work in positions that were traditional union jobs.  I predicted at the time that the executive order would make only the tiniest ripples in the Force, and haven't heard anything to make me think differently.

Forgive the rant.  I just think that this payroll deduction thing is such a non-issue, and it would be ridiculous to put this in the state constitution.  

[ Parent ]
Just Vote No
On everything but 59 and O.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)
Just vote YES on 47 and 49
Union uses state a forced dues collecting bagman

All Coloradans should have real employee free choice.

When the Boulder Daily Camera and CoS Gazette endorses Amendment 47 you know you have it right.

[ Parent ]
You know, its funny...
...that nobody is forcing me to join the Union or taking $'s out of my paycheck.  Seems to me like I already have a free choice whether I join or not.

So, the state is not acting as any kind of "forced dues bagman".

But, I'm sure that fact will go right over your little troll head.

[ Parent ]
So you work for the State, a state employee?

[ Parent ]
we need an amendment stating clearly the
...difference between "its" and "it's."
and your or you're
and their or they're
and this/that/these/those or these ones/those ones
[ Parent ]
Not to mention
the distinction between shills and trolls.
[ Parent ]
and who could forget
who vs. whom.

or would that be "whom could forget?"

Argh!!!  :)


Michael Bennet is the new Abraham Lincoln.
- Sharon Hanson

[ Parent ]
Denver Chamber Supports A-49 Paycheck Protection
David I noticed on your website that you had the Denver Chamber mislabeled.

The Denver Chamber, like many other Chambers support's Jon Caldera's Amendment 49.

Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
Action 22 Business Sub-committee
Alliance for Worker Freedom
Association of Builders and Contractors
Colorado Contractors Association
Colorado Farm Bureau
Colorado Health Care Association
Colorado Home Builders Association
Colorado Realtors Association Issue Committee
Colorado Republican Business Coalition
Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce
Colorado Springs Homebuilders Association
Americans for Prosperity
NCLA
Colorado Union of Taxpayers
Douglas County Business Alliance
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
Pikes Peak Association of Realtors
Southeast Business Partnership

http://www.ethicalstandardsnow...

Amendment 49 - Eliminate Public Employee Unions | 45 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?



Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com

Active Users
Currently 25 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