President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 29, 2008 02:28 AM UTC
84 Comments
Loading ...
Not the governor.
let the voters decide.
This is all Bill Ritter’s fault. He kicked the [Labor Peace Act] anthill and it is coming back to haunt him.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
That’s all you got? A misleading slogan? Classic Con man going to work. He even has a fancy new sign!
Its John Lynch’s number.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Are you filing for a title?
I hope this fails.
Shouldn’t people get to decide whether or not they join a union?
Shouldn’t people get to decide whether or not they join a union?
They already do.
And if it’s a Union Shop… and you don’t want to join a Union… then don’t take the job!
Easy as that! Or you can take the job, join the Union, and work from within to turn the shop into a non-Union shop.
What you want is to have your cake and eat it too! I know several people like that where I work, and when they get laid off or fired, they are the first to go to the Union Steward looking for support.
Freakin’ Hypocrites!
oo
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
union thugs want us to ignore “GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE”.
Let the PEOPLE of the state choose, not politicians and union hacks.
I asked why should someone be forced to join a union. If people in my workplace decided to unionize, I would have to join. That’s not a choice. I would be forced.
I would call you a hypocrit, but it is rather liberal to force someone to do something and call it a choice, so….
With all due respect Haners, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
I’ll say it again slowly, even if you work in a union shop you cannot be forced to join the union.
I don’t know what’s so hard to comprehend about that simple concept but those are the facts.
You’re wrong. Simply look at any contract that a teacher has to sign anywhere in the state.
Do you really not realize that Colorado law already outlaws closed shops? You cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.
Colorado also stacks the deck by requiring a n2nd election after the NLRB election. That election requires a super majority to certify the union. If you can get 26% of your coworkers on board you can deny the other 74% the union that they twice voted in favor of.
I though the new GOP meme was that they were pro-democracy in union elections. I guess that’s only applicable when discussing card check?
And that means workers need to be somewhat even with business. A 3rd world economy means less business for my company. So out of pure self-interest, I want this to fail.
It’s that same self-interest that drives me to want taxes raised enough to make college at our state institutions to be free. Now granted, I’d prefer that come mostly out of the obscene profits of the oil & gas industry but I’m happy to have my company it’s fair share.
I can’t tell if I am for or against this by the smoke here. What exacty does this say?
I couldn’t find it anywhere, not even on their national site. Here’s an interesting link with a lot of federal law.
http://colorado.mediamatters.o…
It’s from Media Matters, so don’t read it closely! Right, but the national info is worth a scan.
I am for this amendment. If I don’t want to associate with the union in ANY way, I should have that right and a potential employer should not be allowed or required by a contract to discriminate against me, and not consider my application just because I choose to work for him under the advertised conditions and at the agreed wages he offered.
I know you know that, but some less then intelligent people have already assumed I’m being snarky.
I look at other unions, and I see that they help run business into the ground (auto workers), or they meddle and keep anything meaningful from happening (education). In your view, how does a union really help anything in the long run?
And am I incorrect in assuming that a shop, company, etc could still unionize, it would just be a matter of individual employees deciding whether or not to join?
Whenever this discussion comes up, I hear the same story from the anti-union crowd:
If a business fails and the workers were unionized, it was the union that caused the business to fail.
Couldn’t possibly be that the business screwed up in one way or another and that’s why they failed? Take the American auto industry, for example. I don’t know what role unions have played in they’re issues, but I think their inability to create reliable, safe, unique cars with progressive ideas and designs is the primary reason they have had problems. They did adapt and they are being punished by consumers.
I don’t make blanket statements that say the unions played no part of it, because I don’t know and I’m sure it’s a case-by-case basis. Why does the anti-union crowd always make the blanket statement that it was all the fault of the union. That may not be what you believe, but it’s what you say and it misconstrues the discussion.
But I have referenced specific and generally accepted examples of when a unionized workforce had a negetive impact on the business.
In the example of auto workers, yes part of the problem was their products. But as much of the problem was that unions made the companies pay huge pension plans and provide the same level of medical coverage. You’d have to sell a TON of cars to pay a bunch of retirees like they’re still working.
What did Ford do with this problem? They responded by making a better problem, and they slashed the pension plans like crazy. The unions resisted for a while, but when they saw that the company would go bankrupt and they wouldn’t be a union anymore, they caved.
So the unions weren’t all to blame, but if they weren’t there they would have been in better shape
in order of how things happened
1. bad products–a. mismatched to taste (1973 oil shock) b. poor quality, particularily in the 1st buyer segment (gremlin, pacer, vega)
2. too many platforms at different nameplates leading to long development times, plant inflexibility, high fixed costs
3. loss of market share–particularilly by foregoing the “unprofitable” small car market.
4. marketshare loss leads to overcapacity in plant and workers. Layoffs hit younger workers hardest leading to a gray work force.
5. automakers concetrate on luxury/high end segments where they can make 5k+ a car.
6. New buyers develop brand preferences based on their first Honda Civic or Toyota pickup.
7. New buyers become older affluent buyers and buy Lexus, Acura, Infinitys, and Tundras
8. US loses more marketshare, workforce gets smaller due to layoffs, retiree overburden gets larger.
9. New oil shock hits the only segments the US competitive in–more excess capacity
Unions have very little to do with this.
US automakers led in Hybrid/electric tech in 1990–they basically walked away from it in favor of heavy weight vehicles–boy that was smart.
The unions are just whipping boys for the auto industry’s troubles. Blaming them for that is the most basic tactic in the union busting playbook.
Just the whipping boys. Everything I said was correct. You did see the part where I said that they weren’t the entire problem, but they were part of it. The money that the company was having to pay out was bloated and out of line.
But I guess if being part of the problem makes them a whipping boy, then yes they are a whipping boy
You make it sound like if only there weren’t unions, we wouldn’t be having problems. Unionized business need to stop battling unions and start spending their money and energy making good products. With good products comes money. They can take some of that money for profit, but they can also take it give their workers a fair wage and benefits. Maybe then, people won’t feel like unionizing.
That’s what you read, and there’s a difference. I said they would have been in better shape, as you quoted me as saying.
If the unions weren’t forcing a company to pay people who aren’t working as if they still were, would they not have more money for research and development, advertising, ect. Instead in my particular example, the union turned a business into a welfare program.
Hence my point that they would have been better off. Not out of the woods, but better off
You negotiate a deal. Conditions change. You don’t get to renotiate the deal before completion.
Why are the Unions supposed to act like charities?
Granted sometimes the Unions have not shown labor flexibility, particularily in job classification, but company’s shouldn’t be renegging on contracts when the company’s are responsible for their own structural problems.
I cleary said
Second, now you are saying that union workers are lazy. To that I say if companies didn’t treat their employees bad in the first place, then we wouldn’t have a problem here. An argument could be made that companies deserve all the blame. Not only did they make bad business decisions, but they treated their employees poorly from the start, giving way to those employees organizing.
What I’m really trying to get at here is that it seems unions are always the first thing to get blamed by conservatives. Corporations are not gods. Place appropriate blame where it’s due, which means much much less at the feet of the unions.
How in the hell did you get me saying that workers are lazy???????
And again, I don’t see how you got this point:
I never said anything close to that, hence I pointed out where I said that they would be better off. Again, I said
Honestly Chris, I have no idea how you took that and got
Just like how I have no idea how you think that I called workers lazy
So, if not lazy, what are you getting at?
On the second point, I know you did not directly say that no unions equal no problems. Based on all your comments, I inferred that you place an unhealthy blame on the unions; like if they hadn’t existed, the auto-industry would not have been driven (pun intended) into the situation it’s in now. I guess I’m wrong.
I do want to ask, however, do you feel there is any good that comes from unions?
What I am saying there is that union officials negoiated contracts with some motor companies in which the company still payed a person who was retired about the same as they were making when they were working.
As such, companies were paying people who weren’t working about the same as if they were. That ties up a lot of money.
I think it would make more sense if you looked at the comment in its entirety, with an emphasis on “as if they still were [working for the company]”.
As for your second question, I think that unions did have a healthy place in the work force. In the early part of the century when kids were getting arms chopped off and people had to work 100 hour work weeks, they served a great purpose.
But I think that they have passed their prime, and they are more worried about preserving the instituion of a union rather then accomplishing any meaningful thing for workers.
I guess this is the second time I have to apologize to you today. You were right, I missed that last part. I fear I’m not on my game today Haners.
I can see some validity in this, but I don’t think it’s as bad as I think you see it. There are companies that are still more interested in the bottom line at the expense of fair wages and benefits. While there are people getting screwed, I think it’s still fair to have unions around that try to fix that.
Lord knows I’ve had plenty of times where I’ve needed to apologize. The fact that you’re willing to do it makes me respect you even more.
I would agree that there are some companies who care more about the bottom line at the expense of fair wages and benefits. But I also don’t think it’s as bad as some might think it is.
maybe. if you mean when they were necessary to keep them from being killed in industrial accidents.
However, workers not having healthcare kills people every year and the Unions are fighting for workers to have healthcare.
I’ve never been in a Union, but my dad was in several over 30 years in construction and trucking and they were of varying quality.
In general I think unions need to work with management on labor flexibility to help them compete or to improve results (government), but that should not be used as an excuse to screw the workers. One of the reasons the Unions are so skitish is that they are so used to being screwed.
I know a guy who was a shop steward at Cat (AFL-CIO shop). Cat is notorious for a hostile relationship with labor–I’ve met with management in my former roll as a Bond Analyst–they hate their workers. He would fight for any grievance, any lazy worker, any letter of the contract, because Cat would never negotiate in good faith.
Now he’s at a smaller shop (Teamster)and management has a good relationship with labor. Together with management he has instituted crosstraining flexibility to help deal with bottlenecks, but his time at Cat makes him worry that management will use the crosstrained workers to undermine the contract.
Unions and management work well together around the world. The answer isn’t pro-union or Anti: The answer is unions and management can work together to deliver a quality product (or service) that enhances the business enriches all and recognizes that nothing can happen wihout workers.
Which brings up outsourcing: but remember I said quality (have you talked to a bangalore call center)
Absolutely agree!
I wish more people could strive for that without making it a political issue.
Call me pessimistic, but I hope you’ll understand that I won’t be holding my breath
My friend shared it because he had been abused at CAT.
Like anyone that has been bitten once, he’s twice shy. But he’s learning.
If we want labor and management to work together we have to agree to stop demonizing the other side at the same time recognizing the right to point out inconsistancies.
Haners example was Ford.
None of your examples were made by Ford.
Unions have emasculated the management aspects of education turning the former school principal into a “building principal”.
Union pensions pyramid scheme structure has destroyed both the secure retirment of the retirees who were relying on promises impossible to deliver on, and the automaker who’s management caved and bought short term peace with its angry strikers in the hope that someone would figure how to pay for it in 10 years when they were gone or retired.
We had a ford fairlane. POS.
To the imporant stuff.
You oppose pensions? They wouldn’t be in trouble if the US autocompanies had not destroyed their own business. Instead of that I guess you support a strong public pension system–you know, social security. Didn’t think so. Hate the public solution, hate the prvate solution. Adds up to hates the working man.
We weren’t talking about the teachers union so I don’t know where that came from aside from your conservative talking point manual.
But in some cases, they are a necessary evil. The only thing many corporations care about is the bottom line and as such, they will undercut the pay and benefits of their employees without regard. A union is a fair and logical way to counteract that, but there may be unintended negatives, However, those negatives are no worse than the intended negatives that the corporations pass along to their employees.
Fortunately, a lot of corporations have realized that they cannot treat their employees with little regard and have tried to be fairer to the employees while still maintaining the vitality of the business. It’s not impossible and I think a non-unionized corporation where the company actually treats their employees fairly is the best model. But if corporations treat their employees like shit, then they’re getting what they deserve in the form of unions.
In any case (union or nonunion), I think the relationship between workers and the corporation requires compromise. The case of auto-makers is quite unfortunate and whatever role the unions played in that, I’m sure they are regretting. With that said, again we must place some blame on the business management. They made poor business decisions and they also failed to negotiate a may be strong, but the business owners were weak. If a business cannot even work with their employees, they, to a degree, get what they deserve.
Let’s say we can agree in part on this
What about giving the employees the choice to have a secret ballot and let the majority rule is BAD?
If 50% or more of the workers want a union solution, they will get one. But if the majority don’t want a union, or a minority want to opt out, they should be able to.
Poorly run automakers go out of business when their customers don’t need them anymore. (Hudson, AMC, Rambler, Studebaker, etc)
When was the last time a Union went out of business????
Don’t tell me they are all still needed and useful.
but from what I’ve heard there won’t be anything that actually takes away the “secret” part of the process. Prove to me otherwise (factually, not just a link to an interest group) and I’ll address that.
No problem on this:
Unions going out of business: I can’t say for sure they have or haven’t, but I would imagine that once a union has formed, it’s going to stick around. If a company is treating their employees fairly, then I don’t think it’s necessary for the union to exist anymore. With that said, if both the union and the company are being fair, then one would assume that they would be agreeing on most things, so the existence of the union wouldn’t matter either way.
I know there are still unions out there that ask for too much and there are still business out there that give too little. So, yes, unions are still needed, because (some) corporations are still not giving fair pay and benefits. I can tell you about a fairly recent personal situation where I worked for a major corporation and wouldn’t have minded being in a union. Essentially I asked for a raise and they let me go. It’s wrong.
You were looking for a job when you took that one. They were loking for someone to do the job when they hired you.
If your worth to them as measured by them was what you were asking, they would have given it. You priced yourself out of a job.
They didn’t owe you anything more or less than they promised in writing. And you are not an indentured servant, you could quit them any time on a moments notice.
Good companys despartly want to hire and retain good employees. Ask yourself why that doesn’t apply to your situation.
I think so. You know nothing of me, my work ethic, or really of the situation I mentioned. Please don’t make assumptions.
Take this
and this
and you prove my point.
If it’s not a good company then they don’t care about retaining employees and therefore don’t care to give they’re employees what they’re worth. This is where unions come in. Unions, for all their negatives, make companies accountable to their employees. They try to take bad companies and make them good by ensuring that the value of the employee is being paid for.
And don’t give me any of that “if you don’t like it, then leave” crap in your response. A company should not be able to go on treating employees poorly.
Companies are not supposed to be accountable to their employees. They are accountable to their owners (or stockholders).
Employees who feel the conditions are not acceptable can refuse to work for a bad company (QUIT).
And no, I don’t know you, and was not trying to insult you. I was speaking generically, and asked you specifically only
And you answered it. BINGO. In your opinion, they weren’t a good company. So why would you want to work there?
I suspect that answer is “because there were good things about the job or company and the x y or z was nice.”
So you have your free agency. Work for them, or don’t. Make constructive suggestions if you wish. But don’t expect to set policy or what more they must give you by demanding it. It rarely works that way UNLESS, you are someone they NEED. Only you can make yourself someone they need. They can’t do it.
To me it is smart business to have a happy workforce who feels their work is valued. Those employees will in turn serve the companies customers better, which will in turn result in more customers and more repeat customers, which will in turn result in more money for their shareholders. Companies should also provide fair pay and benefits to their employees and if a group of employees want to get together and knock that into their thick heads, then I’m all for it. Besides, by your logic, we should not have laws regarding safety or 40-hour weeks, etc.
In my situation, I asked for a raise and they let me go. I did not quit and I did not give any reason for them to let me go. I did not try to “set policy” or otherwise be a problem. I gave my life to that job and I did think that they needed me (apparently I was wrong). Despite all that, I would have stayed and continued to work my ass off without a raise. You would think they would recognize a dedicated employee when they saw one. The fact they let me go for no real reason is bullshit and I think they could use a union to knock some sense into them. In any case, it was probably for the better. I make much more now, for much less, but I hate that there is probably someone else there not getting what they deserve.
Look up the definition of the words you used, and you will see how wrong you are.
Now if you want to say companies act in the best interest of their share holders when they treat employees well, I can agree with that.
But companies are not answerable to their employees. Some choose to set up policies that give this false appearance, but it is demonstrably false. (Unless of course its an employee owned company.)
None the less, my point was that in any company well run or mediocre, needs good reliable employees and successful managers recruit and retain the best most reliable people they can find.
(Yes some people hire their cousins and their girlfriends, but unless those nepotism hires are extra special achievers, the supervisor who hired them generally suffers for the decision.)
A union thug attitude in the making 🙂
Why? Employees that “knock …heads” directed at the company they work for are not desirable employees and should be corrected or eliminated as quickly as possible.
Sometimes change is necessary and good. Managers always have a reason. It may not be a reason they ever tell you. It may not be a good reason, but its there somewhere. They wanted a change, believe me it wasn’t for no reason Chris. (I read your posts here:) (Kidding – just Kidding)
But I do get it, sounds like they hurt your feelings and you want to punish them. But you even admit you are better off, so???
When the work force gets control (not just some respect, I mean by the balls control) like some unions did in the 70’s and 80’s, there is never a good outcome for the employees or the company.
Management must do what they do best, and the workforce must do their thing, but switch places and its a rare example indeed that that has had a good out come. (Not to say an individual can’t do it, I’m talking wholesale role reversal.)
I know they are not actually accountable to their shareholders by being accountable to their employees, but by the definition of accountable below that I have taken from an online dictionary, they should be.
Companies should explain or justify why they are screwing people out of money and benefits and they should accept responsibility when they cook the books, causing the company to go under, which also screws over the employees (see Enron). Furthermore, they should explain to the shareholders why they are not providing their employees with this. My opinion.
I’ll take this too.
Not desirable? You mean like companies that don’t value their workers and show that by cutting pay and benefits. I just don’t understand why it’s okay for a corporation to strong-arm its employees, but the employees should have no rights; no say whatsoever. Just because people have a right to work somewhere, it doesn’t mean the company can use that argument to treat them like shit.
Newsman, I was a manager at the place I’m talking about and I’m all about change (can anyone say Obama?). I don’t need you to lecture me on this. If companies had the halo over their heads that you paint them with, we wouldn’t be in disagreement here. I’m not saying that a company doesn’t have right to do what’s best for the business (hiring, firing, etc.). I’m saying that a company should consider what’s fair for employees when making that decision. I imagine you disagree.
Come on, you got to give me more credit than that. I’m not that simplistic my friend. I just don’t even want to respond to this it’s so ridiculous.
I would partially agree with this (I wouldn’t say “never a good outcome”), but I disagree that all the power in the hands of the corporations results in a better outcome for the workers most of the time, which is what you imply. If corporations had it they’re way, there would be no regulation of the workforce and some would find whatever way they could to screw over their employees. If history has taught us anything, placing all the power into the hands of one side (no matter what the side is) is no good – unions, corporations, you name it.
The companies did themselves in on both of these. Rather than investing their proceeds to cover for the future of their workers, they have in many cases raided the pension funds and short-changed the accounts they needed to cover the benefits they agreed on.
Now they’re paying double-time, at a time when they’ve screwed themselves over by being non-responsive.
Where unions have hurt the auto industry more than anything else is in factory overhauls. The level of automation required to produce a modern vehicle for a reasonable cost was opposed at all costs by the unions; replacing/modernizing entire factories was seen by the union as a threat to their workers rather than as inevitable progress that they should have worked through with the company.
In the end, though, it’s the auto companies that have done the most damage to themselves.
And my point was stated very eloquently in many of the posts below so I’ll just agree with them rather than repeating.
so many people are against this making the ballot. I thought we are a nation of LAWS. Laws decided upon by the MAJORITY.
Put it to vote. What are those crying about this afraid of?
Are they afraid that the people of this state are too stupid to know what is best for them? Do they think they and only they know what should be law and what shouldn’t?
I think this is fukinay great. And it does not and never will affect me personally so don’t go there.
1. This should no more be in the state constitution than the provision about leg traps. Or the nuclear explosion regulation bit. Etc, etc, etc. The state constitution should be about broad principles and the structure of government.
2. Why should the majority outlaw the preference of a minority? If you don’t want to be part of a union a person is not forced to join one even in union shops. They only need to contribute for the union’s negotiating fund, not any of the other dues. And people have the option of working for businesses that don’t have unions and the vast majority of people don’t. So why is this needed? How many people are actually in unions who do not want to be?
I would also add that the workers at a company, via their union, should be free to have any rules they can get the company to agree to as long as they are not discriminatory.
It is in the union’s long term interest to not come up with rules that will make the company un-competitive – but unfortunately many unions take a short-term view. Many company’s management however also take short-term views too.
But why restrict what unions can do? Shouldn’t free market Republicans support allowing unions to have the right to propose any set of rules?
People already decide whether or not to join a union. This isn’t about joining unions. This is about business lowering wages and benefits, without opposition from unions. Get ready to start working for third world wages if this passes!
And there’s already a law allowing people who do join the union to get a refund on the portion of their dues used to fund political activity. (Read that as worker-friendly political activity.)
‘Course those people are one step above Scabs.
oo
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Including abortions, right?
Woman’s right.
Do you all think it will pass? I hope that it doesn’t but am afraid it will.
I will vote for it. And I’m guessing most of El Paso County will too.
run it in El Paso county, and your leave your right-wing ideology out of MY Constitution. Thanks for misrepresenting the current law and pushing your anti-worker ideology on the rest of the state.
This has NO place in the Constitution.
whether they want to let the Coors family bamboozle them into voting against their own best interests, yet again! Remember, anytime the Repugs name any kind of initiative, such as “Right to Work” it means the exact opposite — “out of work.”
it’s a privilege, not a right.
Citizens Coors lately? The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
If you didn’t this weekend’s article on the Coors family, their anti-worker history and far right ideology, I suggest you take a gander.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Thug up with your union skulls and conspiring RTW opposers to ‘sell labor peace’ in the spirit of continued union corruption.
As a constitutionalist you’ll understand this: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 47, IT’S YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE
I don’t really care… I just don’t want any more bullshit that belongs in the statute file instead of the Constitution. Which you should have figured out.
You selling shampoo?
Aren’t you for the individuals right to choice Go Blue?
right-wing operative using repetitive tactics — go choose your own fate and leave the rest of us alone.
how about you?
However, on abortion that is personal and it is trumped by the woman’s right to choose. So I’d vote with you on choice here too.
Pro life all the way – no death penalty either. The state taking life creates a problem for me and shouldn’t all criminal just enjoy life in general population like that guy Jeff Dahlmer.
Peace out!
“Clear Skies” was for more pollution.
“Healthy Forests” was for more timber cutting.
“Right to work.” As if one doesn’t in CO.
And on it goes.
If you want to know the real point of a bill/ammendment/law/referendum proposed by consevatives–just invert the apparant meaning of the title.
In simple terms, if right to work passes does that mean a person could benefit from what the union offers without being compelled to pay dues? If so, that’s wrong. If a person wants the benefits of a membership organization, he or she should only have access to those benefits if membership dues are paid and the person is a member in good standing.
Think of it as “right to free ride”
You get all of the benefits of having the union negotiate for you and you don’t have to pay your fair share to cover the costs of that negotiation.
Democrats don’t have to pay taxes!
It’s only fair!
I’m going to give you an example of employees “knocking heads of the company” for their potential (but unrealized) benefit.
I worked at a large computer help desk some years back as a contractor. The company decided to centralize all of their contractors under a single vendor, and this is the tale of that vendor’s experience…
The successful vendor brought in the contractors in groups; the first group was told they’d get a 33% pay cut, and they were forced to fill out paperwork that asked illegal questions (this was in New York…). Clue-by-four #1: some of the contractors in that first batch reported back to the rest; most of the first batch quit rather than accept the new offer, and the remaining contractors informed the new vendor and the help desk company exactly how they were going to run the rest of the contractor conversion process – with current pay scale and without the illegal questionnaire.
After assimilating the contractors, the vendor neglected to send a manager with hiring authority to our site; with many of the most senior employees gone from the previous mistake, goals were missed. I was a Team Lead, and I and my fellow leads informed management of our need for replacements (Clue-by-four #2). Instead, the vendor sent in a “troubleshooter” manager – one who was heard to quote “I don’t know why I shouldn’t throw all of your names into a hat and just pick someone to fire!” (Signs of trouble brewing, employees nervous…)
Our hiring was up, but we were still failing to meet our goals. The help desk company was not interested in figuring out the cause of the problem, and the vendor’s management was too ignorant of the available data and too willing to blame the employees to solve the problem. As one of the few remaining vendor employees who understood the tracking systems and data available, I stepped up and offered my services. Clue-by-four #3: With perhaps a month before Armageddon (aka cancellation of the vendor contract), I found a simple source of human error that was responsible for our problem and presented it to the management team (by now the national corporation was watching), and as Team Lead I took a needed but very public action to correct the problem within a week.
But… in solving the problem, I stepped on the manager’s ego. The manager began making more unreasonable demands, and my girlfriend was fired when given the slightest cause after she questioned one of them. Clue-by-four #4: I sent a note to upper management regarding what was becoming an explosive situation. I was demoted and shipped off to a remote site to “troubleshoot another desk”, while the source of the “human error” that was almost responsible for the loss of the contract was promoted to my position. I left the company shortly thereafter, much to my benefit.
The vendor company lost the contract within two years of my leaving, and mostly because of management’s poor judgment. Had they listened to the employees and/or to me specifically throughout the process, they would have had more – and more experienced – employees to start, they would have had a better understanding of the desk, and they would have (in the end) been able to correct a severe management issue they had and could have kept the contract for a longer term, benefiting the company and the shareholders.
Management was not accountable to their employees (who knew more about the operation of the desk than they did). They failed to value their employees, to their detriment.