Unions

How You Call It

Joe Mathews — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:06:00 -0500

The summit is wrapping up with a presentation from attorney Andrew Giacomini, managing partner of Hanson Bridgett, explaining the legal strategy for calling a constitutional convention without the participation of the legislature.

"Everything I'm telling you is subject to debate," Giacomini says, but he is pretty emphatic that he's right. Such a convention can be called with two initiatives. At first, probably in June 2010, backers of a convention could put an initiative on the ballot that would amend the constitution to permit the people to call a convention directy, without the participation of the legislature. He anticipates legal and political opposition, but isn't worried. "I think that's about as hard as fogging up a mirror with my breath," he says. The second initiative would ask the public to call the convention, and set out the agenda and the delegate selection options. This initiative could appear on the November 2010 ballot -- or on the June 2010 ballot alongside the first initiative.

He also outlined four possible approaches to how to pick delegates. 1. a direct election of delegates in existing districts (the current constitutional process), 2. a Prop 11-style approach, with a citizens commission. 3. a jury pool style approach, with citizens called at random, and 4. a process that includes a panel of experts. He doesn't suggest a favorite, but says a decision has to be made.

Giacomini suggests the second initiative could face competition from other initiatives that would seek to call a constitutional convention under different rules. He also mentions the cost of this. "Who brought their checkboo today?" He also predicts that the political parties and unions will oppose it.

Many other questions have to be answered. But "from a legal perspective, this is totally doable."

Newest Initiative Genre: Preserving 'Secret Ballot' Elections For Union Organizing

Joe Mathews — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:53:00 -0500

Ballot initiatives sometimes are not just measures. They're cottage industries, with sponsors filing the same or similar initiatives all over the country. Think of term limits, or eminent domain protection, or the Humane Society's many animal protection measures.

Now there's a new genre coming: the preservation of "secret ballot" union elections. The context: Unions have long complained -- with good reason -- that the current system for organizing workers gives corporations too much power. That process is built around secret ballot elections, but the process has such loose time limits and allows for endless legal appeals -- and the intimidation and firing of workers in the meantime -- that unions have soured on the secret ballot. In its place, labor wants federal legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act. Backed by Democrats, including President-elect Obama, EFCA would allow unions attempting to organize a workplace to win formal recognition without a secret ballot vote. They would have to gather signed cards from a majority of people in the workplace -- a process generally known as card check. Some employers currently choose to recognize unions who gather cards, but most insist on the secret ballot election. It's their choice. EFCA would flip that, giving the unions the choice -- cards or secret ballot -- in how they organize a workplace.

With Democrats about to take control of Washington, business groups -- which broadly opposes EFCA and card check -- are going to the states. And specifically, they're going to the people. A business coalition, Save Our Secret Ballot, is announcing today its intentions to sponsor ballot initiatives in Arizona, Arkansas and Missouri. They'll pursue legislative referenda in Nevada and Utah. Politically, it's a decent strategy. The business groups are likely to win in places like Utah and Arkansas. But they'll have their hands full in the other states, especially Nevada, which would emerge as the top state front in this war. Las Vegas is a union town, dominated by the powerful local of Unite HERE, the hotel and culinary workers' union. Unite HERE's leaders have been among the strongest advocates of card check. A ballot campaign in Nevada over the issue would likely become the most expensive campaign in the history of that state.

If Save Our Secret Ballots proves successful and the EFCA passes, the big questions may prove to be legal. Does federal law, which tends to govern labor relations matters, permit card check in states that prohibit it? Or will states be able to carve out exceptions to the rule?

Public Employee Unions Blocking Public Disclosure

Joe Mathews — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:14:00 -0400

The essence of self-government is the ability to know what your government is doing, who it hires and how it spends its money. But public employee unions have been -- shamefully -- seeking to prevent the public from learning such information.

Within the last year, state public employee unions sought to block -- and then boycott -- the Sacramento Bee for publishing the salary data of state workers. There is no more essentially public record than that. Now comes news from San Bernardino that the county is giving unions heads-up about public records requests in an attempt to block them. Unions there are attacking newspapers that make requests for records on county employees. This is particularly outrageous because public records request from newspapers and the public are often the only way to learn how public employees and their unions behave. Public employee unions are exempt from the federal laws and regulations that require unions representing private sector workers to report on their internal finances to the U.S. Department of Labor.

These attempts to block disclosure -- and intimidate those that seek to serve the public -- are likely to boomerang against unions and public employees. They are supposed to be public servants, and as such should welcome scrutiny. If unions keep this up, the appropriate response would be for Congress should pass legislation forcing public employee unions to comply with federal disclosure requirements. Congress also should look at increasing those requirements.

Colorado Compromise?

Joe Mathews — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:35:00 -0400

In Colorado, there's a multi-initiative war between business and labor interests. Each side is sponsoring multiple measures. But there are talks underway, with some participation by Gov. Bill Ritter, aimed at avoiding a full war in November. The Denver Business Journal has details. Labor has agreed to drop its initiatives -- which are aimed at business prerogatives -- if business leaders will help the unions defeat Measure 47, an initiative to make Colorado a "right-to-work," or open shop, state.

ADDED, 9/21: More details on the talks from the Rocky Mountain News, which even has some documents on the deal-making.

Weekend Round Up: A Colorado Super Bowl?

Joe Mathews — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 06:34:00 -0400

There are signs that Colorado is headed towards the kind of Labor vs. Business Ballot Initiative Super Bowl that Californians experienced during the special election of 2005. It seems that every few weeks, one side or the other ups the ante by filing new initiatives aimed at the prerogatives of the other. Colorado's governor has called a meeting for Monday in an effort to head off warfare, but don't bet it on him succeeding. Ballot initiatives, once filed, take on lives of their own. A whole industry of people who profit from the measures -- and interest groups who like the measures -- soon seize on viable initiatives. In many cases, the initiative's original sponsors can change their mind and sue for peace -- but it doesn't matter. Here's a round-up of headlines from over the past couple days.

RIGHT TO WORK SUMMIT: The Rocky Mountain News has this report on Monday's scheduled meeting between the governor and advocates for a ballot initiative that would make Colorado a "right-to-work state." California cognoscenti will recognize the name of Jonathan Coors, a former aide to Gov. Schwarzenegger.

MAKING INITIATIVE HARDER: The Rocky Mountain News suggests it should be harder to amend the state constitution by initiative than to establish a statute by initiative. This makes sense, and is the case in a number of states, including California.

DID GATHERERS LIE? And yet another complaint about Colorado signature gatherers. An attorney has filed a complaint with audio evidence of gatherers working on the right-to-work measure. Similar complaints by opponents of an anti-affirmative action measure received attention this past week from The New York Times. The problem with pursuing such complaints is that gathering signatures involves political speech -- the kind that really must be protected by the First Amendment. And complaints about signature gatherers' tactics are almost never based on principle; the people on each side change depending on whose ox is gored by the petition in question.

ARKANSAS DOESN'T LIKE TRAVELERS? A counter-attack begins on a ballot initiative that would force Arkansans over age 13 to produce proof of citizenship or legal residence before they receive public benefits. The measure was filed March 27. Scholarships for undocumented immigrants have been a major issue in the state; former Gov. Mike Huckabee was criticized during his presidential campaign for backing the idea.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE DESERT: A newly filed Arizona initiative would bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And the sponsor of an Arizona measure that would have asked voters to ban same-sex marriage died after members of the legislature amended in protections for same-sex couples.

BEATING THE CASINOS: A court in Nevada has turned aside a gaming industry challenge to a teachers' union-backed initiative to raise taxes on casino winnings.

ANOTHER MEASURE ON SOUTH DAKOTA BALLOT: Open government initiative qualifies.

MIZZOU NEWS: Is this an April Fool's Joke? A college newspaper reports that a Missouri group wants to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18.