Ritter "caught off guard" by HB-1072
Amending the Colorado Labor Peace Act is a good idea. Fast-tracking it to "demonstrate to our workers that life's a whole lot better with Democrats in charge," not so much. From The Denver Post:
Not all labor leaders in Colorado agreed with the effort to push the bill so soon. One person close to the issue said that while everyone agreed it should come forth this session, some disagreed that it should be the first issue to push out of the gate without any warning to the governor.
Ritter said he "talked to (labor) about being inclined to sign a bill that amended" the Labor Peace Act during the campaign. But he says he was caught off guard when it began moving during his first week in office.
Cross-posted at SquareState.
Not all labor leaders in Colorado agreed with the effort to push the bill so soon. One person close to the issue said that while everyone agreed it should come forth this session, some disagreed that it should be the first issue to push out of the gate without any warning to the governor.
Ritter said he "talked to (labor) about being inclined to sign a bill that amended" the Labor Peace Act during the campaign. But he says he was caught off guard when it began moving during his first week in office.
Cross-posted at SquareState.
Labels: Bill Ritter, Colorado Labor Peace Act, labor issues
2 Comments:
"Amending the Colorado Labor Peace Act is a good idea." In what way? Previously you concurred with these three points I raised:
1. Colorado Media Matters and all others have yet to point out why HB 1072 is needed and who it is supposed to benefit.
2. HB 1072 takes choices away from workers and makes it easier to coerce workers to support union causes financially, regardless of whether they agree with them. Read http://www.i2i.org/articles/IB2007A.pdf
3. Despite the description of "conservative misinformation," the question of the economic impacts created by such labor laws is a fair and important one. There is evidence that can be contributed on both sides, but there is no denying that Colorado is one of the nation's most successful states economically. So why change the balance?
I agree that putting the bill on the fast track has not been good for your side - Ritter, in fact, is experiencing political damage. I'm still aghast, though, that you would blindly agree with the labor bosses on this one.
Or perhaps you can tell me why HB 1072 is needed as state policy?
Admitting that you made a few good points is not the same thing as concurring with them. But for what it's worth, here's an argument I find compelling:
As Luis wrote: As it stands now, this second vote enables free riders who can vote in favor of having a union come in and improve conditions, then skate on having to pay for it in the second vote.
But my overwhelming reaction to HB-1072 is a great big WTF. As a political junkie, I have followed it. But it's not the necessary rewrite that labor claims it is. And it's not the burden business claims it is.
I would support amending the CLPA along the lines the Post discussed: A separate election that allows non-union members to vote is reasonable, but the 75 percent supermajority is overkill. Instead of eliminating the special election altogether, as HB 1072 would do, a fair compromise would retain the election requirement, eliminate the 75 percent supermajority and require a vote of 50 percent plus one of all workers affected.
Post a Comment
<< Home