The Issues
Labor Issues
After decades of relative labor peace in Colorado, the unions have finally decided to try to flex their muscles. There will likely be a number of labor-related ballot initiatives this fall. Only one is worth voting for.
When I moved to Colorado, over a decade ago, I was astonished to find that Colorado wasn't a Right to Work state. In fact, unions here have the ability to excluded non-members from employment at businesses where they have union representation. This is known as a "closed shop," and serves to perpetuate union power at the expense of the working man.
In response to HB-1072, which would have overturned Colorado's decades-old and highly successful Labor Peace Act, the Chamber of Commerce has supported the Right to Work initiative, which would prohibit union membership from being a condition of employment. Unions trot out their same, tired myths, and bark and scream that this undermines their ability to effectively negotiate on behalf of their members.
It certainly undermines their ability to coerce membership.
However, as the Mackinac Institute has shown, Right-to-Work states have higher rates of employment, lower business costs (largely due to more capital investment), faster disposable income growth, higher GSP growth rates, and greater declines in poverty rates. Freedom works.
I support the Right-to-Work Initiative.
The Mackinac Institute is based in Michigan, and they would certainly understand the deleterious effects of too-powerful unions. Michigan has seen plenty of quality auto manufacturing migrate south to Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee, leaving a shredded economy to pay for political promises the government can no longer keep.
Now through a series of ballot initiatives, unions seek to do for us what they did for Michigan in the 1980s, and Britain in the 1970s.
They have proposed a series of ballot initiatives designed to hamper business operations, and to suck wealth from job-producing operations.
- Mandatory Cost of living wage increases.
This proposal would force employers to provide automatic wage increases at the rate of inflation, removing almost all incentive to battle this scourge. Pensioners and those on fixed incomes would continue to see their life's savings wiped out, not doubt requiring further tax increases to rectify.
- Companies of 20 employees to provide mandatory health insurance.
This will greatly increase the cost of expansion, leading to many small businesses of 19 employees. The gap will be filled with contract and part-time work, of course, until expansion is possible. Until then, successful companies will be penalized, unable to grow and to provide more jobs.
The number 20 itself is completely arbitrary, and no evidence is provided to show that the size of the company itself is in any way related to its ability to pay for employee health insurance.
- Increase assessments of commercial property to generate more revenue for state health care and education programs.
This was supposed to be the destination for all that Referendum C money we voted for, as a one-time fix back in 2005. Naturally, the money has gone elsewhere.
- Prohibit Colorado companies that rely on overseas labor from receiving tax credits.
Companies don't want to ship jobs overseas. They do so in order to stay competitive. This essentially unenforceable provision will simply lead to manufacturing companies going out of business, to be replaced by companies devoted entirely to import-export.
- Create more stringent regulations for safe workplaces.
After all, it's not as though we don't have entire federal and state agencies devoted to this task already.
- Prevent terminations except for specific cause.
Not only would companies be prevented from letting employees go unless there were specific reasons, there would be an additional appeals process. A company would have to let 10% of its statewide workforce go in order not to have to give just cause, implying severe financial distress, which might well lead to the other exempt condition: bankruptcy.
These are all terrible ideas, especially heading into a likely recession, and I oppose all of them.
We should be looking for ways to increase employer flexibility, not to decrease it.
|
