stephanie
03-10-2007, 07:50 AM
This is what YOU GET.......When you support a Democrat.....You friggen idiots....
Even so, we see room for a sensible compromise on the nagging issue of labor organizing reform.
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 03/10/2007 12:02:12 AM MST
Remember that kid who owned the only football on your block - and told the other boys that if he couldn't be quarterback he'd take his ball and go home? AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and his executive council are now throwing a similar tantrum.
Thursday, the federation threatened to pressure the Democratic Party to move its 2008 convention from Denver unless the Colorado legislature again passes and Gov. Bill Ritter signs a bill making it easier to win union or agency shop agreements. Such pacts require all eligible workers to join a union or pay "agency shop" fees to the union in lieu of dues.
Majority Democrats rammed just such a measure, House Bill 1072, though the General Assembly early this year over the vivid protests of business groups. But the high-handed tactics used by labor lobbyists to pass the bill put Ritter in a bind because he needs the help of business as well as labor to pass his programs to reform health care, promote alternative energy, revive the state's higher education system and upgrade our highways. Rather than alienate business at the onset of his infant administration, Ritter reluctantly vetoed the bill. That led to the AFL-CIO demand that Ritter reverse field and sign such a bill or risk losing the convention.
So John Sweeney is going to tell Bill Ritter what to do. Or else!
It's a hollow threat. Democrats couldn't pull out of Denver without obviously pandering to special interests - and thus diminishing their hopes to maintain control of Congress and regain the presidency.
But Ritter and legislators should try one more time to settle this issue fairly - not because of Sweeney's boorish threat but simply to do the right thing. On Feb. 6, before Ritter's veto, The Post editorially suggested a reasonable compromise.
To seek a union shop or agency shop contract, Colorado law now requires a union to hold a special election in which it must receive the support of 50 percent plus one of the workers affected or 75 percent of those voting - whichever is higher. Because non-union employees can't vote in union elections, it's reasonable to have a separate election that allows all workers to vote on whether or not they have to pay dues. But the 75 percent supermajority is overkill. A fair compromise would retain the election for a union shop but require only a simple majority vote to pass.
Let all workers, not just union members, vote - and let the majority rule. Labor and business should sit down and cut the deal. What's wrong with that?
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5400971
Even so, we see room for a sensible compromise on the nagging issue of labor organizing reform.
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 03/10/2007 12:02:12 AM MST
Remember that kid who owned the only football on your block - and told the other boys that if he couldn't be quarterback he'd take his ball and go home? AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and his executive council are now throwing a similar tantrum.
Thursday, the federation threatened to pressure the Democratic Party to move its 2008 convention from Denver unless the Colorado legislature again passes and Gov. Bill Ritter signs a bill making it easier to win union or agency shop agreements. Such pacts require all eligible workers to join a union or pay "agency shop" fees to the union in lieu of dues.
Majority Democrats rammed just such a measure, House Bill 1072, though the General Assembly early this year over the vivid protests of business groups. But the high-handed tactics used by labor lobbyists to pass the bill put Ritter in a bind because he needs the help of business as well as labor to pass his programs to reform health care, promote alternative energy, revive the state's higher education system and upgrade our highways. Rather than alienate business at the onset of his infant administration, Ritter reluctantly vetoed the bill. That led to the AFL-CIO demand that Ritter reverse field and sign such a bill or risk losing the convention.
So John Sweeney is going to tell Bill Ritter what to do. Or else!
It's a hollow threat. Democrats couldn't pull out of Denver without obviously pandering to special interests - and thus diminishing their hopes to maintain control of Congress and regain the presidency.
But Ritter and legislators should try one more time to settle this issue fairly - not because of Sweeney's boorish threat but simply to do the right thing. On Feb. 6, before Ritter's veto, The Post editorially suggested a reasonable compromise.
To seek a union shop or agency shop contract, Colorado law now requires a union to hold a special election in which it must receive the support of 50 percent plus one of the workers affected or 75 percent of those voting - whichever is higher. Because non-union employees can't vote in union elections, it's reasonable to have a separate election that allows all workers to vote on whether or not they have to pay dues. But the 75 percent supermajority is overkill. A fair compromise would retain the election for a union shop but require only a simple majority vote to pass.
Let all workers, not just union members, vote - and let the majority rule. Labor and business should sit down and cut the deal. What's wrong with that?
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5400971