Ritter Helps Unions Raise Political Dollars
Face the State Staff Editorial
Figuring out how to keep union leaders happy has become a full-time job for Gov. Bill Ritter. After vetoing an effort to turn Colorado into a closed-shop union state, he has struggled continuously to keep organized labor satisfied without alienating Colorado's mainstream voters and business leaders. Tired of facing the perception that he would bow to Big Labor’s harmful economic agenda, the Democratic governor found a way to appease the giant while attracting little attention. Unfortunately, it came at the expense of good government.
Two weeks ago, Ritter signed an executive order allowing union leaders to tap into the state’s payroll system in order collect money for union dues and political contributions. He put state government back in the business of providing free service to an organization that represents a political interest dedicated to bigger, not more efficient, government. Thus, Ritter has decided to give public employee unions carte blanche to take money from hardworking public employees. Meanwhile, taxpayers and many state employees are being left with the scraps.
The trouble started before the Governor had time to finish decorating his new office. House Bill 1072 fell into his lap. The legislation jeopardized the state’s peaceful balance between business and labor, putting individual workers at greater risk of paying fees to a union against their will.
The Governor’s office told us that bill was no big deal, that there should have been no reason for surprise. Ritter had promised during the campaign to support the proposal, even if the promise was made to a select group of union leaders and hidden from voters.
Business leaders and Chambers of Commerce who had supported Ritter’s candidacy said that his signature on the bill would fracture the coalition to increase government spending on education and health care. So he deftly wielded the veto pen, claiming he still liked the idea but not the partisan tone of the debate that brought the legislation to his desk.
Furious at the perceived betrayal, AFL-CIO officials sent the Governor a scathing letter saying they would use all their influence to urge the removal of the 2008 Democratic National Convention from Denver. A few days later, Ritter made the gesture of good will to labor leaders by giving them the state’s payroll system as a convenient means of collecting cash.
Ritter’s executive order rescinds a 2001 order by his Republican predecessor Bill Owens. Owens signed his order saying that the state should not be in the business of processing financial transactions that are not required by law. When state employees learned they had a choice to pay union dues, two-thirds of them decided the membership fees weren’t worth it.
In signing the order, he claimed to merely increase "efficiency." The "efficiency" means that union leaders now have the opportunity to use their newfound "efficiency" to take members' money easily and quickly. Most dangerous is the ability and willingness of public employee union bosses to extract money from members and turn it to political uses.
Under current law, union bosses can take member money and transfer it into a political or small donor committee, without the permission or even knowledge or a member. It won't come as a surprise that employees rarely know their rights, and often fail to jump through the hoops necessary to keep their money. Indeed, union leadership does not publicize the withdrawal as political payments, and most employees don't even know that they are supporting the union's political agenda.
The employees themselves haven’t been knocking down the doors to have union dues deducted from their paychecks. Labor organizers and officials are the ones who stand to benefit. A Clinton cabinet official understood the principle. “In order to maintain themselves, unions have got to have some ability to strap their members to the mast,” said former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich.
When Governor Bill Owens stopped the automatic transfers, union member dues plummeted. Once Ritter reinstitutes the automatic transfers, Colorado's powerful public employee unions will have even more power to take member dues and use them for the union leaders political agenda. Observers expect public employee unions to shovel millions into future political campaigns.


FAN US ON FACEBOOK
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
Comments
Yes, Union Busting .......
Socrates keep attaching unions without nothing more than base level us vs them poltical carping. Sounds like the truth hurts. The fact remains, the most effective path to the middle class is a union card. And yes, union busting is alive and well in this country.
A recent column by By Peter Dreier and Kelly Candaele, on TomPaine.com, states,
The rules are stacked against workers, making it extremely difficult for even the most committed and talented organizers and workers to win union elections. Big business spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to hire anti-union consultants who use elaborate strategies to keep unions out. Employers in the United States can require workers to attend meetings on work time, where company managers and consultants give anti-union speeches, show anti-union films and distribute anti-union literature. Unions have no equivalent rights of access to employees. To reach them, organizers must visit their homes or hold secret meetings. This is hardly workplace democracy.
Business leaders argue that employees' anti-union attitudes account for the decline in union membership, which was 12 percent last year after peaking at 35 percent in the 1950s. In fact, a December 2006 poll found that 58 percent of nonmanagerial workers would join a union if they could. But they won't vote for a union, much less participate openly in an organizing drive, if they fear losing their jobs for doing so.
Another blog post by Mike Doyle states, According to national labor data, workers are illegally fired in one-quarter of all union organizing campaigns, including 1 in 5 active union supporters. More than 75% of companies force workers to attend one-on-one anti-union interviews with their supervisors. Half of all companies threaten to close the plant if a union is authorized. And one-third of companies take advantage of procedural loopholes--in many cases for years--in order to delay ever reaching a first contract.
I call that union busting and I maintain that Socrates is just another right wing anti-union carper. You are wrong. Your conservative philosopy is wrong and your party is wrong. Again, I say, "Face the Facts".
OH, and by the way, .......
.....if "the most effective path to the middle class is a union card," then why does the American worker overwhelmingly reject union membership and yet still makes it to the middle class just fine? Except, of course, for those who can't make it in the private sector and so have to find a cushy government job like inmate drug councilor, where they don't actually have to produce anything of value, so long as they get their paperwork done.
Wow ........
How ignorant is that? Again, cross check the facts. Numerous studies (which you can find with a mouse click) conclude that about 50 to 60 million Americans would join unions IF they could. Your other personal attack deserves no reply.
Numerous studies.....
.....of which you can't point out even one, but you can sure falsely accuse others of making personal attacks, while repeatedly indulging in them yourself.
You want to look not-ignorant? You might try actually giving a CITATION to one of your so-far fictional studies. But in the meantime, don't blame others for how foolish you appear when you simply can't back up even one of your claimed "facts."
Like I said .........
Again, I have given many citations while you just throw dirt. The information stating, "50 to 60 million people" would join unions if they could is well publicized, to include from the AFL-CIO, so what? I never said the labor unions were directly referenced in the US constitution.
I said "Remember checks and balances? Remember democracy and equal justice under the law? Well, if you TRULY supported those principles, then you would support unions, but typically, the right wing supports power and wealth and forgets such minor details as separation of powers". I stand by that. You are accusing me of being ignorant, but all you have done is throw insults. I am not blaming anybody for how foolish you look nor am I backing away from any previous posts, ie, facts or opinion.
And not that this information below will do anything to enlighten you, but so be it.
The main body of law governing collective bargaining is the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It explicitly grants employees the RIGHT to collectively bargain and join trade unions.
The NLRA was originally enacted by Congress in 1935 under its power to regulate interstate commerce. See, U.S. Constitution Art. I, Section 8 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8). It applies to most private non-agricultural employees and employers engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce. Decisions and regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, which was established by the NLRA, greatly supplement and define the provisions of the act.
Aw, gee...
...I figured you were going to file a grievance against me or something. Oh, wait, that didn't work out so well for you the last two times, did it?
By the way, it's not "throwing insults" to point out that your assertions of fact are unfounded, or that your sources are more than a little biased. So I don't care what you "stand by." Nor does it bother me particularly to read your empty namecalling.
And the NLRA (nice try to change the subject) does not establish labor unions as a governmental institution entitled to power under the separation of powers scheme created by the US Constitution. Neither does the existence of the NLRB entitle unions to such governmental power and participation in separation of powers. If it did, you could point to a specific provision, constitutional or otherwise, that says so specifically. But you can't, now can you? Ah, well. Perhaps you would do better with that bogus argument should you actually study the Constitution a bit? After all, you have all that time for union activity on top of (or should we say, in place of) your regular job....you can surely get the union to pay you to read the Constitution and maybe a few Supreme Court cases, right?
You have said nothing......
You done a sorry job defending your position, which is just base level anti-union rhetoric and personal attacks. And as a matter of fact, the last grievances I filed turned out well, not that you
have any idea what you are talking about (the norm) I also suggest you re-read what I wrote as opposed to twisting it. Go rant on somebody else and maybe find a few facts. I am done with your hiding and whining.
Nothing but more.....
.....baseless personal attacks. [yawn]
P.S. Both of the grievances you filed and posted up on your own union website got DENIED. Try another lie, how about? Maybe "find a few facts?"
And you've said before that you're "done." Funny how that never seems to actually happen.
OH, by the way.....
......the study paid-union-rep Allport appears to be referring to was conducted for and publicized by the AFL-CIO. Hardly an unbiased source.......no wonder he didn't want to give anything like a citation. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!
So your "sources" are...
....an opinion column, unnamed "business leaders," and a "blog post by Mike Doyle," not to mention a whole host of completely unattributed "statistics" from "national labor data."
Sure. Right.
Your namecalling doesn't cover up the fact that you don't have anything to support your assertions. Again. As usual. So what you "maintain" is simply meaningless. Not even a good try, Mr. Allport, paid union official.
And we're still waiting for all those examples of labor riots and actual head-busting in.....oh, let's say, in the last YEAR. And we're still waiting for you to point us to precisely the provision in the US Constitution that establishes labor unions as a branch of government and part of the separation of powers, etc., as you previously asserted. Or have you given up that nonsense?
Why is it you can't seem to support your assertions with anything resembling facts? Perhaps you'd be a little less embarassed and look a little less foolish if you tried something a little more substantive than simply spewing bovine scatological material generated by union PR hacks.