Vote no on Amendment 47
| By johne - Oct 21st, 2008 at 2:03 pm EDT |
Per the secretary of state's website, Amendment 47 says:
The tricky or sneaky part of that is that mandatory union membership is already illegal in every state according to the Taft Hartley Act of 1947. Before this bill, unions could have closed shop agreements where every employee had to be a member of the union. The next step down is simply called a union shop, where new employees usually have 30 days to become members of the union. Then there are agency shops where not everyone is required to join the union but they do have to pay some amount of fees or dues to the union for their representation. However, federal law allows non members to have money meant for political purposes to be refunded. That doesn't sound so bad does it? If you don't want representation then don't join the union. Isn't that what Amendment 47 would do? Nope. According to many documents and case files, unions are required to represent all employees of the company with which there is an agreement whether that employee is a member of the union or not. This is spelled out most clearly by this document from the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco. Considering that the language of Amendment 47 does not at all address changes to this provision, know as "duty of fair representation", we must assume this would remain intact. This, in effect, creates union free-loaders.
If that's the case, why would anyone pay union dues if the union would continue to bargain for them and be forced to represent them in the case of a grievance? This is simply an effort to further weaken unions.
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that 8.7% of Coloradans are members of unions why is this even important? Because Jon Caldara (who just called union members terrorists), Pete Coors, and Jake Jabs want no unions what so ever in Colorado.
The backers of Amendment 47 talk about worker choice and freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Colorado Labor Peace Act (pdf) sets up a unique second vote when establishing a union. If a super majority of 75% votes for it, then non-members must contribute some fees to support the bargaining process and filing grievances. If the vote fails, non-member don't have to pay a dime, but they do get that union support. Amendment 47 would do away with this vote. So, workers already have plenty of choices and freedom to decide what kind of union they want. Vote No on Amendment 47.
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning participation in a labor organization as a condition of employment, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting an employer from requiring that a person be a member and pay any moneys to a labor organization or to any other third party in lieu of payment to a labor organization and creating a misdemeanor criminal penalty for a person who violates the provisions of the section?
The tricky or sneaky part of that is that mandatory union membership is already illegal in every state according to the Taft Hartley Act of 1947. Before this bill, unions could have closed shop agreements where every employee had to be a member of the union. The next step down is simply called a union shop, where new employees usually have 30 days to become members of the union. Then there are agency shops where not everyone is required to join the union but they do have to pay some amount of fees or dues to the union for their representation. However, federal law allows non members to have money meant for political purposes to be refunded. That doesn't sound so bad does it? If you don't want representation then don't join the union. Isn't that what Amendment 47 would do? Nope. According to many documents and case files, unions are required to represent all employees of the company with which there is an agreement whether that employee is a member of the union or not. This is spelled out most clearly by this document from the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco. Considering that the language of Amendment 47 does not at all address changes to this provision, know as "duty of fair representation", we must assume this would remain intact. This, in effect, creates union free-loaders.
If that's the case, why would anyone pay union dues if the union would continue to bargain for them and be forced to represent them in the case of a grievance? This is simply an effort to further weaken unions.
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that 8.7% of Coloradans are members of unions why is this even important? Because Jon Caldara (who just called union members terrorists), Pete Coors, and Jake Jabs want no unions what so ever in Colorado.
The backers of Amendment 47 talk about worker choice and freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Colorado Labor Peace Act (pdf) sets up a unique second vote when establishing a union. If a super majority of 75% votes for it, then non-members must contribute some fees to support the bargaining process and filing grievances. If the vote fails, non-member don't have to pay a dime, but they do get that union support. Amendment 47 would do away with this vote. So, workers already have plenty of choices and freedom to decide what kind of union they want. Vote No on Amendment 47.
Comments are closed for this post.
Why does this scare the Union Bosses? Simple. Because they lose their automatic monthly raping of your payroll check. Look at the lying being done by your Union (i.e. Joe the firefighter who is going to lose his voice for better/safer equipment because A47 will do that don't ya know?).
These Union ads only protect your Union Bosses paychecks. Not yours.
IF YOU AS A UNION MEMBER SUPPORT THE LYING STEALING BOSSES THEN SEND THEM A CHECK EVERY MONTH. HEREIN LIES THE ISSUE. The checks will drop by 50% and the Bosses know it. Bad day for the Union Goon Squad I guess.
Jimmy Hoffa must be twisting in his grave the thought of no FORCED Payroll deductions for the "Idiots" (your Bosses terms for the workers).
Methinks "Bob" = troll.
How could 92% of Coloradans seem to be able to do this? I suppose they are slaves, eh?
Next discussion point: Will your union still be viable enough to screw their employer with only 30% of the dues being paid through the new direct deposit? Will there be enough dues to 'educate the Idiots" about the new contract?
If you worked in a mine fifty years ago, like my forefathers did, you had issues. Today, while you push papers for the State, explain why a union member needs to have these funds given to Goons? If you want your dues to go for the election of Socialists then send them a campaign check.
Pretty simple concept. Like the cable bill. Okay, once a month.Like the payment for the monster truck. Once a month.
Guys and gals....stick up for yourselves. Not your union Bosses. You don't need anyone to negotiate your pay structure. Honest day's work is repaid with an honest day's wages. If not, move on. Depend on your skills and prove your value. A valuable employee gets paid what they INDIVIDUALLY are worth to any company. A valuable employee writes his own ticket in free enterprise.
Stand up for yourselves.