Denver Business Journal failed to identify anti-union agendas of "two labor-relations experts" critical of Ritter
Summary: The Denver Business Journal on January 11 reported that "two labor-relations experts" claimed Gov. Bill Ritter's (D) November 2007 executive order "Authorizing Partnership Agreements with State Employees" could have "a chilling effect on the local economy." But in reporting the criticisms by the "experts," who spoke to a gathering of Republican elected officials, the Business Journal failed to identify the anti-labor agendas of the pair and the organizations they represent.
A January 11 Denver Business Journal online article reported criticism of Gov. Bill Ritter's (D) executive order "Authorizing Partnership Agreements with State Employees" by two featured guests at a gathering of Republican elected officials, describing them as "two labor-relations experts" who said that the order "could have a chilling effect on the local economy." The article, however, did not identify the anti-labor agendas of the two "experts" or their respective organizations, both of which advocate against what they term "compulsory unionism."
The article by Bob Mook reported that Stan Greer, who is senior research associate for the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), addressed "some prominent local Republicans, including Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, Senate Minority Leader John [sic] McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, and other legislators." In his speech, Greer asserted "that Ritter's executive order isn't in the state's best economic interests -- particularly if state workers are forced to pay union dues." The Business Journal further quoted Greer as saying that if Ritter "was against union dues and agency fees, he would have explicitly put that in the order. ... He wants to leave the door open, but it's not convenient for him to talk about it at this time."
The Business Journal did not mention that "[o]ver the past two decades," the NILRR "has documented the harm inflicted on workers and society by compulsory unionism," according to the organization's website. The NILRR website further states:
Studies published by NILRR have shown that legal sanctions for forced-union dues are correlated with lower real average earnings, below-average growth in the number of people with employment-based health benefits, higher real poverty rates, and higher taxes.
In a September 5, 2007, piece (accessed through the Nexis database), The Denver Post's conservative columnist David Harsanyi described the NILRR as "a nonprofit research group critical of unions."
Moreover, in noting the attendance of Raymond J. LaJeunesse Jr., vice president and legal director of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW), the Business Journal identified NRTW only as "a nonprofit legal aid organization." In fact, according to its website, NRTW "is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by abuses of compulsory unionism."
From the January 11 Denver Business Journal online article, "Labor experts make case against Ritter's union order," by Bob Mook:
Despite Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's assurances to the contrary, two labor-relations experts say an executive order allowing unions to represent state workers in contract negotiations could have a chilling effect on the local economy.
Ritter issued the order in November -- to the chagrin of Republican lawmakers and some business leaders who fear it will hold the state's budget hostage, empower unions in the political process, hurt non-union government contractors and possibly bolster union membership in the private sector.
The governor and Democrats in the House and Senate argue the order is non-binding and won't have a direct bearing on budgets or businesses. Many in the business community also say they're hard pressed to see how the order effects them.
But Stan Greer, senior programming director for the National Institute of Labor Relations, based in Springfield, Va., made the case that Ritter's executive order isn't in the state's best economic interests -- particularly if state workers are forced to pay union dues.
[...]
Based on what he's seen in other states, Greer said, the executive order increases the chances that most state workers will belong to a union -- especially because Ritter's order didn't explicitly bar forced union fees.
"The governor is bending over backwards to say forced unionization is not what he's imposing," Greer said. "But if the governor was against union dues and agency fees, he would have explicitly put that in the order. ... He wants to leave the door open, but it's not convenient for him to talk about it at this time."
[...]
The morning event, which was sponsored by the Federalist Society, also featured Raymond J. LaJeunesse Jr., vice president and legal director of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a nonprofit legal aid organization also based in Springfield, Va.
—C.K.
Comments (6) Show
1 - 6 |
Sounds like big business is worried the state employees will get a bigger slice of the pie, they(big bisiness) have had to themselves for all these years. If employees are treated fairly and compensated justly no one would want to join a union. The last administration treated us like , well I'll quote the former Department of Corrections director Joe Ortiz "easily replaced knuckle dragging guards" said at the correctional training academy to a class of officers and support staff. need I say more.
KNUCKLE DRAGGING GUARD, Thanks for the great post and good luck in your career with the State of Colorado. To me, Governor Ritter appears to have the decency AND the stones necessary to buck the "business community" in order to secure the working conditions State Employees deserve. (Of course, it helps a bunch that the State Senate and House majority belongs to the Democrats). It never ceases to amaze me how easily regular working people that benefit from the very existence of unions (whether or not they themselves are unionized) are scammed by millionaires into thinking it's BAD for THEM if other people make a decent living. conserve politics in general, the red ideology in particular, appeals to the worst instincts in people. It's the "I got mine, you go to hell" philosophy that ronni reagan taught the repubs to espouse. Radio, tv, and print liars for hire are paid 6 figure incomes by millionaires to convince folks making 20-60or 80 grand that other people making 20-60 or 80 grand somehow hurts them. That somehow, their house looks better if somebody else's house burns down. rosey, sniffer, jon the con, haley, herr streicher.....are your ears burnin'?
Yes, unions may make sure Colorado State employees earn a good living from their work, but I am hoping that the bad-for-business people see that sometimes giving peon laborers a say in how things are done sometimes makes things better for those who have to do business with an entity. There are some state agencies that are so frustrating to deal with that is takes a good drink (if that's your thing), a dose of Valium (if that helps you), or some other nerve-strengthening agent just to decide to deal with them at all. The management powers that be in our state government do need a shake up, and I'm hoping this is what Ritter's executive order is all about.
I thought individuals were responsible for their own gainful employment? You know, save some money and quit if you do not like your current situation. The sad part is the unions really could care less about the worker. The workers are just a means to a political end.
Will somebody please light a match.
Thanks, BIGBOOF. "objective", when do we get to see your data on the 10 billion dollar cost of Ref. C? When that comes in, we'll argue over Union representation. I'm gettin' the feeling there isn't anything to back up either of your posts. BUT, here's hoping I'm wrong about ya.
1 - 20 |