Top | Register | Preferences | Suggest Discussion | Discussion Policy | Log In


Discussion group: NewsTop   Discussion group: News News    Discussion Topic: Amendment 47: Colorado Right To Work Amendment 47: Colorado Right To Work

<< previous (newer) discussion next (older) discussion >>

Moderated by dennews   Reply to this DiscussionAdd to this Discussion  
Amendment 47: Colorado Right To Work
T O P I C Discussion Started: 10-02-2008, 8:00 PM Add to the Discussion
Q
U
E
S
T
I
O
N
Amendment 47 would prohibit requiring an employee to join and pay any dues or fees to a labor union as a condition of employment; and create a misdemeanor penalty for violation of this law.

Supporters said government employees already have this right and this measure would extend that right to the private sector.

Opponents said it would fragment the voices of those in a union.

How do you feel about Amendment 47? Would you vote for it or against it?

View Messages: [newest first] | [oldest first]
RedSonjia 11-06-2008, 3:56 PM Add to the Discussion
No it doesn't. You shouldn't rely on the old "thug" argument. It's a tired one. You also shouldn't be a freeloader and that is what 47 would allow. Some would pay dues for all and eventually the unions wouldn't be able to operate due to lack of funds needed.

truely,

BB

chris7932 11-05-2008, 4:56 PM Add to the Discussion
As an employee of a large Colorado company recently targeted by the Teamsters local in our area, I was dumbfounded to learn that a small minority of employees could vote to unionize, forcing the majority to either join the union or pay a "fee" to the union to keep their jobs (or quit, of course).

Only a very few of my coworkers wanted to unionize, and mysteriously, the union organizers stopped showing up at our plant when Amendment 47 was placed on the ballot. I was thrilled to have the opportunity to vote "YES" on it and I am more than mystified as to why Colorado voters feel it's perfectly OK for unions to to force employees to pay to keep their jobs.

The list of horror stories about what unions have done to both employers and employees over the years is a long and bloody one. It's no mystery why union membership in the United States is down to roughly 12% of the workforce, perhaps less. Unions once served a purpose for employees, but now, unions are struggling to survive, and the only way they can survive is off the dues of their members and the unfair "fees" they collect from non-union members of unionized workplaces.

So even if I stipulate that the percentage of Colorado unionized workers is double the national average, say, 25%, I still need an explanation as to why 55% of Colorado voters voted to support unions and their thuggery. I could be missing something, but as it stands now, it makes absolutely no sense.

I mean, was those mis-leading, disingenuous TV ads? If so, voters are not informing themselves on the issues as they should; they're just allowing their TVs and their emotions to guide them at the polls. Voting is too important for that. Coloradans missed a golden opportunity on this one.

jason_the_ 11-04-2008, 12:29 PM Add to the Discussion
Forcing someone to join a union just validates the reputation of unions to be run by thugs.

Vote YES.

For what it's worth,

Jason

Emmasdad 11-04-2008, 10:13 AM Add to the Discussion
People do have the right "not" to join a union in Colorado. I was once a union member of local 435. My kids are union members of King Soopers. What I found out is that while they have the choice to not join their union, there is no way to stop from paying union dues, even the State of Colorado admits this. In effect they get no benefit from the union should they decline but the union still benefits from them. How nice.

Just my .02

richardmye 10-11-2008, 1:00 PM Add to the Discussion
"Amendment 47 would prohibit requiring an employee to join and pay any dues or fees to a labor union as a condition of employment; and create a misdemeanor penalty for violation of this law."

This is misleading. Under federal law, employees already have the right not to join a union. They also have the right not to pay union dues, per se.

By failing to acknowledge these facts, the proponents of Amendment 47 have written ballot language, and have publicized the measure in a way to deceive voters. There are a lot of angry working people who object to the idea that they can be forced into anything that is not of their own free will, and 47 backers mislead in order to get their votes.

Now, there is one aspect of Amendment 47 that would change current law. The situation is as follows:

Unions are required by law to represent employees in the bargaining unit, whether they are union members or not. In return for those services, employees may be required to pay a "fee in lieu of dues", or an agency fee. This is the bare-bones cost of services provided by the union. Amendment 47 would take away those fees, but would not release unions from their obligation to provide the services. Thus, Amendment 47 would require unions to provide something and get nothing in return. This is nothing less than a prescription for destroying unions.

richard myers IBEW retired

Chiller208 10-10-2008, 11:11 PM Add to the Discussion
I am a pround union member and I can say I have never been told how to vote or how to live my life, I was never forced into my union it was a choice I made. The union is what gave us what we have today in the work place. We need to protect the rights of union and non union workers and keep out of state influences out of state. Admendment 47 will hurt all labor class workers, the seconds the union wages fall because we have to raise our dues to keep our doors open the non union shops will follow that trend. It is a fact right to work states make 5,000 dollars a year less then non right to work states. I want all union and non union members to keep what we have. This admendment is big business wanting to take pay out of our pockets to line there own. I believe unions have there place, I think the working class is hurting bad enough Colorado lets not make it worse God bless.

God Bless America

richardmye 10-07-2008, 1:32 PM Add to the Discussion
The supporters of amendment 47 appear to be using deceptive tactics to build additional support. Certainly no one likes to be forced to do something. But what does it mean if political operatives tell you that you're forced to do something, when you really are not? Could it mean that they're so intent on getting a measure passed, they're willing to lie to the public?

I worked in a unionized factory in Westminster for more than 30 years. One of my co-workers during those three decades never did join the union. This was not a government job, it was a fortune 500 company.

Yet Amendment 47 supporters allege that employees of private corporations in Colorado are forced to become union members. What's up with that?

Page 1 of 1 << Prev Page | Next Page >>