Despite Democratic control, Colorado resembles right-to-work states
Colorado's blue-state status is tarnished by a prominent red mark: a legacy of suppressing labor unions.
Why it matters: This legislative session, Democratic lawmakers and labor leaders worked in tandem to flip the dynamic with a bill that would make it easier for unions to collectively bargain.
Yes, but: Democratic Gov. Jared Polis plans to veto the bill and keep Colorado aligned with conservative, right-to-work states.
State of play: Colorado is unique given its requirement for a second state-run election before unions can collectively bargain and collect mandatory union fees.
The second election requires a 75% supermajority of those voting or more than 50% of all eligible voters, whichever is greater.
By the numbers: The extra hurdle contributes to a low union membership rate in Colorado — 8% in 2024 — putting it on par with right-to-work states like Alabama, Kansas and Mississippi, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
The lack of a union contract leads to lower wages and benefits, as well as reduced workplace safety, researchers report.
What they're saying: In a recent interview, Polis says he believes "there's a better solution for Colorado than the Labor Peace Act," but he wants a compromise between labor unions and the business community that is "sustainable."
The two sides negotiated for months but reached an impasse at the end of the legislative session.
The big picture: The current law took hold in 1943 as part of deal between workers' rights and business interests.
Critics consider it a byproduct of the era's backlash against organizing workers and a vestige of a movement that shares roots with white supremacy campaigns.
Business interests argue that removing the second vote would hurt Colorado's competitiveness in recruiting companies, citing an industry-backed study that warned about reduced job growth and a higher cost of living.
Flashback: In 2007, the last time Democrats controlled the governor's office and state Legislature, the party's lawmakers passed a similar bill to eliminate the second labor election, but then-Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter vetoed the measure.
The next year, voters rejected a ballot measure to make Colorado a right-to-work state.
The bottom line: The union fight won't end with the governor's veto of Senate Bill 5.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
8 minutes ago
- E&E News
Trump's high-speed rail attacks are boosting Democratic support
President Donald Trump is about to snatch $4 billion away from California's high-speed rail project — and all that's doing is reinforcing Democrats' iron-willed support for the beleaguered venture. The Trump administration said Wednesday — in the form of a 300-page report — that it's on the verge of nixing Biden-era grants for the planned rail line from Los Angeles to the Bay Area, a conclusion state officials have feared since the president put the project in his crosshairs in February. Rather than being a death knell for a project that's years behind schedule and has a price tag that's ballooned from $33 billion to as much as $128 billion, Trump's attacks are fortifying state Democrats who hold the purse strings to its largest funding source — the state's emissions trading program for greenhouse gases. Advertisement 'We've seen this coming and we're going to do everything we can to prevent it,' said state Senate Budget Chair Scott Wiener. 'Regardless of what happens here, we're committed to making this project a reality.'
E&E News
8 minutes ago
- E&E News
Dems abandon popular bills because of Trump cuts
A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee approved more than a dozen bills, but many Democrats declined to back noncontroversial proposals because of the Trump administration's actions. The Subcommittee on Energy's markup Thursday of 13 bills focused mostly largely on partisan measures to support fossil fuels and nuclear generation. Surprisingly, Democrats did not vote for two bills that would mandate Department of Energy studies on supply chain vulnerabilities for energy and critical minerals. Some did support hydropower legislation. Advertisement 'We can't pretend it's business as usual and justify putting additional duties on agencies that are already stressed, overworked and don't have a sufficient workforce,' said Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.).
9 minutes ago
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON -- Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially." Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
