Allen J. Hischke: Response to Germond

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

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

Oh, I will get back to this person. In the paper.

0

rhammel 5 years, 6 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

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

That's pretty bad Rick. Thought out and everything. Heck you even sound like you're the only one who cares about unions. Or that can speak out. You haven't read my comments on line have you? Allen is going to regret his anger and lack of poise. My artical is done and waiting for the right day and a touch more polish. You can read it soon.

I know union fanatics that carry bats to picket lines believe everyones else's opinion is crap. It just isn't so. People with yours and Allens attitude are why there are not more unions. You give unions a real, real bad PR image. Your attitude is almost communistic. Calling me names for particapating in our election debate. I fought on forign soil to be treated like this from you. Thanks Rick

I've got one article trying to fight 49, 54. I want to be able to smack them down with everything I've got. Its on hold thanks to Allen. Then I took a break and found your letter. Dealing with this filth on line doesn't help at all. Me or the unions. I will not be asking your letter to be removed. I want everyone to read it.

0

als362 5 years, 6 months ago

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

0

als362 5 years, 6 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

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

I got a lot of complements on mine too. And you are right I was wrong on somethings. I'm going to correct them Fryday or Sat.. But your wrong too on some things Allen. I wanted to get past these stupid adds on T.V. and talk about the guts of these issues. Without my letter you would have no plateform for a rebutle. I was waiting for Michele Conroys letter before I said anything else. I was being fair minded. Slow down on the hate. I support unions. If I thought 47 would hurt unions I would not support it. I feel it would be a great PR move for unions to accept it. Anyway, we can both agree no 49 and 54. Those are the two I would like to move on to next week to fight. Comments like rhammel and your angery letter do not help your cause at all. Union intimadation is at the root of the unions PR problems. Don't go for the school yard easy hate sale, it does fail in the end.

0

lonelyone 5 years, 6 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

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

It's like that in America. You can only make fair rules not fair out comes.

Maybe your right about the anger from Allen. I'll test him in Frydays paper. I'm turning in my letter tomarrow. I've met with one leader and we had a direction to go in. I think I'm going to leave the unions to their own now though. Indepndent people and voices that support them are no good if it's not all the way their way.

0

Ray Cartwright 5 years, 6 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

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

Do unions represent the non union members that work next to them if they get wrongly fired? At the same mine or whatever. Is think thats what your saying? That also maybe the million dollar question.

0

Ray Cartwright 5 years, 6 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

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

That is worth talking about. I found the Taft-Hartley bill on not being forced to join. Could you or do you know how to find that. Even if it means Allens right I still want to know so I can quit being wrong. Alot of people, I mean alot of people would like to see the referance on that law. Holy cow, now does everyone see why we have to talk about this stuff. People at unions get this through osmosis and the rest of us who have to vote also, don't know it. This is why I only started the discussion and was waiting for union input. Michele gave me some and if I could get this straight and sorted out I could explain it to non union members along the same thoughts it took me to realize it. Unions need impartial help on this.

0

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

I e-mailed Michele and asked her for the reference also. If anyone knows the federal law that forces unions to represent non-union members in court or the like please post it.

0

Ray Cartwright 5 years, 6 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 5 years, 6 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 5 years, 6 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 5 years, 6 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

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

This was a good read. I'm going to go over it a few times. I'll have some questions but I don't expect you to wait up to answer them. I've sent two emails out to both sides on this issue. What you just wrote down needs to be presented to the people. No I'm not a nut on a mission, I'm a citizen who wants my kids future protected and unions to be something they can particapate in and be prowd of. I am a trained head shrink. The way these amendments are set up is frighting. I have been awake at nights trying to think of how to tell people where the traps are in the way they're laid out.

Take my side for just a moment. If 47 was something passed 2 years ago 49, and 54 would have a different feel to them. To a neutral voter, 49 and 54 would be something you would want the right to keep if you where there free and clear.

Other view. If your a neutral voter and you read 49 and 54 and you feel you may not be there free and clear then your vote is much different.

It's one heck of a trap! That's why I can't sleep. I'll do everything I can for a strong fair union. The first article I wrote on this was the common myths the media puts out. I knew it was thin, but unions where not talking at all. For the price of my pride, now people in Craig know a lot more than a week ago. I feel it was a good trade. It only hurts a little.

0

taxslave 5 years, 6 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

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

Hay mister Fender, I thought about what you said last night. Are you involved in those negotiations?

Anyway, I was on the phone all day long with union leaders. It was a blast and these guys are in it to win it. However, even they are confused on some things. The Deserodo guy I had to argue with him about forced membership. He would not believe me about Taft-Hartley. He said if you work at my mine you have to be in the union.

No wonder the unions PR campaigns look like they're being run by Disney sometimes. Ha Ha. It makes it hard to help them some times.

I also found out Allens Wednesday editorial was flat out false. So false union members where lol. I'll get to that in print.

Ya know, this has taken so much work just to find out the truth. Just to be able to say something that's fact and not myth is pure hell. It's worth it though, the unions are in one hell of a jam and the rest of us are going to have to pull their butts out. I may gripe about a leader but I also will praise the good ones to no end. Like Michelle Conroy. She should be made Queen of all unions. Ha Ha.

I got to run but I'll have a lot to say latter that I think you like. Thanks a bunch for taking the time last night.

0

Ray Cartwright 5 years, 6 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 5 years, 6 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

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

Mister Fender, I would 100% pull my vote on 47 and may still. I am voting yes on it and advocating it one last time for this reason. If me and some guy's where working at a union mine and we got mad over a boss or action by elected union leaders we could threaten them with membership cancelation. I don't think people would carelessly discard their membership. It's usualy rapped up with retirement and what not. I would have to be pretty mad to throw that all away. What I am saying is I first support the worker, then the union leadership, then maybe the company.

I am really cautious about 47 though. I have got my eye on it. I asked in my editorial (tomarrow) for members to write in what 47 will do to their union. With concerns to present contracts and what is federal law. I don't want any mistakes on these 3. There is still time to change votes and minds. I hope between Michelle, Allen, and me we can pick these apart and seperate all th myth and get the facts.

Some unions do incur loss to freeloaders. About $3000-$4000 per arbitration. If too many unions are just stuck by contracts and can't manuver out of 47's way, I will be very vocal that I have changed my mind and 47 should be a no. If it is for sure going hurt my neighbors or my town I'm out.

Give me another week or so.

0

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

I liked that web site Fender. That is the next nugget. What are right to work laws? 47 doesn't say anything about making unions incur cost of nonmembers. This is a great point. We should ferret out the details here. Is there something I haven't read yet? Like most, I think I know what's on the ballot but I want to be sure. If some something passes that says "right to work" does a whole bunch of bad stuff thats not printed in plain English happen? I'm going to read the blue book some more. I've been ignoring the frase "right to work" because my ears filters it out as rhetoric. If I'm doing it then others are to. I'm on it Fender. Thanks

0

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

Okay, I see the phrase Right to Work at the top of 47. But I'm not connecting the dots on where it forces unions to incur cost from non members. So far as I know this is not a federal mandate. Maybe if you could show me how some unions get themselves in this pickle. Do they have to fully represent nomembers because some unions have manditory dues? And would the ability to collect manditory dues even change if 47 passes? I think so, but it does say join not pay.

0

cantstandtexans 5 years, 6 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

Patrick Germond 5 years, 6 months ago

I had a thing happen once just outside the work place . It was crap. We were in the right. The the bosses were responsable, but not directly. They didn't or wouldn't take a stand. They thought about it. Almost did, but no. Latter, they finally did after more people got hurt.

All I'm saying is have a little political power right then in our hands would have been nice.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.