CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 04, 2011 12:47 AM UTC

Ellen Golombek To Head Department of Labor

  • 97 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #2: According to a release we received from Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp a few minutes ago, Republicans…don’t like unions. And may not be able to add.

“Governor-elect Hickenlooper’s appointment to the Department of Labor may certainly take some of the air out of the bipartisan atmosphere he has promised to promote as Governor. His selection of a noted progressive activist and union boss in Ms. Golombek, certainly will raise plenty of eyebrows in Colorado’s business community. And for good reason.”

Sorry, but didn’t Hickenlooper appoint one Democrat (Golombek) and one Republican (Brown) to top positions today? And doesn’t a Republican plus a Democrat equal “bipartisan?”

—–

UPDATE: H/T to Ralphie, The Grand Junction Sentinel reports that Reeves Brown, a Republican and executive director of Western Slope civic organization Club 20, has been appointed to head the Department of Local Affairs.

—–

Press release follows–Gov.-elect John Hickenlooper today named Ellen Golombek, state director for America Votes to head the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. This is a move that will reassure labor interests as Hickenlooper takes office, as Golombek is a former President of the Colorado AFL-CIO, and a former Government Affairs assistant with the Service Employees International Union. Says Hickenlooper, “Ellen is a proven strategic thinker who has a collaborative work-style and extensive experience working with the labor and business communities.”

Ellen Golombek named Executive Director of Department of Labor and Employment

DENVER – Monday, Jan. 3, 2011 – Gov.-elect John Hickenlooper announced today Ellen Golombek will be Executive Director of the Department of Labor and Employment.

Golombek is now Colorado State Director for America Votes, whose work around the country includes protecting every American’s right to vote. She brings nearly 20 years of additional experience working on labor issues and established relationships statewide to her new role in the Hickenlooper-Garcia administration.

“Ellen is a proven strategic thinker who has a collaborative work-style and extensive experience working with the labor and business communities,” Hickenlooper said. “Her work and the work of the Department of Labor and Employment will play a key role in our effort to support those looking  for or creating jobs.”

Golombek worked for 14 years with the Service Employees International Union and Colorado AFL-CIO. She was elected the first woman president of the Colorado AFL-CIO in 2000 and led the successful lobbying and legislative efforts for the organization for 10 years.

“The Department of Labor and Employment is on the front line of job assistance and training, providing services to businesses and individuals,” Golombek said. “It is critical that our state’s workforce be trained and prepared for today’s jobs and the future economy. I look forward to working with Colorado employers and individuals to meet this challenge and help with other employment-related issues large and small.”

Before joining America Votes in Colorado, Golombek worked at Planned Parenthood as the National Political and Field Director in Washington, D.C., and as Vice President for External Affairs in New York. She earlier worked four years with the 1.8 million-member Service Employees International Union, where she served as the Assistant to the Secretary-Treasurer and Director of Government Affairs. She managed a $65 million budget in that role.

Golombek earned a bachelor’s degree in labor studies from Antioch University.

###

Comments

97 thoughts on “Ellen Golombek To Head Department of Labor

    1. I’m curious what you West Slopers think of Brown, I had a good talk with a friend out there today who says he’s not as bad one might think. What’s your sense of him?

      1. We haven’t always agreed on every policy passed by his board. (I’m sure there are times he didn’t agree as well.)  He’s navigated his way through some real difficult chairpersons and lived to lead another day.  

        When I read this in the GJ Sentinel my reaction was good for Reeves; smart appointment by Hickenlooper.

          1. Ellie is a master of the understatement describing what Reeves has had to deal with running Club 20. He’s presided over hard economic times to keep the non-profit going and worked to keep the lines open to everyone, not just the oil and gas lobbies who would like to think they own Club 20.

            He’ll be great at DLA.

              1. that Reeves wasn’t a paid tool of Kathy Hall.  We differed on many of the O & G industries positions but again Reeves wasn’t a tool. I think your wrong to be critical of gertie (and probably me now) on this one.  

      2. and I think he is not the flaming idealogue so common to the power structure in Mesa county and the western slope. I have often been impressed with his reasonableness.

        That said, he has been associated with the ruling cabal of O&G industry goons for so long, I will stick with Twitty and reserve judgement until I see how he handles DOLA.

        Congratulations, Reeves. Good luck with your new position.

  1. Isn’t he an R?  He has been a tireless advocate for the West Slope, and commands some serious respect in the business community, plus he’s a smart, affable boot-wearing guy.  Outstanding bipartisan appointment by a pragmatic guv with great hiring skills.  And a labor advocate for DOLE.  I would love to sit in on cabinet meetings!

        1. did you care that neither of them, between them, had ever created one job? No?

          And what was your rationalization then? That it wasn’t relevant to the job description?

          Oh, that’s right, you’re a dishonest hack. Go turn off your computer and find a quiet room to masturbate in.

          1. That’s not fair. The Maes campaign flipped the Maes Family Unemployment rate from 100% to 0%, for a while at least. That’s gotta count for something!

          2. And I think this is pretty close to war for businesses. He’s appointed someone to be impartial who’s spent her life destroying businesses.

            You know, if labor wanted to do something good for humanity, they should go to China and start organizing. That would do more for the U.S. Economy than anything else they’re doing.  

            1. Because you know I love you.

              But you really need to quit supporting Democrats if all you’re going to do is whine about what happens when they get elected.

              It doesn’t make any sense to me.

            2. Big businesses keep getting their shills to tell us every tax or regulation or admonition or election is the worst thing since Hitler. It’s getting just a little wee tiny bit tiresome, ya running dog lackey.

    1. “Governor-elect Hickenlooper’s…selection of a noted progressive activist and union boss in Ms. Golombek, certainly will raise plenty of eyebrows in Colorado’s business community. And for good reason.”

      “[T]he Governor-elect went to great lengths expressing a desire to be “pro-business” and to “do things differently.” Kopp said, “This appointment seems to be a complete reversal of that policy.”

      “Nonetheless,” Kopp added,…”Senators have the constitutional obligation to put to her the same critical questions that every Colorado employer will be asking: Will she promote policies that make it more costly or less costly for businesses to operate in Colorado? Will she be on the side of the bureaucracy or the taxpayer?”

      Blech…

      1. when they try to put all of those tax exemptions back in place. Hick’s pen won’t be able to sign that one fast enough if it lands on his desk.

        Maybe someone forgot to tell Kopp that with a divided government comes not getting everything you want all the time.

      2. I suppose, that Colorado is already one of the top ten friendliest states for business.

        How about we completely eliminate taxes, dissolve the state government, give everyone a gun…and let the pieces fall where they may? The sick, the weak, and the powerless won’t be around long to fuck up the balance sheets of the mega-rich.

        I mean…anarchy is what we’re after…right?

  2. (Sorry sxp).  But quality is just as important as quantity when making appointments to the cabinet.

    The appointments I recognized so far seemed to fall under the bi-partisan label.

    But Golombek has spent the major part of her life waging war against business.  This is the nuclear option.

    I’m sure this nomination will go over well among most of the posters here, but there is zero evidence that Ms. Golombek will ever take the valid interests of business into consideration whenever challenged.

    Hick is going to have a tough time defending this decision during the confirmation process.

      1. Well, it will be interesting to hear this continuing line of attack when the 100-year anniversary of Ludlow comes up during Hickenlooper’s term.

      2. Welcome.  Here are a couple entry’s from Encarta:

        war

        conflict-  a serious struggle, argument, or conflict between people

        a serious effort to end something

        And I bet you might even find the word used in reference to organized labor in American history…

        Ari, you are usually above taking wild shots in the dark for token gains.  Embarrassing.

        1. Do you think it exists because business and labor are on the same side?  Businesses generally prioritize profits.  Unions prioritize workers.  I’m not saying they are mutually exclusive, but as time goes on their interests diverge more and more.

          It’s not a coincidence that the most profitable businesses are typically big employers.  

          I don’t know the specifics of your example, but it reminds me of the auto-makers & UAW.  Do you think they’re on the same side?  Do you think it was a common goal, let alone good for business, to pay out $75/hr to someone who screws bumpers to the front end of a car?  Do you think it was a common goal to continue paying full time benefits to those workers whose plants were closed?  They are legally required to deal with each other; they don’t do so because they’re on the same side of a fight.

          The teachers’ unions are even more obscene, primarily b/c they hold the kids as victims.

          Union contracts are all different to some degree.  But the dynamics are the same.  Unions are a 20th century fix to a 20th century problem.  Working conditions aren’t those of Sinclair’s ‘Jungle’ anymore.  Pay scales for almost any job are available on the world wide web now.  Etc.

          1. Nor were there strikes or slowdowns.

            You have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? I wonder what it’s like to be completely uninformed and not know it. Sounds scary.

          2. Nor were there strikes or slowdowns.

            You have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? I wonder what it’s like to be completely uninformed and not know it. Sounds scary.

        2. As you well know, saying she “waged war” doesn’t mean either of those definitions.

          You exaggerate for the sake of a “token gain,” then say that’s what I’m doing. That won’t help your credibility.

            1. You can argue with me, but you can’t argue with figures!

              When two halves is gone, there’s nothin’ left. And you’re right, it’s a little ole worm, who wasn’t there. Two nothin’s is nothin’.

              You’re like a cute little sidekick, always there to throw in a random one-liner.  And though you like to brag about being smart, like a Spock (or Foghorn Leghorn as it were), you’re more like a Barney Rubble or Barney Fife.

    1. It was a crisp day in 2002, I think.

      I hate to break it to you, but Republicans don’t get to win everything. Once in a while voters elect Democrats and expect Democrats in office. We don’t like it anymore than you do, which is why we try so hard to be bipartisan and appoint Republicans all over the place.

      Clearly you won’t be happy until Republicans actually get ALL the cabinet positions, which means maybe you should get off your ass next time and elect a fucking Republican.

      1. Elections matter.  They’re important.  And that’s why I have worked my ass off to get Republicans elected.  Sometimes successfully, sometimes in vain.  I have made the same arguments to those on the right that you just made.

        In that context, I’ve been appreciative of Hick’s outreach to our side of the aisle such as choosing Owens & Schaffer to join his transition team.

        But when he says he’s going to be business friendly – why would he hire someone who represents the polar opposite of that position?  This move seems out of character for Hick – it’s transparently hypocritical and it’s not consistent with his history of being more business friendly.

        It’s interesting – I suppose to your collective credit – that no one is defending Golombek.  Rather, you’re defending Hick’s right to make the decision.  Just as it’s the senate’s right to question her credentials during the confirmation process.

        1. How is being pro-union the polar opposite of business friendly?

          Here’s an anecdote: My dad managed a food plant outside Chicago (baking mixes and the like). When he arrived at his job, the plant was losing money hand-over-fist. He’s given a couple of years to turn it around and make it profitable. Working with the union rep, he cut the staff in half over the next couple  of years. The plant became profitable and stayed open. And while they sparred over the details, they had a common goal: to keep the plant open.

          So, to me, your objection is nonsensical. Why would a labor-advocate fight the creation of jobs?  

          1. Do you think it exists because business and labor are on the same side?  Businesses generally prioritize profits.  Unions prioritize workers.  I’m not saying they are mutually exclusive, but as time goes on their interests diverge more and more.

            It’s not a coincidence that the most profitable businesses are typically big employers.  

            I don’t know the specifics of your example, but it reminds me of the auto-makers & UAW.  Do you think they’re on the same side?  Do you think it was a common goal, let alone good for business, to pay out $75/hr to someone who screws bumpers to the front end of a car?  Do you think it was a common goal to continue paying full time benefits to those workers whose plants were closed?  They are legally required to deal with each other; they don’t do so because they’re on the same side of a fight.

            The teachers’ unions are even more obscene, primarily b/c they hold the kids as victims.

            Union contracts are all different to some degree.  But the dynamics are the same.  Unions are a 20th century fix to a 20th century problem.  Working conditions aren’t those of Sinclair’s ‘Jungle’ anymore.  Pay scales for almost any job are available on the world wide web now.  Etc.

            1. both business and the unions should be at least working toward similar goals.

              The union wants their people to work, to be safe, and to have the benefits they deserve.  The business wants to make stuff so they can make a profit.  Between those two, unions and business can agree that they want to keep plants open and that a good work environment helps to produce quality products which sell better.

              That’s not always how it works, but that’s the relationship a good union and business should maintain.

              PS – wages aren’t where they are because they’re posted on the Web.  I as a worker have minimal if any bargaining power at a large workplace, regardless of Web-posted “common” wages.

            2. Detroit’s problems are directly related to bad management decisions. Just because workers ask for candy doesn’t mean you have to give it to them. And contrary to your statement, they are on the same side of the fight. No profits means no jobs.

              The success of Southwest Airlines and Costco pretty much refutes your assertion that relations between management and employees are inherently antagonistic.  

              1. don’t get their candy, they go home.  Literally.  Or they hit the picket line.  En masse.  If you’d still like to work, earn an income, etc – you can’t.

                Trying to defend the UAW is physically impossible.  On the other end of the relative spectrum, you mention the likes of Southwest and Costco (I didn’t realize Costco folks were union).  They seem to get along.  But if the unions voted to disband, those firms wouldn’t throw a fit.

                Southwest’s union situation is similar to its competition.  They’d all like to be rid of the unions.  None are as profitable as they could be.  As for Costco, it’s not as profitable as Sam’s Club.

                Golombek isn’t simply someone sympathetic to one side or the other.  She’s an active, hardcore agent of one side.  She wasn’t in charge of keeping the peace between union and mgmt as Southwest.  She has dedicated herself to gaining as much advantage as possible for unions – at the expense of real businesses.

                  1. There.  Though I do admit that there have also been strategic business decisions by automakers that didn’t help.  But those were mistakes that could have been overcome, were it not for the bank-vault life preservers that the unions provided.

                    Meanwhile, have you really not heard of any of the changes that were made at the big Three? (I believe Ford is a beneficiary of what happened at the other two).  It took a complete collapse of those companies and the federal govt selling it’s soul to bail them out.  Among the terms, adjusting the salaries and benefits.  Now most of those union members now make what the foreign/non-union/profitable workers make.  And they don’t each get silver-parachutes anymore.

                    1. The UAW, as part of their negotiations with the Big Three, agreed to take on the pensions of their workers – debts which the companies had signed on to pay their workers as part of their compensation but were unable to meet because of their bad management.

                      And, unfortunately for your worldview, the union cuts actually took at least GM and Chrysler workers in many cases below the rates of their non-union counterparts, because the unions were interested in keeping their workers employed at newly productive plants.  And that worker-oriented agreement was apparently a good idea, at least for GM, because they’re now having to re-open plants that they had thought they’d need to close forever as part of their restructuring.

                    2. The unions unilaterally, altruistically and drastically cut their own wages.  And of course, the crushing and ridiculously inflated benefits had nothing to do with putting their company in that position to begin with.  Any business course would tell you that.  

                      Wierd how when they come back to reality and responsible benefits that their company is able to stay afloat.

                      If you want to call that worker-oriented, then please do.  Maybe we actually agree.

                      The unions overplayed their hand for years and got away with it because globalization wasn’t prevalent, US supply was limited and the pension fund hadn’t reached it’s inevitable tipping point.  

                    3. There may still be one or two stragglers on the site who don’t realize just how stupid your anger has made you.

                    4. No, the unions didn’t cut anything unilaterally, and only your perverted reading of my response indicates that to anyone.

                      No… The unions and the management did what any group of mature people do in time of crisis – they sat down and figured out what had to be done to maximize the benefit and minimize the downside to both parties.

                      Why was GM in trouble in 2007-2008?  Their plants were outdated, their brands over-extended, their products lacked the reputation they needed to compete, their investments tanked (just like everyone else’s), and they had failed to commit the money over the course of years to maintain the pension and health care funds they had signed contracts agreeing to support.  The cost of actual workers wasn’t killing them so much as their declining market share and the cost of supporting all of their pensioners from better days gone by.  (The figures you’ve likely been seeing on the “overpayment” of UAW workers was flawed; it added the benefits owed to retirees on to the current workers’ salaries and benefits, and divided out by the number of current workers, significantly overstating the amount union workers were making…)

                      What did they do to solve the problem?  They agreed to kill off or sell off several of their less profitable brands and agreed to reduce the excessive number of dealerships.  They got lucky with the massive Toyota recalls, had several good car designs ready for production to benefit from the opportunity, got sales incentives from Cash For Clunkers, and made some good marketing pushes.  They took the government bail-out money in part to pay off debt and in part to re-tool some plants.  None of that took any concessions by the UAW.  The unions agreed to pay cuts, to the closing of plants, to lay-offs, and to assume (with a significant pay-out by the companies) the management and responsibility of the retirement debt that was dragging down the company books…

                      In the end, the company had better accounting books, newer plants, better models, a revamped image, a slimmed-down, more efficient distribution network – and a smaller workforce at an at-least-temporarily below-market rate that had the tools it needed to produce the product needed to keep their jobs, with union retirees that still receives benefits.  The result: GM has rebounded faster than anyone could have predicted; they’ve re-opened plants many thought closed for good, and re-hired workers they had laid off; they’ve paid back a significant portion of the government’s loans, and the government has profited from the sales of its stocks; the workers and the company, working together, have gained some trust in each other that they previously lacked, and as many people as possible have benefited.

                      You couldn’t say that about a union-only or a business-only solution, or for one which did not involve the government bail-out.

                    5. you mention here, save the union benefits, are similar to situations at other car manufacturers.  You act as though the union specific debt load is equal to poor interior styling as to causes of their respective downfalls.  It’s not completely black & white, but the overwhelming difference between the successful manufacturers and the unsuccessful ones is the toxic effect of the unions.  

                      Under those economics, GM wouldn’t have been profitable with the greatest car idea in history, new equipment and a revamped distribution network.

                      Now the big three look a lot like their American employing foreign competition.  Four of the five restructuring target requirements were aimed squarely at the combined union benefits.  They actually go so far to say that they must be on average with “Nissan Motor Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, or American Honda Motor Company.”

                      As to your recollection of a kumbaya moment, here’s how it started:

                      Auto Workers Union Rules Out Concessions To Help Detroit Bailout http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/16/auto-workers-union-rules_n_144220.html  

                    6. The unions had already agreed to deep cuts that put their wages and benefits near those of the non-union shops.  They were taking a strong bargaining position at the beginning of a negotiation – just like the business forces that were telling the unions it pretty much all had to come from the workers’ pockets.

                      And no, the other car companies did not have

                      * old plants

                      * too many brands

                      * older models that weren’t keeping pace with consumer expectations.

                      * a bad reputation

                      * legacy retirement funds to which the company had reneged on its contractual obligations to its prior workers.

                      The failure of the Big Three was systemic, just like the solution.

                      Are you ignorant of how negotiations work?  Or adversarial but cooperative working agreements?

                      Or is it more simple?  You hate unions, and they have to be the reason behind every problem?

                    7. Seriously, we can all tell you’re a smart guy, but this argument?

                      You act as though the union specific debt load is equal to poor interior styling as to causes of their respective downfalls.

                      C’mon. There’s a difference between interior styling and poorly engineered, poorly designed, poorly built cars.

                      And this:

                      …the overwhelming difference between the successful manufacturers and the unsuccessful ones is the toxic effect of the unions.

                      Except when it doesn’t. Why is Southwest the most successful airline? How can Costco survive in a cutthroat Walmart world?

                      GM mgt ran that company for short-term gain and ran it into the ground. They didn’t strive to make better cars because they didn’t think they had to. And in the end, as you note, it was the unions that bailed out their sorry behinds.

                    8. First, my bad memory – the plans in question weren’t the pension plans, but rather the health care plans.

                      Second, those plans were contractually agreed to by the companies.  While it may be popular these days to believe that breaking previously agreed-upon retirement contracts is a Good Thing, it should also be highly frowned upon under contract law.  The workers fulfilled their obligations under contract, and their agreed-upon financial reward from their employer should also be honored under penalty of law.  Those contracts should also have some seniority in a bankruptcy court, should it come to that.

                      Third, the restructuring included what I considered to be an amazingly charitable act on the part of the unions (representing their workers): they assumed the responsibility of managing those plans, taking a lump sum payment from the companies to take over the continued funding of plans that were putting a massive debt on the company books.  Additionally, I believe the bail-out allowed the companies to do it half in stock, half in cash – another concession by the union in order to keep their workers employed and the companies healthy.

                      So, the unions took over the fund (and supplemented it), removed the debt from the companies’ books, and took their payment in part in a somewhat questionable at the time stock payment.

                      Evil unions, those…

                    9. Ford never indicated they were in great need of a bail-out, because their business plan had better accounted for the issues the other two failed to address.  Their plans for recovery were largely in place before the other two got their bail-out or held the later rounds of negotiation with the unions.

                      They were not helped by the failure of the other two companies to properly manage their businesses, except that they were in a better position to take advantage of the market when the opportunity arose.

                    10. Are you saying that Ford made better management decisions and that “somehow” worked in their favor?

                      No no no no no!

                      It’s all the union’s fault. Tell ’em, 20th.

                    11. earlier that there are strategic business issues to blame as well.  But not nearly to the tune of the union debt load.  Ford wasn’t exactly kicking ass at the time either.  They were just smart enough to get credit while it was still available.  That wasn’t going stop the inevitable from happening to them either.

                       

          1. From DOLE (unfortunately not a pun) website:

            The Department of Labor and Employment never takes Colorado’s workforce, or the businesses that employ them, for granted. This agency remains committed to both.

            Note the commitment to businesses.  Golombek has spent her life in a hostile position to that particular side.  It’s like putting Ahmadinejad in charge of negotiating Middle-East peace.  Half of the people will like it (read 50% or 1/2 or 0.5), but the other half are screwed.  Or, an example your side likes, it’s like putting Tancredo as Sec. of Education.

            In contrast, Don Mares & his Democrat predecessors don’t have the same personal history of animosity that Golombek does (to my knowledge).

              1. that’s what I was wondering if anyone was going ti ask. Who would be the GOP pick to head DOLE if not someone with a background in labor unions? Hence my suggestions of Pete Coors or Jake Jabs. Those two guys embody what LB and 20th Maine were hoping for with this pick.

                  1. that was sxp’s simplistic standard.  If Owens had picked Guy Short, for example – who worked for Right to Work before he worked for Musgrave, you could make the same point I have made.

                    It’s ok to have sympathies, etc.  But in a zero sume game, she has literally been fighting for unions at the direct expense of businesses.  

  3. I know Reeves and have worked with him. He is a good guy.

    However, DOLA is one of the only jobs a Gov. has that can give out “political prizes”. The Gov-elect has decided that it is more important to be “bipartisian” than take care of his own. I fear, my friends, this is only the start. Now I would be happy to eat these words when Brown’s DOLA gives grants to Boulder, Pueblo, the San Luis Valley and other strong democratic areas.

    Mr. Gov-Elect—the Governors office is a partisan job. Please help us that helped you.  

    1. Do you mean the mineral impact grants? The ones designed for areas of the state with the highest mining impacts? Or those with a high number of mining employees?

      Or the grant funding that has been decimated over the last two years to balance the state budget?

      Whatcha talkin’ ’bout?

  4. The Colorado Division of Unemployment is a renegade agency that audits nearly every business in Colorado to little or no effect, except when they decide to capriciously issue Determination Letters that blatantly ignore the facts.  (I have personal experience with this, if you haven’t guessed.)  This Division also spends untold amounts issuing $100 liens against businesses who may have failed to file a return with no tax due. (Check out the Denver Business Journal’s weekly list of state liens and you’ll see what I mean.)

    If state unemployment auditors were empowered to check on the legal immigration status of a business’ employees, then they might achieve something.  Otherwise, they are merely tormenting Colorado businesses.  I would think reining in the Division of Unemployment would find bipartisan support in the Legislature.

  5. But I have been all over the Denver Post web site looking for a mention of these appointments, and I have not found one single word.  Is it my eyes, or is there really nothing there?

    Where’s Chuck Plunkett?  He announced that he was going to become the big DP political reporter, doing “investigative work” AND “actively seek[ing] out insiders in political and governmental positions to provide tips to good stories.”  Good stories like, oh, I don’t know, maybe cabinet appointments by the new Governor?

      1. I wonder why they posted it in the blog, though, and not in the news section.  I am getting new glasses next week, though, so you shouldn’t have to be my safety net again.

    1. but Chuck Plunkett as an investigative/political reporter?  If someone on CPols runs a poll can you please have one where I can vote “no confidence” or “Oh Gawd.”

  6. I predict that Golombek was appointed so that, when Hickenlooper takes strong steps to cut back union prerogatives and expensive perks, and to reform workers’ comp, he will have political cover.

    At least I hope that’s the case. I hope we’ll see the same Hickenlooper in the Governor’s mansion as we did in Denver, when he stood up to the police and sheriff’s unions.

    If instead Golombek gives the unions everything they want, we’ll be in trouble.  

  7. The Governor simply took action to acknowledge that those employees who get the work done are part the success of any business or agency. They are not just pawns to be moved around at will by those in charge. Bottom line, Ellen is highly qualified for the job, but she comes from labor, so what?    

    Again, I know a lot people hate to hear it, but if it ok for a businessman to join the Chamber of Commerce, then it is ok for an employee to join a union. If it ok to scrap a contractual agreement with employees, then it should be just as to do the same with CEO’s in the private sector. Our economic system is defined by contractual rights, but those rights are often subordinated to power and privilege.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

45 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!