LATEST SUBMISSIONS

Ready to fight right-to-work

Saturday, November 3 at 12:00 AM

By James Hansen

Colorado unions have some heavy weapons in their upcoming fight with proponents of a so-called right-to-work law.

Right-to-work is a proposal that, if enacted, would lower the wages of all working men and women in Colorado. Right-to-work is not a workers’ movement. It is supported and primarily funded by out-of-state interests who are by no means concerned with better health care, wages, job security and pensions for working men and women.

Right-to-work laws prohibit unions and management from negotiating for an all-union shop in their labor agreements. All-union shops add strength to the employees’ position in collective bargaining.

Government statistics show the average worker in a right-to-work state makes about $5,333 a year less than a comparable worker in a free bargaining, or non-right-to-work, state. In Colorado, the annual average wage is $37,946, nearly $6,500 more than it is in the six states — five of which are right-to-work states — bordering Colorado.

With the exception of one year, right-to-work has been defeated in every session of the Colorado state legislature for the past 20 years, including years when right-to-work proponents controlled both houses of legislature and the governor’s office. It doesn’t stand a chance of passing in the legislature.

That’s why the right-to-work crowd is attempting to gather enough signatures on petitions to put the issue on the Colorado ballot in 2008.

Prevailing union wages in individual states set wage standards for all workers in those states. In order to compete for competent labor, nonunion employers in strong union states must pay higher wages than employers in states where unions are weak.

Stronger unions mean higher wages for nonunion workers. That’s why nonunion employers generally support right-to-work laws.

However, a right-to-work ballot referendum could be a serious miscalculation that will hurt employers far more than it helps.

In response, labor might sponsor a referendum that would require employers to prove they have just cause when firing workers. Under present law, workers are fired at the will of their employers. Having to prove just cause would make it far more difficult to fire an employee.

Another weapon in labor’s arsenal could be a referendum returning the state’s workers compensation to the courts. The present system for compensating workers injured on the job was set up years ago by employers to avoid costly lawsuits.

Over the years, the law has heavily favored employers. But injured and disabled workers would undoubtedly fare far better if a judge or jury decides how much they receive for their on-the-job injuries.

The state of Idaho offers an example of what will happen to wages in Colorado if a right-to-work law is enacted here. Within four years after Idaho’s right-to-work law was passed in 2001, the average annual pay was some $8,000 less than in Colorado.

In the third year after Oklahoma passed a right-to-work law in 2001, the median wage fell by nearly 1 percent, and median household income declined by 4.5 percent.

If labor files petitions for any of the ballot issues the unions are presently considering, employers will have to decide if a right-to-work law is worth the trouble.

After all, probably 98 percent of the working population comprises employees who have a stake in all of these issues.

And they will vote in their own best interest.

James Hansen is active in organized labor. He can be reached at jayhans@aol.com.

READER COMMENTS

If you need any reason to question the value of unions just re-read the original post. They make grand claims of benefits for union workers, but when it comes to the reality that many people want the right to decide for themselves to join or not join a union they show their true colors.

n response, labor might sponsor a referendum that would require employers to prove they have just cause when firing workers. Under present law, workers are fired at the will of their employers. Having to prove just cause would make it far more difficult to fire an employee.

"If labor files petitions for any of the ballot issues the unions are presently considering, employers will have to decide if a right-to-work law is worth the trouble."

"Another weapon in labor’s arsenal could be a referendum returning the state’s workers compensation to the courts. The present system for compensating workers injured on the job was set up years ago by employers to avoid costly lawsuits. "

Yep...sounds like threats to me. That is all unions offer, threats and more money for the politicians they select, not the ones who think about workers first.

I know. As a truck driver I had the experience of working with union shops. When we delivered meat to one union plant the union rep was there and we paid him a hundred dollars a truck for the privilege of putting our truck in the loading dock. Cost between 300 and 500 dollars extra to get the trucks unloaded. We paid the union boss the hundred. He pointed to the lumper boss, who examined the paperwork and announced the charge for unloading. The actual work was done by a bunch of filthy bums that were milling around the alley waiting to be called. They were paid between 20 and a 100 dollars a truck. This was in Philadelphia about ten years ago. If you recall they had a major E-coli outbreak. I e-mailed several reporters in the area about the problem probably being traceable to the union plant and the dirty people handling the boxes. Once a restaurant or other place opened the box the meat inside could be contaminated simply by someone accidentally touching the box and then touching the meat. Never got a response. One truck driver we'd met there (he shared our love of quilting) said the unions own that town and the papers too. No one is going to do anything about it if the union can be blamed. So I know just what unions are good for. If you read what Mr. Hansen wrote you will see for yourselves. No thanks. We have enough drains on our resources. No need to add another.

Posted by momma y on November 6, 2007 01:59 AM

A Colorado promise broken
By The Denver Post Editorial Board

"When Coloradans elected Bill Ritter as governor, they thought they were getting a modern-day version of Roy Romer, a pro-business Democrat. Instead, they got Jimmy Hoffa.

Ritter campaigned under the guise of a moderate "new Democrat" but now we know he's simply a toady to labor bosses and the old vestiges of his party — a bag man for unions and special interests.

The governor on Friday unveiled his plan to drive up the cost of doing business in Colorado by forcing collective bargaining on thousands of state employees.

We're concerned this may be the beginning of the end of Ritter as governor.

By pandering to unions, and the ever-shrinking 7.7 percent of the electorate that belong to unions, he's broken his "Colorado Promise" to voters. His promise to usher in a new era of collaborative government — where business and labor, Democrats and Republicans, would all be at the table — was nothing more than a sham. "
-----
ALL THAT GOOD STUFF AND MORE FROM THE VERY LIBERAL POST THAT BACKED RITTER! READ IT AND ENJOY!

Posted by Hank on November 4, 2007 12:37 PM

"Government statistics show the average worker in a right-to-work state makes about $5,333 a year less than a comparable worker in a free bargaining, or non-right-to-work, state."

Using Hansen's data, that means that the non-right to work state workers are overpaid by "$5,333" per year. The $5,333 overage penalty is the intimidation (broken kneecaps, strikes, disruptions and sabotage) fee extracted by unions and unions thugs at the expense of employers, consumers and taxpayers who are forced to make up the difference--or else. And I might also add, Hansen's $5,333 figure supports my cycle of wealth destruction and recession scenario laid out in my prior post. Its a classic example of Econ 101.

Unions are a "tax" on society, a tax that delivers absolutely no benefits to the rest (the overwhelming majority) of society.

Posted by Hank on November 4, 2007 12:30 PM

U.A.W. == U Ain't Workin'

Higher costs will chase capital away, investments won't be made, jobs won't be created, layoffs will surge, plants will be closed, incomes will be penalized, consumption will shrink, higher labor costs and benefits will cause higher prices, higher prices will cause inflation and interest rates will be driven higher--RECESSION! AKA DETROIT.

This cycle of poverty and wealth destruction is right out of the union playbook, and they think it doesn't include them! Well, consider the failing "BIG-3," the steel industry and textiles as primary examples of business, financial and economic failure.

For some 3 decades the UAW has tried to organize foreign nameplates who manufacture autos in the USA--Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen, etc. and have failed every time. Not ONE single foreign nameplate is unionized--the unions were defeated 100% of the time. Do you think that these hard working Americans who enjoy steady employment and good wages at these successful and expanding plants know something that the UNIONISTAS like Hansen are not telling us? You can take that one to the bank!

Posted by Hank on November 4, 2007 12:15 PM

Regarding the comments of “momma y”:

Her disdain for unions is obvious. It’s also obvious that her opinion was formed by a less than positive experience with unions. However, my experience has been different and generally positive.

I have no doubt that many unionized employers would like to end benefits packages and drop the ay of their employees. In many cases, the only thing that keeps that from happening is the fact that there is a union.

Related to the above is a point that Mr. Hansen makes: That unionized employers force non-unionized employers to offer competitive wages and benefits in order to attract employees. This works to improve the lot of all working folks- unless you feel that you should make less and not have any health benefits.

Also, it should be noted that one of the benefits of having a union shop is that the employees have a way to air and have grievances resolved. This serves as a manner in which to balance the power in a workplace. It also works to protect employees from management persons who are abusive. Without a union presence, an employee would be forced to engage in a costly and lengthy legal battle in order to stand up for his/her right to not be kicked around by supervision.

The standard argument that one who is unhappy with one’s employer should seek employment elsewhere has become tiresome. It is perfectly fine and acceptable for someone to try to improve his/her workplace. Again, Mr. Hansen’s argument that unions improve the lot of all working folks seems appropriate.

Mr. Hansen’s point that in states where right to work laws have passed people have seen a drop in their income is also worth noting. If workers see such a drop, it is unlikely that they will continue to spend their money as readily as they may have before. Remember that two thirds of economic activity in the US is created by consumer spending. People making less money is bad for the economy.

As far as President Reagan and his open hostility toward unions, one can’t help but think that his actions gave a green light to others that were hostile toward unions to go ahead and try to suppress or eliminate unions altogether. Further, it doesn’t strike me as a coincidence that the demise of the American middle class and the decline in union membership seem to have occurred at the same time.

Unions are still relevant and, although weakened, still provide benefits not only to their members but to other working Americans as well.

Posted by Thom Challenger on November 4, 2007 02:51 AM

Lisa,

The benefits of unions disappeared when they managed to push through laws that imposed union type rules for everyone.

Unions serve no purpose today that is beneficial to anyone but the union and the politicians. I would love to have them put up their attack proposals for a vote. If they pass, doubtful at best, employers already know the next step. You would sign a contract for every job defining yourself as an at-will employee. Some companies with branches in states with such laws get them signed to protect them from lawsuits being filed in another state. As for the Workman's Comp changes I'd like that. It would return real teeth to the law requiring insurance. I was hurt in a union shop company which just happened to not pay the insurance bill and had it canceled 22 hours before I got hurt. Won in the WC court and got a 6.5 million dollar judgement. After the company filed for bankruptcy I ended up with less than 5,000 at the end of a 17 year court battle. Again, the laws have changed so much that any company will merely change to independent contractors. The union was dead by the time I got to court but they had refused to represent me a long time before that because I kept complaining about the union and its lack of useful purpose.

For every union "improvement" there is a solution for a business. The solution to unions has already been mentioned here...Wal-Mart. Unionization merely sends jobs to places where unions don't exist. Losers are the workers. I still support the Wal-Mart method. Close, move and remind any group that tries to unionize that the cost of closing a business is less than the overall cost of moving one. Reagan showed us all the way. Now we have to show unions, and their lapdog legislature, the door. Don't worry. No one would dare go into an election year hand in hand with a bunch of anti-business, pro-union laws going on the books. They are lapdogs not dumb lapdogs.

Posted by momma y on November 3, 2007 05:53 PM

James, you make the typical tired claims that all union advocates use to sway the uneducated and uninformed.
If right-to-work bill laws are so bad then we (Coloradans) will see it for what it is and vote it down.
But, if your statements are nothing more than scare mongering then we will see that too...and I do see it.
Where did you ever get the idea that we need you or your union working for us?
I don't recall you helping me get through college. I don't remember you paying any of my tuition loans. I don't recall you or your union doing anything to get me to where I am today....but somehow you seem to think I suddenly need you.
There are unions where I work and they serve to ensure the worst employees are difficult if not impossible to terminate.
There are many better qualified people out there that cannot get in the door because there are too many union-protected deadbeats blocking their access.
I do not want your union, I do not need your union and I know I absolutely didn't ask for your assistance. Just tell your side (honestly) let the proponents tell their side (honestly) and let the voters decide. I am willing to accept the outcome of a voter referendum if you are.

Posted by I'm not fooled on November 3, 2007 05:19 PM

"...if it wasn't for those employees they wouldn't have a company." That is such a favorite line for socialists. Turn it around..if it weren't for this company, you wouldn't have a job.
Convenience stores and resturaunts..they don't unionize anyways, there is such turnaround in these places. Besides, low wages and no bathroom breaks? What an incentive for people to not drop out of high school and actually get educated in college, for a higher paying job.
I applaud everytime Walmart shuts down or decides not to build because of unions. I hope they stick to their guns. Did you know the only place Walmart is unionized? China. That is where all unions should go-communist countries, that is what we will be if we keep unionizing everything.

Posted by aliciala on November 3, 2007 10:16 AM

Momma y,
I am sorry to hear that your experience with unions have left you bitter. I don't know what unions or companies you have worked for nor the details, but I have to disagree with you on the Right to Work issue. First of all if it weren't for unions we would not have a middle class. People died for the right to unionize. Companies don't care about you and the less they have to give you the better in their eyes. Unions are only as good as the people "you" elect to represent you. Unions help with better wages and bennifits instead of supliments that most companies have , if they have it at all. As far as I am concerned I wish that the CEO's of these companies did care enough about the people that work for them and we wouldn't have to unionize, but that is not reality. The more they recieve for themselves the greedier they get. Also what about the people that are forced to work in unsafe enviroments, whether it is chemicals or physical dangers? They should have to quit?! I could go on about the reasons for Unions and I know there is negitive things also but there is in every issue. The power to the unions was taken along time ago by the Reagen administration and it is time to give back that power so that people have a voice and a choice. Also let us not forget labor laws came about from unions and the labor laws have also been effected by the weakening of the unions. Did you know that the "break" issue alone has been effected. Companies such as restaurants and convienient stores don't have to give breaks except for time to eat and to go to the bathroom. They can work you 8 hrs without a break because they claim it can't be proven. I realize that the unions of today are not the same as in the past but I believe that could be changed. When a company has all the power and the employee has none, then people are not treated fairly. Employers also need to remember that if it wasn't for those employees they wouldn't have a company. I believe that anyone who puts all those years in a company should have a livible wage, decent bennifits, and money to retire. Instead of giving all the power to these companies we need to take back our own power as people who deserve better.

Posted by Lisa on November 3, 2007 06:53 AM

Hmm

Lots of threats here. One thing wasn't clear to me. If the people, the voters, decide they want the freedom to choose whether or not they want to be part of a union and vote in a Right to Work Law will Big Labor bring its strong arm tactics and ballot initiatives out?

The real question is what will the unions and their bully boys do if the people who are wise enough to choose right to work are also wise enough to turn down the poisoned proposals listed here? Or was the threat to go to the lapdog state government and shove it down the throats of everyone via legislation?

Either way you admit that labor fears freedom to reject unions because that is what people will do most of the time. I am a former union member and my husband has been a member of three different unions since we were married. None of them were worth the cost of the paper his dues receipts were printed on. Added cost to the companies, cost to the employees and no value to either. The only positive thing about unions is that they are one group with both a reason and the power to fight socialized medicine.

Again, thanks for the threats. Now we know it is a real prospect for us to get rid of mandatory unions because there wouldn't be a threat if there were no chance to get it on the ballot and passed.

The only purpose unions serve today is to funnel money from the worker to the politicians the union bosses want. Looks like I'll get to test my new wheelchair by passing petitions.

Since 2008 is an election year I suspect the unions will try to keep a low profile legislatively because too many will reject your "revenge" legislation and any who vote to pass it. The Democratic majorities in the statehouse are fragile. We both know that. Nice try though.
Actually it is a standard from the old union playbook: threaten consequences for opposition to both sides and take action if defeated to damage or destroy those responsible for the defeat. Bet you've even got your own axe handle too.

Posted by momma y on November 3, 2007 04:10 AM