On KNUS' Backbone Radio, Andrews allowed GOP guest to mislead on no-strike provision of Ritter's employee partnership order

Summary: On his January 20 KNUS 710 AM Backbone Radio broadcast, John Andrews uncritically allowed his guest, state Rep. Kent Lambert (R), to assert that Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter's executive order authorizing state employee partnerships contains "no 'no-strike policy.' " The two were discussing "the outlook for conservatives in the 2008 session" of the Colorado General Assembly when Lambert claimed, "We may see legislation guaranteeing" state employees "the right to strike." In fact, Ritter's order specifically bars employee organizations from engaging in any "disruptive measure" against the state or its agencies, which it stated includes "strike[s]."

Discussing Gov. Bill Ritter's executive order authorizing partnership agreements for Colorado state employees, Republican state Rep. Kent Lambert (Colorado Springs) told host John Andrews on the January 20 broadcast of KNUS 710 AM's Backbone Radio that in Ritter's "actual gubernatorial declaration there was no 'no-strike policy.' " Andrews did not correct Lambert, despite the fact that Ritter's order explicitly states that "it shall be a violation of this Executive Order for any Certified Employee Organization to engage in or threaten a strike, work stoppage, work slowdown, sickout, or other similar disruptive measure against the State of Colorado or any of its agencies."

Lambert's comments concerning Ritter's executive order came during a discussion of, in Andrews' words, "the outlook for conservatives in the 2008 session of the [Colorado] General Assembly." After stating that "an awful lot of issues" Ritter has raised "are going to work for conservatives in the long run" -- including "tax increases" and "more control over state government workers in terms of unionization" -- Lambert later claimed, "We may see legislation guaranteeing" state employees "the right to strike."

After Lambert made the claim, Andrews stated that "Ritter said in his executive order last November announcing, without benefit of legislative consultation, his intent to allow collective bargaining for all state workers" that "there would be a no-strike policy." Andrews then stated to Lambert, "You're saying that we may actually see bills introduced which affirm the right of state employees to strike." Lambert replied, "Well, it was interesting, because I think in his (Ritter's) actual gubernatorial declaration there was no 'no-strike policy.' If he thinks that that's an informal policy, he may say that, but I don't think he excluded it as far, as part of his executive order."

However, as Colorado Media Matters has pointed out, Ritter's executive order, "Authorizing Partnership Agreements with State Employees," bars employee organizations from engaging in any "disruptive measure" against the state or its agencies:

F. No Strike or Work Stoppage

Partnership Agreements negotiated pursuant to this Executive Order shall contain an agreement not to strike. Moreover, it shall be a violation of this Executive Order for any Certified Employee Organization to engage in or threaten a strike, work stoppage, work slowdown, sickout, or other similar disruptive measure against the State of Colorado or any of its agencies. In the event of a violation of this provision by a Certified Employee Organization, that organization may be decertified by the Director of the Division of Labor and shall not be entitled to payroll deductions of any membership dues.

Colorado Media Matters has further noted that a November 29, 2007, opinion by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (R) regarding Ritter's order stated that, assuming the no-strike provision in the order is "enforceable," the terms of the order may prohibit state employees who enter into the partnership agreements from striking. Suthers explained that, under current law, state employees' right to strike is contingent on whether the director of the state's Division of Labor exercises jurisdiction over the labor dispute. As Suthers wrote in his opinion, if the director does exercise jurisdiction, "[T]he relationship between employer and employee is preserved, the status quo is maintained, and a strike is not allowed."

Moreover, while Lambert stated that during the 2008 legislative session, "We may see legislation guaranteeing" state employees "the right to strike," both he and Andrews failed to mention that Ritter and legislative Democrats have indicated support of proposed no-strike legislation, as Colorado Media Matters noted.

As a November 30, 2007, Denver Post article reported, if legislation prohibiting state employees from striking were introduced in the general assembly, "Ritter said he would sign the bill if it lands on his desk, and top legislative Democrats said they would support it." The Post also quoted Democratic House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (Denver) as saying, "The executive order has never been about the right to strike -- it's been about making state government more efficient. ... State employees haven't asked for the right to strike, and, frankly, I don't think we can afford it."

From the January 20 broadcast of KNUS 710 AM's Backbone Radio:

ANDREWS: OK, Kent Lambert, what is the outlook for conservatives in the 2008 session of the general assembly? Give us the scan of the horizon.

LAMBERT: I think this may be another continuation of what was happening in 2007. You know, it seemed like from the start of the time that Bill Ritter came into office, there were an awful lot of issues that he was raising that are going to work for conservatives in the long run. You mentioned tax increases; I think we've seen that established. We've seen more and more control over state government workers in terms of unionization. We think they're going to try to continue that momentum into 2008. We think this is going to be a killer on spending. I think it may raise our debt in the state; it may raise more --

ANDREWS: Specifically you mean the consequences of unionizing the state workforce.

LAMBERT: The cost of raising --

ANDREWS: Some estimates, I think, have said that it could represent a 30 percent bump in wages and benefits.

LAMBERT: It very well could. And in a lot of cases they're not really able to answer questions. Representative Bob Gardner raised some excellent questions -- I think it was with the executive director of the department of corrections this week -- by a simple question, "What is our contingency plan if department of corrections goes out on strike?" And I didn't hear the actual debate, but I think the first thing they said was that, "Well, you can't strike in the state of Colorado." And he said, "Well, the supreme court says you can." It seems like the governor is heading in that direction. We may see legislation guaranteeing them the right to strike. We're real concerned about this.

ANDREWS: Oh, let's just pause there, 'cause I'd understood that representative Bob Gardner -- your Republican colleague from El Paso County in the House -- was out in front of legislation and had the governor's support on it that would close the door to state employee strikes. 'Cause after all, Ritter said in his executive order last November announcing, without benefit of legislative consultation, his intent to allow collective bargaining for all state workers; Ritter said there would be a no-strike policy. You're saying that we may actually see bills introduced which affirm the right of state employees to strike.

LAMBERT: Well, it was interesting, because I think in his actual gubernatorial declaration there was no "no-strike policy." If he thinks that that's an informal policy, he may say that, but I don't think he excluded it as far, as part of his executive order.

ANDREWS: And, as you just explained, there is a supreme court case precedent which explicitly guarantees the right to strike --

LAMBERT: That's correct.

ANDREWS: -- to Colorado employees, unless you and your colleagues in the general assembly pass legislation, send it to the governor, and he would sign it into law, which closes that door.

—C.K. & J.F.B.