U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Janak Joshi
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) David Seligman
50%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Milat Kiros
90%
10%
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*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Jessica Killin
70%
30%
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) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 19, 2009 01:56 AM UTC
8 Comments
nice wide opening here…
this should be a no-brainer for Bennet. Your point about business opposing him regardless of his vote and his need for the ground troops that labor can bring is spot on.
However, my guess is that he votes against labor on this anyway. In fact I think he already knows that is what he is going to do but needs to posture some more.
If he does as I think he will do, labor will do everything they can to see that he is not the US Senator from Colorado.
I think he is working for a compromise–short of the check-card, but tougher enforcement of existing laws on abuse by employers, perhaps some new rules. I think this is part of the “moderate” nonsense he and Udall are up to, trying to work with both sides. Result: caving in to the business community that will not compromise at all. It is not good enough.
In the end, the question becomes rather simple: Are you with Wal-Mart, or are you with the Wal-Mart (poorly paid) employees?
Union Bosses hate Profit Sharing, Competition and Job Based Incentives.
David Nassar of Wal-Mart Watch, a faux consumer group, said Wal-Mart is “scared and throwing dead weight overboard”.
Continuing policies of rewarding employees based on performance apparently is a warped concept to Mr. Nassar, one can only hope his superiors agree with him on his compensation.
Walmart will have a $20 Billion dollar profit this year.
http://money.aol.com/news/arti…
What do you think the people who make this happen deserve?
Someone help me with the math….is what the company is paying back to their employees fair or a pittance?
$2 billion for 1 million workers, average of $2,000 per worker. For a full time worker over a year (40 hours/week for 50 weeks), that would work out to an additional $1 per hour. For those at minimum wage (about $13,000 per year if full time) another 2K quite significant, although it seems some comes in non-cash forms. I also assume the lower-wage workers get less.
Is it fair? Two issues come to mind. First, let’s note this “generous” nature of Wal-Mart is recent. After the brutal battles over unionizing, and the bad press Wal-Mart is getting for its anti-union tactics, they are trying to improve their press, and trying to buy off their workers. To the extent it helps their workers, great. But if the union threat was not there, Wal-Mart would not be paying these bonuses.
Second, if Wal-Mart workers were unionized, would their average wages have increased $1 per hour, or even more? In other words, would unionization have made them better off with their regular (union) wages than with these “benevolent” bonuses? Would the workers have been happier and more productive workers with a union? All open to debate, but (except for the automatic union-bashers out there) plausible.
Bottom line, without the attempts at unionization at Wal-Marts, and without the “threat” (as Wal-Mart sees it) of EFCA, we would not have seen Wal-Mart’s recent efforts of giving bonuses, improving somewhat its health care benefits, etc. And if the possibility of unionization is weakened (this is speaking to you, Sen. Bennet), Wal-Mart will backslide.
I find it very difficult to believe that Walmart is giving $2000 bonuses to their minimum wage employees. You suggest this yourself, but I think the skew there is going to be overwhelming, to the point that considering the impact of a $2000 bonus on a minimum wage employee is completely irrelevant.
I was trying to be most charitable toward Wal-Mart’s possible bonus to the lowest paid workers, and perhaps I was being too subtle. What I think: They would be better off with higher wages and better benefits with a union than with the arbitrary bonuses.