On Post PoliticsWest blog, Independence Institute's Corry criticized Ritter over labor-business peacemaking but omitted her think tank's role in the fighting

Summary: Writing about competing state ballot initiatives, Jessica Peck Corry stated in a blog entry on The Denver Post's PoliticsWest website that Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter is "the source of the rift" between unions and business leaders. Corry did not mention, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, that her employer, the Independence Institute, has organized a campaign to limit local governments' ability to make payroll deductions for public employees, and that the think tank's president, Jon Caldara, has filed an initiative to block such deductions by the state government -- both with the stated purpose of curbing union dues collections.

In an April 3 "Diary of a Mad Voter" blog entry on The Denver Post's PoliticsWest website, Jessica Peck Corry referred to Gov. Bill Ritter (D) as "the source of the rift" between "Colorado's union bosses and business leaders" over competing ballot initiatives. However, Corry did not note the role of her employer, the "free market" Independence Institute, in opposing organized labor through its "Ask First" campaign to limit the ability of government entities to make payroll deductions for public employees. She also failed to mention that Independence Institute President Jon Caldara and state Sen. Nancy Spence (R-Centennial) have filed a statewide ballot initiative to block the state government from making such payroll deductions and that Caldara publicly has identified unions as a target of the initiative.

Further, in discussing executive order D 028 07, "Authorizing Partnership Agreements with State Employees," which Ritter announced on November 2, 2007, Corry referred to a November 4, 2007, front page Post editorial and repeated the misleading claim that the executive order "could now impose collective bargaining" on "unwilling state employees." Under the executive order, state employees have the option but not the requirement to petition and then vote to accept or reject an employee organization as their exclusive representative. The order also prohibits state personnel from pressuring employees to become members of an employee organization, as Colorado Media Matters has noted.

As the Post reported on April 2, Ritter is "[h]oping to avoid an ugly confrontation between business and labor this fall" and "wants the two sides to withdraw their competing ballot measures, his spokesman said." The article continued:

"The governor believes the best thing for all of Colorado would be if none of these measures were on the ballot in November," said Evan Dreyer, the Democratic governor's spokesman.

[...]

None of the ballot measures has made it through all the necessary steps to appear on the ballot.

In any case, Ritter believes they should all go away. The governor wants labor and business to have a dialogue and will help make that happen if needed, Dreyer said.

The Post excerpted Corry's essay in its April 3 print edition and indicated that the full essay was available on its PoliticsWest website.

From Jessica Peck Corry's entry "Ritter's call for unity misguided," published April 3 on The Denver Post's "Diary of a Mad Voter" blog:

Governor Bill Ritter wants you to believe that he's working to end a duel between Colorado's union bosses and business leaders. He says he wants to prevent a November ballot battle that could see their competing initiatives put before voters. The only problem: Ritter is the source of the rift.

On Tuesday, Ritter called on the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 7 to withdraw five ballot initiatives it filed Monday that would impose significant constraints on Colorado employers. Likewise, Ritter also called on business leaders to deny support to a "Right to Work" initiative that would prohibit unions from mandating that employees join a union or pay dues for union representation.

[...]

Ritter is stepping in now, before any of the union's five initiatives or the right-to-work effort has successfully navigated the approval process, including gathering the more than 76,000 voter signatures required.

My, how times have changed. It's hard to believe that just five months ago, it was Ritter who secretly met with union bosses to design an executive order that could now impose collective bargaining, conveniently called "employee partnerships," on unwilling state employees. His tactics were enough for the Denver Post to opine on its front page in an editorial comparing Ritter to famed mobster Jimmy Hoffa. As the Post concluded, "His promise to usher in a new era of collaborative government -- where business and labor, Democrats and Republicans, would all be at the table -- was nothing more than a sham." It remains a sham.

If Ritter has his way, his November executive order -- and the political damage resulting from it -- will all just be a distant memory. He's a uniter -- not a divider. But his goal of having business and labor leaders drop their initiatives will remain a fantasy -- especially as long as he remains at the helm of state government. There simply is no fair middle ground, especially given the questionable intentions of Local 7's latest efforts.

As Colorado Media Matters has pointed out, the Independence Institute in 2007 sponsored the "Ask First" campaign to pass ballot measures barring local governments from automatically deducting from public employee payrolls membership dues and fees for unions and other private organizations. On his November 6, 2007, Newsradio 850 KOA broadcast, Caldara described the purpose of the measures:

Several cities and counties have adopted, or are adopting, a policy that says you can go ahead and unionize, but our government payroll system -- the people's payroll system -- is not going to become a conduit for union money to go from workers' paychecks to the unions or to other special interests, whether it's the ACLU or the NRA. It's not what we do; you guys have to figure it out yourselves.

Ask First-backed measures blocking payroll deductions appeared on the November 6, 2007, ballot in Greeley and Englewood, where voters defeated them; the Centennial measure passed.

On March 15, 2007, Ritter issued an executive order rescinding an order by his Republican predecessor, Bill Owens, that barred state government from making automatic payroll deductions except for the charitable Colorado Combined Campaign. On November 28, 2007, Caldara and Spence filed their initiative to block state government from making such payroll deductions. The Colorado Initiative Title Setting Review Board designated the proposed measure Initiative 53 and approved its petition signature collection form on February 27. According to a November 29, 2007, article in the Rocky Mountain News, Caldara stated of the initiative, "Now that Ritter is bringing unions to state government, it merely says the people's payroll system won't be used to funnel money to special interest." (sic)

Corry's misleading assertion that Ritter's executive order "could now impose collective bargaining" echoes the Post's claim in its November 4 editorial that the order will "forc[e] collective bargaining on thousands of state employees." To the contrary, Ritter's press release accompanying the executive order explicitly noted, "This order does not require employees to join an employee organization."

Further, the executive order contains a section -- Determination of Representation -- outlining the procedures under which state employees have the option but not the requirement to petition and then vote to accept or reject an employee organization as their exclusive representative.

The executive order also explicitly prohibits state personnel from pressuring employees to become members of an employee organization:

Neither the Director of the Division of Labor nor any management or supervisory employee may encourage or discourage membership in any Employee Organization nor encourage or discourage exclusive representation of employees by any Employee Organization.

Additionally, a November 4, 2007, Post news article about the executive order reported that it does not grant traditional collective bargaining rights. For instance, the order bars employee organizations from striking and obtaining binding arbitration, and any fiscal impacts of partnership agreements reached under the order are not binding on either the governor or on the legislature. According to the article:

The executive order did not give state employees the powers of traditional collective bargaining -- it contains a no-strike policy and specifies the new "partnership agreements" will not result in binding arbitration.

But workers now will have the right to collectively negotiate on matters of workplace safety, training and efficiency. Employees -- represented by the union of their choice -- can bargain on any "issues of mutual concern," including wages, health care and staffing.

The legislature, however, gives up none of its authority to set the state budget, which means lawmakers could toss out any agreement that costs money. And the governor is not bound to include such agreements in his annual budget proposal. [emphases added]

—E.B.