Colorado Amendments 47, 49 and 54
Fear-mongering and Misleading the Voters
Recently, the organizations who oppose these amendments sent out fliers that lead voters to believe that should these amendments pass, it will result in cut equipment budgets to police and firefighters. Likewise, television ads from these same groups make it sound like these amendments will place police and firefighters in grave danger if they pass. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
So long as voters take the time to read the amendments before voting, they will see that they seek to protect the freedoms of individuals should they decide not to join a union, keep our government costs low, and eliminate one of the last vestiges of political corruption we have in Colorado.
With the Right to Work Initiative (Amendment 47), it seeks to prohibit "an employer from requiring that a person be a member and pay any moneys to a labor organization or to any other third party in lieu of payment to a labor organization". In other words, employers could not require you to join a union as a condition of employment. It by no means prevents you from joining a union if that were your choice.
The Limitation on Payroll Deduction Initiative (Amendment 49) would prohibit "a governmental payroll system from taking a payroll deduction from any government employee except deductions required by federal law." This would eliminate government costs in collecting union dues. In the status quo situation, our tax dollars go to pay for a payroll system that collects money for unions who then turn around and use the money on their political causes. This situation is like a major corporation using a taxpayer-funded system to collect money for their political action committees. If this amendment passes, government union employees can still pay for their union dues as they see fit, but they would not use a taxpayer funded payroll system to collect them.
Finally, the Clean Government Initiative (Amendment 54) seeks to eliminate the old tool of political corruption called "Pay for Play". Under the current system, any organization (union or business alike) can donate money to campaigns related to the subject of the contracts they receive. For example, currently a teachers union could donate some amount to a candidate who is on the education committee and later receive a no-bid contract worth hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. This amendment, if it passes, would prohibit this practice and bar that union from receiving a no-bid contract after donating to a campaign related to the subject of the contract, and prohibits that union from donating to a campaign during the term of a contract and for two years afterwards.
In the end, voters must read the amendments carefully and seek out all pertinent information to reach a final decision. The misleading ads and flyers from the opponents are disappointing, as they offer no valid information as to why these amendments are bad for voters and bad for Colorado should they pass.
Published by Iago
Born and raised in Colorado. Former Air Force, BA in Political Science. Seeking MBA/MS Finance in the near future. Enjoys discussing fitness/health, finance, history, religion, and politics. View profile
- Why We Should Limit Spending on Political CampaignsThe massive fundraising, and spending, by all of the candidates once again proves what many have been saying for years: there should definitely be spending limits on political campaigns.
- Woodrow Wilson: The Life of a PresidentWoodrow Wilson was a Democrat who won the Presidency of the United States in 1912. He went on to serve eight years in the Oval Office, making an incredible impact in the world by proposing the formation of the League...
Dissecting Political Ads from Clinton, Romney and Richardson in IowaWe have been inundated with television advertisements here in Iowa, as you may have guessed, with the latest coming from Senator Hillary Clinton. To be honest with you the ad do...- Hillary Clinton: Can Her Political Ads Sway Voters in North Carolina?This article analyzes 4 of Hilary Clinton's campaign ads.
The Ten Best and Most Memorable Presidential Election Political AdsThe 10 best and most memorable presidential election political ads go all the way back to the early 1950s.
- Constitution Day: Holiday and History
- Political Advertisements as a Source of Amusement
- Negative Campaign Ads: Effective or Offensive to Informed Voters?
- 5 Uses for Used Political Yard Signs
- I Want Them to Ban Political Ads
- How Does Television Negatively Affect Political Campaigning?
- Same - Sex Marriages: The Battle for Equality
8 Comments
Post a CommentSo you're saying that by joining the union you get $3 more an hour and by not joining the union you wouldn't get that pay increase, correct? If so, then this contradicts the argument that there are freeloaders if union members do indeed get paid a different higher wage.
Funny, I work in a shop were I am required to be a Union member, yes I said required. You are half right, I do not have to be a union member unles I want to work for this company, I could go find another job somewhere doing the same thing for a company that doesnt require me to join the union. That seems to be the point though that I should not be forced by my company to join a union. so far as free loaders go why dont you try looking at it from the other side. Some people do not like unions and would rather not have what you call there benifits. Case in point my company supplies drivers for RTD busses and we must join the union, If I had the same job employed through RTD I would not only not have to join the union I wouldhave a starting pay $3 an hour higher, and that is just a fact
I assume you are a union supporter, and more power to you if you are. But sad to say, union membership is WAY down these last few decades. If you can't convince people of the benefits of joining a union, then don't try to force them to join one. Just like that bill going through Congress that seeks to eliminate secret ballots, so that now... Oh the employer AND the union will know how you voted. Sorry, that's not going to help you gain unions in places like Wal-Mart where management will certainly fire you once they know how you voted. Illegal, yes, but they're Wal-Mart, they'll find a way to make it legal.
I'm sorry Brad, but the Amendment clearly states that joining a union would not be a precondition to employment in the state of Colorado. I'm not sure where you got that large of a paragraph of interpretation from that tiny amendment, but it seems far more convoluted then even the written version of amendment 58.
...But if you want to maintain fairness and rights in the workplace while keeping your wages high, vote "NO" on 47.
James,
You completely misunderstand 47. You are just as bad as you claim the opponents of Prop 47 to be. 47 does not ban forced unionization. That is already illegal by federal law. All 47 does is stop unions from recouping the costs of representing non-union workers they represent. That is right, in 'union shops' the union must represent all the workers. All the workers then receive the benefit of the union's negotiations and collective bargaining: better hours, better workplace protection, higher wages...
47 allows non-union workers to not pay for the costs of the union representing them. In other words, it allows them to freeload of the union, and by extension, their fellow union co-workers. That is it. That is all it does.
Oh, and restricted bargaining states that have passed similar laws have much lower wages and salaries. So if you want to reduce what you earn in CO in the long run, vote for 47.
But if you want to maintain fairness in the workplace and k
thanks for some definition on that! I hate not knowing what I'm being brainwashed against!
Great article. I was wondering about these...