Posted
On: May 06, 2008 (20:15:33)
Please take a look under the Const./Bylaws tab and review the draft of the Local 888 By-Laws. Comments and questions can be addressed at the June Union Meeting. See you there!
As some of us well know, there is another attempt this year by anti worker forces to destroy unions in CO. Once again, Republicans and anti-union business owners are trying to destroy the benefits union members have fought hard to achieve by passing a 'Right to Work' amendment.
Such an amendment would allow non-union workers to get the benefits and improved working conditions won by labor unions without paying union dues. In other words, it allows them to freeload off the unions. If that happens, it will not be long before there will not be any unions or they will be so weak they will be ineffectual.
'Right to work' also dictates the relationship between employer and employee, rather than letting them determine by themselves what that relationship should be. This is how a free market works, and a right to work actually constricts employer and employee options, the exact opposite of what it claims to do.
So who is the main catalyst for this 'right to work' movement in CO Apparently some out of state special interest groups. Nothing quite like having out of state special interests come into your state to tell you how to run your economy. In fact, recently Dimitri Kesari, the Executive Director of the National Right to Work Committee, testified before the Colorado Congress on behalf of this regressive amendment. This is familiar territory for Kesari. He was in Michigan recently pushing his anti-worker agenda there too.
Who spoke for the rights of working Americans? A local Coloradoan firefighter.
So to make their case, anti-union forces brought in some lobbyists from outside the state, while those supporting working Coloradoans used someone much more familiar with the CO economy and working conditions, a local firefighter.
Look, out of state experts and advocates testify before the Colorado Congress all the time for both sides. But using solely non-Coloradoans to advance their anti-worker agenda certainly smacks of a hostile takeover by national 'right to work' organizations. There certainly does not seem to be a ground swell of public support for crushing unions in CO. I hear no local grassroots outcry against union shops. The motivation for this draconian amendment seem to be nothing more than a national special interest group deciding Colorado is the next target in their quest to make the entire country inhospitable for unions.
I, for one, do not think that is a great starting point for any legislation. Rather than alter Colorado's Constitution to appease the ideology of a Washington special interest group, we should work to promote good jobs and affordable health care for all. Those are issues Coloradoans care about, not dictating what kind of relationship workers should have with their bosses.
Let Coloradoans decide the laws they need, not national special interest groups. --------------------------------------------------
Anti-Labor Senators Derail Fire Fighter Bargaining Bill
December 14, 2007 -- With the Senate on the verge of passing the IAFF’s national collective bargaining bill, a small group of hard-line anti-labor senators engaged in a series of parliamentary tactics late last night to block the Senate from acting. With no way to overcome the obstacles, the Senate was forced to postpone action on the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act until after the New Year.
“I am personally outraged that a small group of senators are denying the nation’s fire fighters the basic right to discuss how they do their job,” says IAFF General President Schaitberger. “But this battle is far from over. Ultimately, I promise that this legislation will be signed into law.”
Both Democratic and Republican Senate leadership had agreed to allow the IAFF's collective bargaining bill to be offered as an amendment to the comprehensive Farm bill, which the Senate had to finish before the Christmas break. With time running out in the legislative session, the Farm bill was one of the last legislative vehicles that was a “must” piece of legislation that could carry the proposal, while at the same time making it more difficult for the president to veto.
Prior to beginning debate on the Farm bill, the Senate unanimously agreed that each political party would be allowed to offer up to 20 amendments to the bill on any topic they chose, as long as those amendments were approved by a super-majority of 60 Senators. The two leading sponsors of the IAFF’s bargaining bill — Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) — jointly agreed that the the collective bargaining bill would be offered as a Democratic amendment.
After more than two dozen amendments were debated and voted on, Democrats moved to bring up our amendment. To the surprise of leaders of both parties, anti-labor senators, led by Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Mike Enzi (R-WY), refused to honor the unanimous consent agreement which would allow the Senate to consider the amendment. Additionally, they vowed to engage in parliamentary guerilla tactics to tie the Senate in knots.
Complicating the process, five key Senate supporters of the collective bargaining proposal are spending most of their time in Iowa and New Hampshire as they run for president. DeMint and Enzi knew that the IAFF would have a hard time meeting the 60-vote threshold without Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd, McCain and Obama. While the presidential candidates had agreed to return to Washington last night, canceling their scheduled events for a significant portion of today to vote on the amendment this morning, there was no way the Senate leadership on both sides of the aisles could put the presidential campaigns on hold to remain in Washington indefinitely.
With no way to circumvent the parliamentary hurdles that could have dragged on for a couple of days, Gregg and Kennedy were forced to withdraw their amendment.
“Our opponents may have delayed the inevitable outcome, which will be the passage of the Public Employer-Employee Cooperation Act,” Schaitberger says, “but we know that the will of the Congress, the continued support of the Senate leadership and the will of the American People cannot be thwarted for long. We will prevail and we will prevail in this 110th Congress.”
To set the record (and the name) straight, right to work for less doesn’t guarantee any rights. In fact, by weakening unions and collective bargaining, it destroys the best job security protection that exists: the union contract. Meanwhile, it allows workers to pay nothing and get all the benefits of union membership. Right to work laws say unions must represent all eligible employees, whether they pay dues or not. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues money to provide union benefits to free riders who are not willing to pay their fair share.
Right to work laws lower wages for everyone. The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).[1] Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).[2] Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.
Federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs. Supporters claim right to work laws protect employees from being forced to join unions. Don’t be fooled—federal law already does this, as well as protecting nonmembers from paying for union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. This individual freedom argument is a sham.
Right to work endangers safety and health standards that protect workers on the job by weakening unions that help to ensure worker safety by fighting for tougher safety rules. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.[3]
Right to work laws just aren’t fair to dues-paying members. If a nonunion worker is fired illegally, the union must use its time and money to defend him or her, even if that requires going through a costly legal process. Everyone benefits, so all should share in the process. Nonmembers can even sue the union if they think it has not represented them well enough.
