 On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com. |
Consumer-friendly?
It's safe to say that Coloradans haven't lost sleep worrying that some retailer somewhere might be selling something at below cost.
Selling "below cost" is called a bargain. A sale. A close-out. A loss leader. A marketing strategy.
It's called competition.
If the Colorado Senate has its way, however, selling something at below cost - as officially defined in the law, of course- will be illegal in every county with a population of less than 200,000, meaning throughout most of the state.
Ironically, the Senate was poised to do a good thing when it fell to temptation and decided to micromanage retail transactions in rural and small-town Colorado. Indeed, it was all set to pass a bill that would lift Depression-era restrictions preventing supermarkets and big-box stores from selling cheap gas and prescription drugs.
House Bill 1208 had already passed the House and had survived early tests in the Senate, too. But it was crippled with the 11th-hour amendment exempting smaller counties.
Attorney General John Suthers, who has promoted the lifting of so-called predatory pricing restrictions, was understandably stunned and disappointed by news of the amendment. The House sponsor, Rep. Cheri Jahn, D-Wheat Ridge, told me that the amendment will make state law worse than ever because the ban on below-cost sales seems to nullify previous legal qualifications and includes all products and services.
"We're are talking about the $5 turkeys at Safeway - gone," she said. "We're talking about 'buy one, get one free' - gone." She predicts more consumers than ever will end up driving from small counties to large ones to do their shopping.
The Senate sponsor, Republican Steve Johnson of Fort Collins, echoed her frustration. "It's really insane what they did," he told me.
What was the Senate majority thinking? Have they fallen under the spell of economic tracts penned by Hugo Chavez? Did someone tell them "land of the free" applies only to urbanites?
The bill will go to a House-Senate conference committee, so sanity might still prevail. If not, someone needs to explain why a $5 turkey sale is such a hideous threat.
Dangerous step
When you hear the phrase "union workplace," do the words "flexible," "innovative" or "fast-reacting" immediately come to mind?
Say what you like about the benefits of unions - proclaim their virtues to the sky - the fact remains that they were created to limit management's options, not enhance them. Which is why the congressional decision to allow workers in the Transportation Security Administration to unionize is so bizarre.
"I voted against today's bill because I believe that allowing collective bargaining for Transportation Security Administration workers would undermine the ability of the TSA to perform its critical aviation security mission," explained Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard earlier this week. "This provision was not a 9/11 commission recommendation. While strengthening special interests, it weakens homeland security. That is not a trade-off I am willing to make."
Alas, most of his colleagues, including his Colorado colleague, Sen. Ken Salazar, were.
If you find airport security a nuisance now, just wait a few years while work rules are steadily carved into collective bargaining stone. The resulting check-in hassles won't even be the worst part. As Arizona Sen. John Kyl has pointed out, "the TSA must have the ability to rapidly alter security procedures and deploy screeners to confront threats."
Rapidly alter security procedures? Sure, right after the next five sessions of union-management negotiations. Who could possibly have a problem with that?
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.