I have rarely heard such despicable lies in political ads as those ads running against Colorado Amendments 47 and 49, the former being "Right to Work" (i.e. not to have to be a union member or pay union dues to get any particular job) and the latter removing the government's ability to automatically deduct union dues from paychecks.
Critics are calling the ads attacks on teachers and firemen.
An ad I heard against 49 today said that the measure would "put the paychecks of firefighters into the hands of businesses and the government" which is exactly the opposite of what 49 does. It says that no private organization can have dues or other contributions automatically taken from the paycheck of a government employee. Here's the specific language:
An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning deductions from governmental payroll systems, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting a governmental payroll system from taking a payroll deduction from any government employee except deductions required by federal law, tax withholdings, judicial liens and garnishments, deductions for individual or group health benefits or other insurance, deductions for pension or retirement plans or systems, or other savings or investment programs, and charitable deductions.
The idea that this somehow is putting firefighters' paychecks at risk is something that even a good propagandist could do. The ad is an outright lie, playing to fears of uninformed voters.
There are similar ads against 47 saying that evil business owners want 47 to pass so they can cut wages and health benefits for workers.
Here's the official ballot title:
An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning participation in a labor organization as a condition of employment, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting an employer from requiring that a person be a member and pay any moneys to a labor organization or to any other third party in lieu of payment to a labor organization and creating a misdemeanor criminal penalty for a person who violates the provisions of the section.
Does that sound like business owners trying to hurt workers? I don't think so.
Of course, the unions have huge money to throw at opposing these measures because of the deal with the devil that Colorado "business community" made with the unions, giving them $3 million and pledging to help defeat pro-business Amendments in return for the unions pulling some outrageous anti-business Amendments from the ballot.
My guess is that 47 and 49 will both fail because the money opposing them is so massive compared to the money supporting them. It will be like Referendum C which passed by a narrow margin although the money spent to pass it was 10 times the money spent against it. When the difference in ad budgets is that large, it's hard for the small budget to win...and the smaller budget is never the unions.
You often hear government say things like "if we don't get this tax hike, starving orphans will be thrown out on the street in the middle of winter." The claims against these ads are almost worse, implying they'll reduce the safety of firefighters' working conditions.
Watch this and tell me where in the proposed Amendments anything like what this guy is warning about is even theoretically possible:
Even the liberal Denver Post has come out for Amendment 49.
The lies and desperation in these ads are the worst I've ever seen, and that says a lot. The firefighters in particular should be ashamed of themselves, though it's less surprising when you go to a firefighters' web site where they're opposing these measures and see AFL-CIO logos all over the place. In any case, this puts at least a temporary end to any contribution I'll be making to any firefighters organization in the state other than the local all-volunteer firestation up here in the mountains near my home. My respect for firefighters has taken a body blow, and my level of distaste for unions has reached a new high.
11 comments
Talk about LIES. You conveyed a lie in the first sentence.
The American Bar Association has written, "Full union membership cannot be compelled under the NLRA." (National Labor Relations Act)
http://www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/special/us.pdf#page=51
The "Right To Work" people state exactly the same on their national website:
"Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?
Answer: You may not be required to be a union member... full union membership cannot lawfully be required."
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm
Why would the "right to work" people claim in Colorado that workers can be forced to join the union, yet state on their national website that the opposite is true?
because nationally, they want to get workers to follow the law and drop out of unions. In Colorado, they are whipping up a phony furor, claiming that working people are missing out on a right that they really do have, hoping that the outrage will translate into votes. Quite a trick, selling to working people something that they already have.
This website is called "rational thinking." What you've written is anything but.
richard myers
It seems to me that you are the one who is lying. You quote something from the National Right to Work web site which says "You may not be required to be a union member", but then replace with ellipses (...) the following extremely important clause: "unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees."
I suppose you're just another union bagman trying to lie to make the case against "Right to Work".
If not, please explain why you would deliberately leave out the most important part of the sentence you quoted.
on 10/23/08 at 09:14
*...full union membership cannot lawfully be required...*
Consider that labor law is complex. It has been tinkered with since 1935 and before. The many changes and modifications have been efforts to strike a balance, and preserve some benefit to both sides. Claiming that it is all one way, or all the other way, is generally dishonest.
This latest effort isn't tinkering in an effort to improve labor law, but rather, an effort to damage unions. Jake Jabs says so himself, quoted in Westword,
"Jake Jabs ... told reporters he wanted 'to frankly hurt the pocketbooks of the unions.'"
http://www.westword.com/content/printVersion/921165
The lie is to claim that you can be forced to join a union, without explaining what that means.
So lets look at that complexity. What can be required, short of "full" union membership?
Agency fees. These are sometimes described as "payments in lieu of dues for services rendered."
There are two types of benefits that unions typically provide to working people in the bargaining unit. The first is direct services, such as negotiating improved wages, hours, and working conditions. Unions maintain safety committees that insure a safe working environment. They may negotiate or provide training, or even G.E.D. and college classes.
The second type of benefit is political advocacy -- for more than a century mainstream unions have sought to aid their political allies, and punish their political enemies. Under Beck Rights, however, no one in the bargaining unit is required to contribute to a political campaign that they do not support.
Under existing law, Colorado workers benefiting from union activities can be assessed a nominal fee to cover that first type of service. Amendment 47 would criminalize collection of these fees, yet would leave intact the federally mandated requirement that unions must provide such services to non-members.
It is as if insurance companies were compelled to provide auto insurance to anyone who walked through the door, but a powerful “right to be insured” organization guaranteed that no one had to pay for that insurance. If insurance policy payments were voluntary, insurance companies would go out of business in a matter of months.
Why have one standard for companies, and a different one for unions? Could it be because unions are a (sometimes imperfect) voice of working people, and some people just don't trust working people to have some sort of empowerment?
richard myers
Of course I read the full quote and it's clear that if you're not in a right to work state, it's possible you can be forced to join a union or pay union dues/fees. (I should have included the second part in my original note, and I have added it, since paying the dues is really the key point more than actually being a union member.) The point of "full union membership" is basically irrelevant. Do you think a worker really cares more whether he's forced to be a "full member" or whether his money is taken to give the union? I submit it's the latter.
The point is that you intentionally left out of your quote the part that says it is possible for there to be a situation where a worker can be forced to join a union or pay fees.
The measure may indeed be an effort to damage unions, so let me be clear: That's fine with me. I don't like unions. They are a tax on society and have outlived their usefulness in most situations...especially for government workers where they are now more powerful than ever.
Your comparison with an insurance company is inapt. Nobody is forcing a worker to work, much less to work at a particular company.
Please prove that non-members would be able to demand participation in any beneficial activity by a union. I don't buy it.
As for standards for unions versus companies, again I don't see the comparison. The employee makes a contract with the employer. Unions interfere in those contracts. One might try to argue that they sometimes get better deals for employees, but of course that means worse deals for employers and shareholders who are the ones spending money to employ the workers.
In any case, nobody is arguing that people should not be able to join a union! Just that they shouldn't be required to or to pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.
FYI, you confused Amendments 47 and 49 when you said that "Amendment 47 would criminalize collection of these fees". It's 49 that would eliminate automatic deduction of union dues from the paychecks OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. It does not apply to private sector employees.
on 10/23/08 at 13:03
Wrong. It is a critical consideration in the question.
We're not talking impressions or philosophy, we are talking law. The American Bar Association, uses the same language, "Full union membership cannot be compelled under the NLRA." (National Labor Relations Act)
http://www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/special/us.pdf#page=51
"I don't like unions."
There are a lot of things i don't like about the mainstream unions that we have. I've written criticism of unions for more than a decade, including a scathing six page editorial in a union newspaper in 1999. (The union's leadership didn't like that very much and asked me not to do it again, LOL!) But i worked in a factory for 33 years, and i've never once considered that we (the workers on the shop floor) would be better off without a union.
"Your comparison with an insurance company is inapt. Nobody is forcing a worker to work, much less to work at a particular company."
Nobody forces a worker to work, but hunger is a fairly compelling voice.
"Please prove that non-members would be able to demand participation in any beneficial activity by a union."
It is what it is. My friend Robbie R. was not a union member for the three plus decades that we worked side by side in the factory. I joined the first chance that i could. He paid a fee in lieu of dues. After about a decade of non-membership, he filed a pay grade grievance with the union. The union believed it was just, and took it through the five steps of the grieavance process. That didn't resolve it, so the union took it to arbitration. Unfortunately the arbitrator sided with the company, but that's more common than not. A few months after that grievance was denied, the company changed policy to fix the problem he'd complained about.
Any member of the bargaining unit, union member or not, must be so represented in any dealings with the company. It is required by federal law.
Now, i remember some Republican co-workers who hated that the union sent dues money to Democrats. We didn't know about Beck Rights. They had a legitimate complaint.
But that's been fixed, including in Colorado:
http://www.complianceposter.com/detail.aspx?ID=481
"The employee makes a contract with the employer. Unions interfere in those contracts."
Not always.
Sometimes it is: The employee makes a contract with the employer. The employees decide they need to make a contract with each other, because that first contract is unfair or isn't being properly maintained.
Do union adminstrations get out of touch with workers they represent? Sure they do. That's been one of my biggest complaints. But generally speaking, the union empowers workers, because it is meant to respond to their needs.
The company, in contrast, responds to the needs of investors. You sound like you would put investors above workers, and to me that just sucks.
An employer has a great deal of control over the employer/employee contract. Absent a union, the employee really has only one right, and that is to quit and find a different job. But that different job may come with the same sort of problems.
"FYI, you confused Amendments 47 and 49 when you said that 'Amendment 47 would criminalize collection of these fees'."
You are wrong. Here's the (partial) text of Amendment 47:
Section 16. Right to work. (1) THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE "COLORADO RIGHT TO WORK AMENDMENT".
(2) (a) NO PERSON SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, BE REQUIRED TO:
[...]
(II) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO A LABOR UNION
[...]
(3) ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE MOST STRINGENT MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY LAW.
I still think you're basically wrong and that you did confuse 47 and 49. It's 49 that specifically address collection of dues whereas 47 discusses that nobody shall be compelled to pay them. Yes, one can argue that 47 would criminalize an employer who takes union dues from the paycheck of an employee who doesn't want that done. But 49 would criminalize it for government to do that for any government employee, even if they want it done. In other words 49 is all about collections whereas it's barely relevant to 47.
I'm done debating this for today. That was a fine conversation. Thanks.
Ross
on 10/23/08 at 22:00
No problem. Perhaps tomorrow you can explain to me what a "union bagman" is, i've been a union member for 39 years and i've never heard that expression before.
richard myers
I didn't come up with "bagman".
Here's the primary source for that as used in context of Amendment 49, former Senator Hank Brown:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10624327
Ross
on 10/24/08 at 13:56
* a person who on behalf of another collects or distributes illicitly gained money ; broadly : an intermediary in an illicit or unethical transaction *
Hank Brown used the term "bagman" to disparage, as in party to an illicit financial arrangement.
But what is illicit about a person working for a living, and getting paid for that work? In what sense is that wrong?
Taken a step further -- if we're referring to payroll deduction -- is that unethical on its face? Or does a normal business process simply present an opportunity for anti-union ideologues to commit sabotage of a normal business relationship -- including donations to United Way, orphanages, homeless shelters, and cancer research -- as part of an effort to attack unions?
It seems to me that transposing this term to a union supporter is similarly defamatory. Do you think it helps the discourse to mindlessly pass along such derogatory names?
Personally, i'd much prefer to debate ideas, than to participate in ad hominem attacks on someone who thinks differently.
richard
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
Following Obama's Economic Policies
