• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

This Speakout has not been edited

By Assistant House Majority Leader Michael Garcia (D- Aurora)

The 1/20/07 editorial “‘All union’ bill a blow to liberty” misses the mark and misstates the facts.

What my bill does is simple. It’s a minor change in an antiquated law that no other state still has on the books. Once a union has been democratically elected, the union then enters into the collective bargaining process — negotiations — over a contract with the employer.

HB 1072 puts both parties on a level playing field when they go to the negotiating table.

The bill removes one archaic provision from the state’s labor peace act. It eliminates the need for the state – at taxpayers’ expense — to conduct yet another election amongst workers as to whether the already-elected union can merely bring the issue of an all-union agreement, or union security clause, to the bargaining table with the employer.

It’s important to remember how the bargaining process works. The employer and the employee organization both bring issues to the table. Either side may refuse to consider any issue during negotiations. The employer is not asked to conduct an election of its board of directors or share holders in order to bring an issue forward, just as the employees are not asked to hold an election on any other specific issue.

If the employer feels strongly that it does not wish to consider a union security clause, it can simply refuse to do so. Employers are big boys and girls and are able to decide whether they are willing to bargain on an issue without government interference.

Before a contract is agreed upon, workers also have an opportunity to vote it up or down.

The bill’s opponents make the false claim that it will force workers to join the union. Under federal law no one can be forced to join a union. If a union security clause is in place, workers can be asked to pay an agency fee to cover the costs of representation if they choose not to become union members.

The bill ensures workers the same representative democracy in the workplace that citizens of Colorado have. If workers elect a union to represent them, it is by majority rule, just as voters do with their legislators. Once selected as the employees’ representative, the union is responsible for representing all workers — members and non-members — through negotiations, servicing and handling grievances. The need for the state to hold an election to decide whether the elected employee organization can bargain on one particular issue would be akin to the state requiring an election as to whether an elected legislator was allowed to introduce a bill on a given topic.

Paying an agency fee to cover a worker’s fair share of representation costs, should they choose not to be a member, is also a principle well grounded in our democracy. Freeloaders are not permitted in the American tax system. If a citizen does not support the war in Iraq, they cannot decide not to pay their taxes. Taxes must be paid because we all use services and infrastructure paid for with tax dollars, and because “majority rules.”

Finally, what the Rocky editorial misses is that making Colorado a “Free Bargaining State” for unions is good for workers, families, and the economy in Colorado.

We join twenty-seven free bargaining states where workers earn wages that are on average about 5,300 dollars more per year than “Right to Work for Less” states. “Free-Bargaining” states have stronger economies and spend 1,700 more dollars per pupil than in “Right to Work for Less” states. Workplace deaths are fifty-one percent higher in “Right to Work for Less” states. In “Right to Work for Less” states, twenty-one percent more people lack health insurance. The bottom line is that when both unions and employers are free to negotiate any issue, both workers and the state benefit.

So here are the facts: The employer can refuse to consider an all-union agreement during bargaining.

An employer must pay union and non-union members the same salary and same benefits.

An all-union agreement does not cost the employer a dime.

The real reason some members of Big Business and some Republicans oppose it is that they want unions to be at a disadvantage. Requiring a second, state-sponsored election takes time, taxpayers’ money and resources that could be better used to help working families get a fair wage for their work.

Support HB1072.

READER COMMENTS

Oh...what is that noise...is the sky falling or what? Free bargaining states are all doing better (business and labor) than Colorado. Don't be afraid; it's going to be alright. Big Business needs to chill...relax...you will always be in the driver's seat and you will always make the big bucks and those fabulous, tasty pensions oh my! Workers make business BIG - the bigger the labor, the bigger the business. Try to see it that way.

Rep. Garcia certainly has the talking points down from organized labor; however, the truth of the matter is that his bill is not just about removing an “archaic” provision as he would like you to believe.

His bill, if passed, would strip from employees the right to determine to what extent they are required to belong to and financially support a union, in a fair election monitored by a neutral agency.

It is ironic that the same party that claims to be for working men and women are pushing legislation that would take away their ability to have a fair election about one of the most important issue affecting their workplace.

Rep. Garcia does not explain that if you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections. In short, the union members will ratify the agreement and decide whether or not you have to join the union or pay agency fees. How do you think the union members ratifying the agreement are going to vote?

He also fails to explain is that the ratification of the whether the contract with its “all-union clause” is submitted to the employees for ratification is determined by the individual union and its constitution and bylaws. In most cases where ratification is sought, only union members are allowed to vote on contract ratification. Thus, the employees most affected by the “all-union clause,” those who are not already union members, will never have the opportunity to vote on the contract. In many instances, no ratification vote is taken.

In many if not the majority of instances where a ratification vote is taken, employees are only have the opportunity to vote on the high profile issues, such as wages and fringe benefits, and the “all-union clause” is never discussed or even shown to the employees. Even if the “all-union clause” is part of the contract placed before the employees, the union will never highlight or explain the clause.

This legislation is part of a larger effort by organized labor to take away employee rights when it comes to organizing. Because employees increasingly vote against unionization, Big Labor has developed new techniques to impose forced unionization on employees from the "top down." A key element of top down organizing is the use of "card check" campaigns.

In a "Card Check" organizing drive the employees are not permitted to vote on union representation in a secret ballot election. Instead, the employer pledges to automatically recognize the union without an election if the union presents the company with the requisite number of signed authorization cards. Experience shows that many employees are coerced or misled into signing these authorization cards.

Democrats are pushing not to take away your rights to vote about important workplace issues here in Colorado, they want to do away with your right to vote whether or not to be a union employee at the Federal level. Democrats are pushing a brazenly misnamed bill, “The Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA), whose perverse goal is to deprive employees the right to vote about union representation. Don’t let legislators take away your right to VOTE whether or not you want to be represented by organized labor!

Dear "Colorado employer": Look up "Un-American" and your face will be there, looking just as idiotic as you sound. You should do some research on the American economy and American workers to remind yourself who it is that has made "employers" like you successful enough to swell your head, leaving little room for logic. Take your company to Mexico and go with it - exploit Mexican laborers so they will have a reason to cross the border to come back here. Yeah, you make a lot of sense -- your employees must make you look good because you sure are a Bozo on your own.

"An all-union agreement does not cost the employer a dime"

WRONG!
The union wants the employer to foot the cost of collecting the union fees.
My accountant says it will cost $3.21 per employee to do this. Who is going to reimburse me?

Union’s workers are the laziest workers I have ever seen.

Most will spend more time trying to find a way out of work by saying “the contract says”!!!

My policy is you start at 8:00 have a coffee when you want, lunch when you are hungry, and go home at 4:30. I also pay better than most companies. But I still have a few that want to unionize. Unions are like politicians, always campaigning. Promise everything at the cost of the rich company.

I have 83 employees and I pay medical after 90 days. 2 weeks paid vacation and sick time.
But will without any hesitation, should they go union. Enforce the contract to the letter. If you show up at 8:05 you will get fired. If you want a coffee break It will be at 10: am and at 2 pm. And you will have to work till 5pm: No paid vacations or sick days. I will only pay you for the time you work.
But I will always pay a non union employee more than a union one.

I have dealt with unions and I would rather close the company and take it to Mexico.

It's kind of strange to add huge costs to Unions to advocate the causes for workers and not to do the same for companies. It seems so logical to say, "Gosh, members and non-member's pay to be represented, but the government must protect those who do not choose to opt out of paying for Union PACs". Well, I guess a person could see a logic to that. And then, the same person could look at the costs added to the expense of products from produce to gas that finance the K street boys to bribe their way into favorable legislation that hurts the same workers. Shouldn't I have the right to get a rebate on my gas bill (petrol and natural) on lobbying that I don't agree with? Of course, that's nonsense. It favors "right to work" states to allow these PACs to hurt me. It would be un-American to not support the people that created the Ludlow monument.

Ken Sells

POST A COMMENT

• Why so much turnover in mayor's office?
• Hearing on the Ruby Hill towers
• Let freedom ring
• Promoting socialized medicine
• Immigration Laws or Lack Thereof
• Atheist Diversionary Tactics
• The "Melting Pot" is unique to America
• Many mighty hearts covering the world