2008 Colorado Amendment 47

Last updated

Amendment 47
Flag of Colorado.svg
November 4, 2008

Prohibition on Mandatory Labor Union Membership and Dues
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes1,003,05643.89%
Light brown x.svg No1,282,50156.11%
Total votes2,285,557100.00%

2008 Colorado Amendment 47 results map by county.svg

Amendment 47 was a proposed initiative on the Colorado ballot for 2008. It was defeated.

Contents

The initiative was proposed jointly by Ryan Frazier of Aurora and Julian Jay Cole of Golden. [1] According to the Blue Book, the state-provided ballot guide, Amendment 47 "proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to: prohibit requiring an employee to join and pay any dues or fees to a labor union as a condition of employment; and create a misdemeanor penalty for violation of this law."

If ratified, Amendment 47 would have added a new section to the Colorado Constitution, which would state, in part:

(1) This Amendment shall be known and may be cited as the "Colorado Right to Work Amendment".
(2) (a) No person shall, as a condition of employment, be required to:
(I) be a member of a labor union; and
(II) pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind to a labor union or to any charity or other third party, in lieu of such payments.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from voluntarily belonging or voluntarily providing financial support to a labor union.
(3) Any person who directly or indirectly violated any provision of this section commits a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine in an amount equivalent to the most stringent misdemeanor classification provided by law. [2]

Fact-checking

Pro-Amendment 47 political ads

KUSA, the NBC affiliate in Denver, Colorado, analyzed one of the political ads supporting Amendment 47. Among their conclusions were that the particular ad was misleading when it stated, "All it does, it gives workers the right to choose for themselves whether or not they want to join a union." KUSA's analysis states:

As it stands now, [...] federal law prohibits anyone from being forced to join a union. What Amendment 47 would really do is give workers the right to decide if they want to pay any dues to the union for the purposes of negotiating for wages and benefits. [3]

They also noted that agencies promoting passage of the amendment have received contributions from two organizations in Virginia, the Free Enterprise Alliance in Arlington the National Right to Work Committee in Springfield. [3]

Anti-Amendment 47 political ads

Channel Nine News also fact-checked a political ad from the opposition. Their conclusions (excerpted):

TRUTH TEST: Will Amendment 47 hurt Colorado's economy?
QUOTE: The few rich owners who are pushing Constitutional Amendment 47 say they want to give people a choice.
TRUTH: It is true that some wealthy businessmen and women have backed Amendment 47 and groups supporting this amendment do discuss freedom of choice and the rights of workers. [...]
QUOTE: You do have a choice. Would you choose to pass an amendment that could strip away all progress that Colorado workers have made with wages and health care and retirement?
TRUTH: This is opinion, but regards the concerns opponents have about the impact of this measure on union organization in the state. [...]
QUOTE: In times like these, who would choose to destabilize Colorado's economy and put jobs at risk?
TRUTH: This is opinion, but regards opponents' concerns related to employment and working conditions. [...]
QUOTE: If it's not broke, why fix it? No on 47. It's risky, it's reckless, it's wrong.
TRUTH: This is opinion. [4]

Controversy

The backers of Amendment 47 have been found to have violated campaign finance laws. [5]

Support and opposition

One organization which supports Amendment 47 is called For A Better Colorado. An organization in opposition is called Protect Colorado.

Results

Amendment 47 [6]
ChoiceVotes %
Light brown x.svg No1,282,50156.11
Yes1,003,05643.89
Total votes2,285,557100.00

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Labor Relations Act of 1935</span> 1935 U.S. federal labor law

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, is a foundational statute of United States labor law that guarantees the right of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take collective action such as strikes. Central to the act was a ban on company unions. The act was written by Senator Robert F. Wagner, passed by the 74th United States Congress, and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation between employers and a group of employees aimed at agreements to regulate working salaries, working conditions, benefits, and other aspects of workers' compensation and rights for workers. The interests of the employees are commonly presented by representatives of a trade union to which the employees belong. A collective agreement reached by these negotiations functions as a labour contract between an employer and one or more unions, and typically establishes terms regarding wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs. Such agreements can also include 'productivity bargaining' in which workers agree to changes to working practices in return for higher pay or greater job security.

In the context of labor law in the United States, the term right-to-work laws refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions. Such agreements can be incorporated into union contracts to require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation. Unlike the right to work definition as a human right in international law, U.S. right-to-work laws do not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work but rather guarantee an employee's right to refrain from being a member of a labor union.

An open shop is a place of employment at which one is not required to join or financially support a union as a condition of hiring or continued employment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Union busting</span> Efforts to prevent or hinder unionization among workers

Union busting is a range of activities undertaken to disrupt or weaken the power of trade unions or their attempts to grow their membership in a workplace.

The Employee Free Choice Act is the name for several legislative bills on US labor law which have been proposed and sometimes introduced into one or both chambers of the U.S. Congress.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, established in 1968, is a nonprofit organization that seeks to advance right-to-work laws in the United States.

Davenport v. Washington Education Association, 551 U.S. 177 (2007), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it does not violate the First Amendment for a state to require its public-sector unions to receive affirmative authorization from a non-member before spending that nonmember's agency fees for election-related purposes.

Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), is a United States labor law decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied an award of back pay to an undocumented worker, José Castro, who had been laid off for participating in a union organizing campaign at Hoffman Plastics Compounds plant, along with several other employees. The case was originally filed against Hoffman by Dionisio Gonzalez, an organizer with the United Steelworkers.

Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that attorneys who are required to be members of a state bar association have a First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing the organization’s political or ideological activities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Colorado Amendment 54</span>

Amendment 54 was a proposed initiative on the Colorado ballot for 2008. It passed with 51.2% of the vote.

The South Dakota Open and Clean Government Act, or Initiated Measure 10, was a South Dakota initiative that would ban taxpayer-funded lobbying, stop the exchange of campaign donations for state contracts, and open a website with information on state contracts. The Open and Clean Government Act was proposed as a citizen-initiated state statute and appeared on the November 4, 2008 ballot.

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative. The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights", and defining what Beck rights are and how a union must fulfill its duties regarding them is an active area of modern United States labor law.

California Proposition 18 was on the November 4, 1958 California ballot measure as an initiated constitutional amendment. This measure is more commonly referred as the "right to work" law and would have added a new provision, Section 1-A to Article 1 of the State Constitution. The amendment would "prohibit employers and employee organizations from entering into collective bargaining or other agreements which establish membership in a labor organization, or payment of dues or charges of any kind, as a condition of employment or continued employment." That is, making union membership voluntary, rather than compulsory, for employment.

Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court regarding provisions of Illinois state law that allowed a union security agreement. Since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited the closed shop, states could still choose whether to allow unions to collect fees from non-union members since the collective agreements with the employer would still benefit non-union members. The Court decided 5–4 that Illinois's Public Labor Relations Act, which permitted the union security agreements, violated the First Amendment. A similar case was decided by the Court in 2018, Janus v AFSCME, overturning the Court's unanimous decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) which the appeals court had upheld in Harris.

Garner v. Teamsters Local 776, 346 U.S. 485 (1953), is a US labor law case, concerning the scope of federal preemption against state law for labor rights.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overruling the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 Illinois elections</span>

A general election was held in the U.S. state of Illinois on November 8, 2022. The elections for United States Senate and United States House of Representatives, Governor, statewide constitutional officers, Illinois Senate, and Illinois House were held on this date.

The right to sit in the United States refers to state and local laws and regulations guaranteeing workers the right to sit at work when standing is not necessary. The right to sit was a pillar of the early labor movement. Between 1881 and 1917, almost all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had passed legislation concerning suitable seating for workers. These laws were enacted during the Progressive Era, spearheaded by women workers in the labor movement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 Missouri Proposition A</span>

2018 Missouri Proposition A was a veto referendum ballot measure held on August 7, 2018, to determine whether to uphold or overturn a right-to-work law passed by the Missouri General Assembly in 2017. The law was defeated, resulting in its repeal.

References

  1. Rocky Mountain News
  2. 2008 State Ballot Information Booklet, "Blue Book Archived 2008-10-10 at the Wayback Machine ", State of Colorado
  3. 1 2 O'Malley, Mary Jean, and Adam Schrager, October 17, 2008. "TRUTH TEST: Is Amendment 47 about employee freedom? [ permanent dead link ]", Channel Nine News.
  4. By: Mary Jean O'Malley and Adam Schrager, October 18, 2008. "TRUTH TEST: Will Amendment 47 hurt Colorado's economy? [ permanent dead link ]", Channel Nine News.
  5. Amendment 47 backers run afoul of campaign finance law
  6. Buescher, Bernie (June 29, 2009). "Official Publication of the Abstract of Votes Cast for the 2008 Primary 2008 General" (PDF). Secretary of State of Colorado . Retrieved October 3, 2024.[ dead link ]