RSS
Home
Amendment 47
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Amendment 47 supporter Boss Hogg
Amendment 47 is known as the "right to work" initiative, and aims to prohibit employers from requiring that workers join unions and pay union dues. A Better Colorado was responsible for rounding up support and funding for the proposal, with major backing from CoorsTek Inc., a ceramics company owned by the Coors family. Jonathan Coors, the 28-year-old great-grandson of Coors founder Adolph Coors, and the son of CoorsTek CEO John Coors, has led the political side of the "right to work" effort.
Ironically, Bill Coors, who runs the Coors Brewing Company, does not support "right to work" legislation, arguing that Colorado's Labor Peace Act, an agreement reached in 1943, is sufficient protection for both business and labor interests. The company has their own history with labor unions, breaking their brewery worker union during a 1978 strike.
Heading up opposition to Amendment 47 are the Colorado wing of AFL-CIO and Protect Colorado's Future. AFL-CIO's argument is a pretty simple numbers game, according to the Bureau of Labor statistics, in 2001 the average worker in "right to work" states (22 states in all, mostly in the south) earned $5,333 less than workers in states that do not have the law.
Colorado's business community is divided on the proposal, the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry supports it while the influential Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce opposes it.
Only in America does a 28-year-old beer scion worth millions of dollars not get laughed out of the room when he expends political capital pretending to care about everyone else's "right to work." Along those lines, Rocky Mountain News columnist Jason Salzman describes in a column today an argument in his newsroom about the very use of the phrase, "right to work." Salzman was debating with reporter Joanne Kelley (who has reported most of the Rocky's pieces about 47) whether or not "right to work" should be used interchangeably with "right to work for less" when he was overheard by business editor Rob Reutemann. Reutemann argued that "right to work for less" is an editorial comment, while "right to work" is not.
Salzman's point is that both phrases are editorial comments, and he's right. "Right to work" is not some new, Frank Lunztian phrase developed by business leaders in the 21st century. It's a phrase that has been around almost as long as unions themselves, and its intent is to fool the public. In 1961, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. offered this retort to "right to work:"
"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as 'right to work.' It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone. Whenever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote."
Amen.
Related Articles:
Comments
