Denver Post continued pattern of repeating misinformation in "right-to-work" articles

Summary: For the third time in three weeks, an article in The Denver Post inaccurately characterized a "right-to-work" measure on Colorado's November ballot by stating that its supporters "aim[ed] to ban compulsory union membership in Colorado." Colorado Media Matters has pointed out numerous times that national labor law already prohibits contracts mandating full union membership.

In a May 29 article about union opposition to a state "right-to-work" ballot issue, The Denver Post characterized supporters of the measure as "a business-backed coalition aiming to ban compulsory union membership in Colorado." However, as Colorado Media Matters has noted repeatedly -- including after April 28 and April 29 Post articles -- compulsory union membership already is prohibited under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The law permits union security clauses requiring membership dues or "agency" fees but bans "closed shop" contract provisions under which an employer would compel full union membership as a condition of continued employment.

The right-to-work initiative, approved for the ballot on April 28 and designated as Amendment 47, would prohibit unions and employers from negotiating "union shop" contracts under which employees would be required to pay union membership or "agency" fees as a condition of continued employment. Currently under the Colorado Labor Peace Act, workers preparing to negotiate a contract must hold a separate election of all potentially affected workers to authorize such a provision.

In the May 29 article by reporter Andy Vuong, the Post repeated the same inaccurate phrase -- "ban compulsory union membership in Colorado" -- used in Vuong's May 8 and May 23 articles reporting on the ballot measure. In an April 30 article about the initiative, also by Vuong, the Post used the equally inaccurate phrase "ban mandatory union membership in the state."

From the May 29 article in The Denver Post by Andy Vuong, "Union muscle flex together":

Key union leaders who fired a salvo Wednesday in the controversial right-to-work ballot battle include a former state representative and several career labor officials. Collectively, their unions represent more than 100,000 members in Colorado.

They will share the spotlight in labor's fight against a business-backed coalition aiming to ban compulsory union membership in Colorado. Labor interests said they filed a lawsuit in Denver District Court on Wednesday alleging that the right-to-work group committed fraud in collecting signatures to put the measure on November's ballot.

"The fraud on the 'right to work for less' side was unbelievable," said Mitch Ackerman, president of Service Employees International Union Colorado.

Ackerman claims to have video of signature-gatherers copying voter information from unrelated initiatives onto right-to-work petition forms.

Right-to-work proponents have called the fraud allegation a smokescreen.

Contrary to the Post's repeated suggestion that union membership can be "compulsory" or "mandatory" under current Colorado law, the NLRA states that a collective bargaining agreement cannot compel all workers covered under the agreement to maintain full membership in the union. At most, an agreement can compel workers to maintain "financial core" status, which requires payment of certain dues and fees. The American Bar Association explained this in an overview of U.S. labor and employment law published by the Bureau of National Affairs:

"Financial core" status only requires payment of periodic dues or service fees and initiation fees. Employees with financial core status can request that their fees be used only for the union's collective bargaining activities, e.g., contract negotiation and administrative and grievance adjustments, and not for political purposes.

[...]

Full union membership cannot be compelled under the NLRA. The discharge of any employee pursuant to a union shop clause for any reason other than the failure to pay financial core obligations is unlawful. These limitations on statutorily permitted "union shop" clauses in effect create a form of compulsory "agency shop" membership. [emphases added]

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which supports laws such as the one proposed for Colorado, also acknowledges that federal law prohibits compulsory full union membership.

—E.B.