Allen J. Hischke: Response to Germond

Advertisement

Response to Germond

To the editor:

This letter is a response to Mr. Germond's letter concerning Amendment 47 that is up for vote again this year. This amendment has been voted down several times, simply because its sole purpose is to rob labor unions of their power. This would happen because if people are not required to join unions then the dues paying members would be forced to use their funds to support and defend a bunch of freeloaders that are too cheap to pay their own way in life. This is because Amendment 47 states that even if you don't pay dues, like any honest person would do, the paying membership must support and defend the nonpaying slackers. This is totally wrong.

A labor union's sole purpose is to make a better life for its members.

This is accomplished through negotiations with the companies the members work for to get higher wages and better benefits and better working conditions. A labor union also defends its members against unfair treatment and violations of their contracts.

To accomplish these things requires a good deal of money, which is the reason for union dues.

This amendment is designed to bankrupt unions so companies can run roughshod over their employees. Why do you think people like Peter Coors are backing this amendment? It is so they can cut the benefits of and pay whatever they want to their employees who have worked to make their companies grow.

Also, Mr. Germond has very little grasp of the facts. To start with, the power of any union has always been in the hands of the members. It is their choice to either participate in the unions activities or not, this is why they are called unions.

His statement that union dues are used largely for lobbying and Democratic Party donations is totally false. It is against federal labor laws for any labor union to use dues monies for political means.

Labor unions have political divisions within their organization for this purpose. These political divisions raise their own funds through donations and fund drives totally separate from membership dues. I have been involved with these organizations in many ways.

This so-called right to work amendment is really the right to work for less. Amendment 47 must be defeated or a lot of hard-working men and women will be stripped of their ability to make a decent wage and earn decent benefits. Dictated to by bloodsuckers, freeloaders and scroungers who think the proper thing to do is take a free ride off the backs of others.

If Mr. Germond thinks the proper thing to do in life is live off of the sweat of others, then he should go to a place where right to work for less is already the law and let the hard working people of Colorado earn a wage and benefits package that allows them to properly support their families and themselves.

I'm proud to be a paying union member.

Allen J. Hischke

Craig

Comments

rhammel 6 years, 2 months ago

I am a retired, active member of Local 33, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE). Without the Local's retirement package, I would be, not retired or on only Social Security. I still pay an annual dues to the IATSE. And I do it without complaining.

It is clear that Mr. Germond does not understand labor unions mission: to provide a decent wage and benefit package for its members. It is called collective bargaining. The "union bosses" are elected to their jobs by the membership of each local by that local's membership. So if there is a bad represetative, he/she are out in a resonable time.

Lobbying is strictly the activity of political action committes(PAC). The unions are prevented by law from actively lobbying.

We have a term for those who are anti-union activists: scabs. They cross union picket lines and work to disrupt union activities. They also write inflammatory letters to the editor of local newspapers. So I would have to label Mr Germond as a scab, as it appears that he supports the "right to work" amendment to the Colorado Constitution. He also writes inflammatory letters to the editor of the Craig Daily Press.

0

als362 6 years, 2 months ago

Mr. Germond sounds like a real childish person to me.

0

als362 6 years, 2 months ago

Just to let you know Pat, many people within my local have congratulated my on my letter today. They include, several stewards, and the business manager. So I will take it from these people that I know what I am talking about and not you. Everyone that patted me on the back agreed with me that you are out to lunch.
Also you need to learn to recognize the difference between anger and the facts. It is obvious that you don't know the facts.

0

lonelyone 6 years, 2 months ago

Patrick, I guess I missed something this morning when I read Allen's letter. I didn't think he was showing any anger toward you, just stating some of the facts that you've asked for from unions. Mr Hammels post on the other hand was pretty rough. My husband is a unoin member and we've had our go rounds about how good or not a union is. Some people are very strong supporters and others are just along for the ride. They will sit back and let the strong ones do all the work while they reap the rewards. Is it fair...........no, but sometimes that is the way it works.

0

Ray Cartwright 6 years, 2 months ago

Ok I have sat back and wondered how I could explain the whole idea of "Right to Work" (for less)....Now lets suppose in your neighborhood your neighbors decide that they might want an association of some kind. They will then hold an election and if the majority says yes then an assoiciation is formed. Now lets just say one of the families on your block chooses not to belong to the association so they don't join. As Colorado laws state now, they don't have to join. They still have to pay into the association because you held a second vote and by a 75% margin closed the neighborhood. Now "Right to Work" (for less) comes along and now your neighbor opts to not pay anylonger. You and the rest of the block have to kick in extra moneys to cover their part of the dues that they are no longer paying. Now suppose that they get into a squable with someone and end up in court. Your association still has to represent them in court and they still pay nothing. That is what Brother Allen was trying to say in his letter about slackers. Another analagy is this suppose your neighbor decides that he doesn't want to pay his water bill so you and your fellow neighbors have to kick in extra money to pay it just because he doesn't want to.

Right to Work is wrong and there are already laws on the books that guarantee a persons rights to join or not join a union. Why do we need more Amendments to the Consitiution anyway.

0

Ray Cartwright 6 years, 2 months ago

Patrick, The Unions are required by federal law to represent everyone that works under that contract even though they haven't paid a dime into the union. I hope that answers your question.

0

Ray Cartwright 6 years, 2 months ago

"Mutually assured destruction"

Business leaders said Tuesday afternoon that they were unable to strike a deal with organized labor to remove four contentious initiatives from the November ballot, despite weeks of negotiations. "Unfortunately, we were unable to come up with a proposal to which union leaders would agree, and we have simply run out of time," Walter Isenberg said in a statement from Colorado Businesses for Sensible Solutions, which is working on a compromise. But shortly after releasing the statement, members of the business group said they remained hopeful union officials would take their final offer before Thursday's 5 p.m. deadline to withdraw the measures. "The ball's in their court," said Ted Trimpa, an attorney with Hogan & Hartson who has served as the chief negotiator for business interests. The offer on the table calls for businesses to contribute $3 million to labor's fight against three ballot measures, including a right-to-work initiative, in return for the removal of four union-backed measures. That's down from as much as $6 million. The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 union is pushing two of the labor measures, and Protect Colorado's Future, representing a coalition of unions, is backing the other two. Protect Colorado's Future executive director Jess Knox has signed off on the $3 million deal, but UFCW Local 7 president Ernest Duran has not, according to a source familiar with the situation. "We're simply in the fourth quarter here," Knox said. "We're still working hard to continue those discussions." Manny Gonzales, a spokesman for UFCW Local 7, declined comment. Business leaders and elected officials have called the pending ballot battle "mutually assured destruction." Unions have already raised more than $11 million to push their proposals and fight the business measures. Business groups have raised at least $5 million. Business interests led by the Coors family are pushing Amendment 47, which would make Colorado a right-to-work state where the payment of union dues or fees could not be mandated as a condition of employment.

0

Ray Cartwright 6 years, 2 months ago

"Mutually assured destruction" (cont.)

Unions filed four measures in response to Amendment 47: Amendment 53 would hold executives criminally liable under state law for corporate wrongdoings. Amendment 55 would require businesses to have "just cause" for firing workers. Amendment 56 would force businesses with 20 or more employees to provide health-care coverage. Amendment 57 would allow injured employees to seek damages outside the workers' compensation system. Unions also are fighting Amendment 49, which seeks to prohibit automatic deductions of union dues from government employee paychecks, and Amendment 54, which aims to outlaw political campaign contributions from contractors that win government work of more than $100,000 in a year through a bid process that involves fewer than three competing bids. "If they all passed, it'd be a disaster," said Ray Hogler, management professor at Colorado State University. "Every one of those is a policy issue that's being promoted through the ballot rather than through the legislature, and that's a bad way to make complex employment policy." Hogler highlighted Amendment 57, which he said would unravel the workers' compensation system in the state, and Amendment 55, which would make Colorado just the second state to have a "just cause" law. The other state, Montana, enacted the law through the legislature. Union officials have said throughout the campaign that they would be willing to withdraw their measures if Amendment 47 also was pulled. But efforts to persuade Amendment 47 backers, including Jonathan Coors, to withdraw their measure have failed. Trimpa, a political adviser to software millionaire Tim Gill, took the initiative to gather union, business and political leaders into a meeting Sept. 13. What resulted, after several subsequent meetings, is the offer that is now on the table. On Sept. 18, Trimpa formed Colorado Businesses for Sensible Solutions, an issue committee that would fight Amendments 47, 49 and 54, if labor signs off on the agreement. Two issues stand in the way of an eleventh-hour deal, according to a source close to the negotiations: * The $3 million from business donors could not be transferred to the Sensible Solutions committee by Thursday, so unions would have to withdraw their initiatives without the cash on hand. * Earlier discussions called for UFCW Local 7 and Protect Colorado's Future to receive $3 million each for removing their measures, and now the deal calls for a total of $3 million. "I'm hopeful that they will come around," said Isenberg, president and chief executive of Sage Hospitality.

0

Ray Cartwright 6 years, 2 months ago

"Mutually assured destruction" (cont.)

U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper - all Democrats - issued a joint statement on the looming ballot battle:

"There is still time for all parties to do the right thing and withdraw their initiatives. But if no agreement is reached by the (Thursday) deadline, we are committed to defeating all seven initiatives - Amendments 47, 49, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57."

0

Ray Cartwright 6 years, 2 months ago

I understand that that was a long read but just thought that you all should know that the issue of all of these amendments could go off the ballot by 5pm tomorrow.

0

taxslave 6 years, 2 months ago

http://www.nrtwc.org/facts-issues/

Right to work legislation information.

Google it from every direction. You must read, read and read some more.

You seriously don't believe an "Act" of legislation is only 2 paragraphs in a blue book do you? They are just summaries....Devil is in the details.....just like congress.....many things added after senate votes.

0

Ray Cartwright 6 years, 2 months ago

Patrick as you can see by todays paper the union has in fact pulled amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57, I do believe that they would have made almost impossible to bring new business and growth into Colorado. Please vote no on 47, 49 and on 54.

0

Ray Cartwright 6 years, 2 months ago

taxslave why don't you publish the union side of the coin also along with the national right to work committee web site. http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/stateissues/work/

0

cantstandtexans 6 years, 2 months ago

Christ! I'm working too many hours and days. Looks like this Amendment 47 is really heating up! Simple solution people...just vote no on Amendment 47. Again...whose really behind this Amendment anyways?! And who stands to profit immensely if 47 passes? This amendment is not something that should become law. For no matter the shortcoming of union participation in a work place....unions have time and again been proven to enable a group of workers to stand toe to toe against greedy corporations and business entities that has grown and profited by unionized workers.

While the CEOs and the CFO's of far too many American corporations pad said persons with multi millions in stock options and squandered a companies fortunes for thier own particular greed.....it's been the corporations of America that decided to bust unions and began shipping jobs to Mexico..India...China, etc, claiming cheap goods for all Americans and that loopsided trade agreements were great for America!!! Another bogus act of greed!!!

Vote as you choose...but remember....every job lost to China is another nail in the coffin of a prosperous American society. And may I remind those that it's a companies right to conduct business to be profittable for the good of the United States. But companies that locate it's business headquaters "OFF SHORE" to avoid paying taxes....these are robbers and thieves!!! Not giving a RIP ASS DAMN about this country, only about the amount of money they can steal from all of us....and "OUR" country. Just vote No on 47!! It's apparant that it's not good for either union and/or non union workers!!

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.