In response to alleged backroom political deals between the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and union bosses, Amendment 54 is launching a strongly worded ad that calls the collaboration an “unholy alliance.”
Democrats including Gov. Bill Ritter, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter and U.S Sen. Ken Salazar have been facilitating negotiations between the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, labor leaders and Protect Colorado’s Future, a union-backed coalition. Colorado Concern, an alliance of business leaders, has also emerged has a major player in negotiations. Joe Blake(or should we say Neville Chamberlain?), president of the Denver Chamber, also sits on the executive committee of Colorado Concern.
The latest rumors suggest that the chamber and Colorado Concern will mobilize the business community to raise about $5 million to fight three measures unions are trying to defeat: Amendments 47, 49 and 54. In return, the unions would drop their anti-business measures, titled Amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57.
Amendment 54 backers, led by CU Regent Tom Lucero, proclaim that their effort is about good government that knows no ideology. The campaign's ad condemns backroom deals and calls out the chamber and unions as the “biggest abusers of this corrupt system” that costs taxpayers millions of dollars.
These deals may be taking place behind closed doors, but one thing remains clear: Colorado voters should ultimately decide the outcome.
Joe Blake, let the people vote!
---
Good government and pro-business amendments (opposed by the unions):
Amendment 47 “Right-to-work” – would prohibit the current practice of requiring workers covered by collective bargaining contracts to pay union dues.
Amendment 49 “Ethical Standards” – would bar governments in Colorado money for special interest groups directly from workers' paychecks.
Amendment 54 “Clean Government” – would ban sole-source government contractors from making political contributions.
---
Bad for business amendments (supported by the unions):
Amendment 53 “Corporate Liability” – would create a new criminal liability regime to hold CEOs and other corporate executives personally liable for the corporation's actions.
Amendment 55 “Just Cause” –would require employers to give “just cause” in terminating an individual's employment. Even if slowing business, strategic downsizing or other belt-tightening require workers to be laid off, businesses would need to provide "documented" evidence, which would then become fodder - all in the public record - for a lawsuit from an aggrieved worker.
Amendment 56 “Employer Sponsored Health Insurance” –would require businesses of 20 or more employees to provide health insurance for both the employee and his dependents. In the short term, it would increase the marginal cost of hiring a 21st employee so much that it would create a disincentive for businesses to grow, consequently hurting job creation statewide.
Amendment 57 “Safe Workplace” – would insert a broadly-worded guarantee to a "safe workplace" in state law, which would no doubt be construed liberally by plaintiffs' lawyers.