U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 04, 2009 02:35 AM UTC
17 Comments
House Bill 09-1170 is entitled “Unemployment Insurance Employee Lockout.”
It sounds like the “business” strategy here is to starve them out of their labor complaints so that they will agree to a weak deal out of desperation? Whereas having unemployment would increase their ability to hold position? Interesting dynamic.
I do assume that a strike, as opposed to a lockout, would not qualify people for UI since a strike is like quitting and a lockout is like being fired.
if workers choose to go on strike, that’s one thing. But if management throws them out of work, when they lose their job through no choice of their own, then they’re unemployed and should be able to collect the bare minimum that is unemployment insurance.
It only seems fair that if any other worker in Colorado who gets laid off can collect unemployment to tide them over, so should union workers.
And if they can’t collect unemployment, won’t that mean more foreclosures, etc?
He should get unemployment. It really is a no-brainer. If on the other hand he willingly joins a work stoppage, he should be on his own (with whatever the union is willing to let him have from their funds).
This is no different from laying everyone off.
what cologeek is saying, David.
he changed 30 years of Colorado employment law in 1999 to specifically exclude locked-out union workers from unemployment benefits. HB 1170 would simply reinstate the old language. And it’s not like unemployment amounts to much anyway, I think it maxes out at around $1600 a month.
Come on, they apparently are goose stepping all over the capitol throwing a hissy fit. I’d like to hear some names or faux roots organization names.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
I’m the CEO of a growing, profitable, successful company and I really don’t like being lumped in with these short-sighted self-centered nincompoops.
How about instead the “cro-magnon branch of the business community?”
Laughing, ok, David fine. The “cro-magnon branch of the business community” is the most powerful lobby in the country. Even if all the others combined into one, they would be outgunned. I am sure glad some people understand that. Here’s hoping 1170 passes, it should.
I can’t find the committee room it’s being heard in.
The business community needs to save its freak-outs for something more important than unemployment benefits for lock-out-ees. Otherwise people might stop listening to them.
I work at the State House and the business lobby has been lobbying against this bill down here for quite some time.
I was just about to ask if their lobbyist are that bad.