Amendment 47 Moves Past Frivolous Legal Attacks to Make Public Case
Posted on August 11th, 2008 in Colorado Politics, General, Labor, clean government |
A common and repeated tactic of the Left this year has been to throw frivolous legal challenges at ballot initiatives they don’t like in an effort to keep Coloradans from deciding the issues themselves. Well, last Thursday the Denver Business Journal reported that a judge has tossed out legal complaints against one certain initiative:
A Denver District Court judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit from opponents of Amendment 47, the so-called “right-to-work” ballot initiative that would bar labor unions from collecting mandatory dues in workplaces that engage in collective bargaining.
Incidentally, the same publication endorsed Amendment 47 only days before (subscription required). Meanwhile, Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard has an informative piece on the Right-to-Work battle in Colorado - including some of the complex political undercurrents that are spilling over into the ballot campaign. It’s a worthwhile read. The Weekly Standard piece mainly focuses on the determined and principled work of young Jonathan Coors in pushing the fight forward.
Fundamentally at stake is the individual worker’s right to decide whether or not (s)he wants to support a union. Labor leaders themselves admit that Right-to-Work means they lose a big share of income: mostly from the fees imposed on non-members who have to pay up or lose their jobs.
Secondarily, there is documented evidence to show that Right-to-Work states outpace forced union states in economic growth. But opposing Right-to-Work is not enough for union leaders. To try to force supporters to withdraw Amendment 47, they have submitted signatures for four economy-busting initiatives of their own.
When the facts are looked at closely and fairly, Amendment 47 merits support hands-down. But you can expect Big Labor to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars confusing and misleading voters who would otherwise be inclined to support workplace freedom.
It will be interesting to track the success of Amendment 47 - cited in Barnes’ article as registering 70-percent support - as Election Day in Colorado draws near.
3 Responses
It’s a shame to see such a misguided approach to this issue. It’s the workers who will suffer if Amendment 47 passes. Right to work states have statistically seen a significant decrease in wages, benefits, and working conditions. We have labor unions to protect us from unscrupulous employers. Amendment 47 is nothing more than an attempt to eliminate unions so that those employers can drop wages, cut benefits, and hire illegal immigrants for half the price that they’re currently paying for quality union workers.
An interesting argument - if only it were true …
http://bendegrow.com/2008/bob-ewegen-uses-less-than-complete-facts-to-attack-right-to-work/
http://bendegrow.com/2008/right-to-work-states-outpace-forced-union-states-in-economic-growth/
I find it strange that anyone thinks giving individuals greater freedom to make their own decisions should be seen as “a misguided approach.”
Giving individuals “greater freedom” is an illusion invented by white corporations back in the days of segregation to make black workers think that “less rights” really means “more rights.” We all already have the right to choose whether to work for a union company, a non-union company, or no company at all.
If we’re going to get rid of “compulsory” union membership, should we also pass legislation saying that it’s illegal to require someone to have a “compulsory” college degree, or certain “compulsory” job experience that makes them qualified for a job?
Think of those poor people who don’t have college degrees. What about their right to work? Shouldn’t they have the freedom to choose whether to get a degree or not without it affecting their ability to get any job they want? Forcing college degrees inhibits their personal freedom of choice, doesn’t it?
And I’m appalled by the argument that even though wages are driven down in right-to-work states, the cost of living goes down and that makes it okay. If you were part of a group who was being singled out to take a $5,000 per year pay cut because it would make the cost of living cheaper for everyone, would you go along with it? Even with a cheaper cost of living, you’d still be making $5,000 a year less than all your neighbors.
The idea that right-to-work is good for business and therefore good for the economy is a fallacy. Let’s say that unemployment rates go down because of right-to-work. It seems great on the surface that suddenly there are more jobs. But is a greater number of jobs that pay a less-than-equitable living wage a good thing? The employers aren’t going to shell out more in wages to cover the new jobs. The money for the new jobs comes from the rest of us making less than we used to. So basically, for the good of the economy, we workers should take a pay cut so the surplus can go to the unemployed?
Amendment 47 is a business scheme that hurts the worker, period. It’s ultimately bad for the economy, bad for the people it affects, and bad for Colorado.