Big Labor Ritter Low on Credibility

As a leading political consultant notes in the Denver Post today, Gov. Bill Ritter planted the pro-union seeds, and now he is reaping the right-to-work whirlwind:

Political observers don't have high hopes that the situation will improve.

"If (Ritter's) goal is trying to get business to back off right-to-work, I don't think he has the credibility to do it," said Katy Atkinson, a Republican political strategist, pointing out that he is seen as pro-labor.

Atkinson said right-to-work bills in the legislature never got off the ground in the past — even under Republicans — because businesses never really saw organized labor as a threat in Colorado.

But that view changed, she said, after the passage of an amendment in 2006 to increase the minimum wage with a yearly cost-of-living index, efforts to get a bill passed last year to make it easier to unionize workplaces and Ritter's executive order in November allowing a form of collective bargaining for state employees.

Last week I noted:

Since Ritter helped to set the wheels in motion that got Colorado to where it’s at now, I guess he really had no choice but try to step in and stop it: for his own sake, for the Democratic Party’s sake, for the sake of Big Labor.

Colorado's Democratic governor has aligned himself with union leaders, and now he's stuck. Bill Ritter's attempt to portray himself as a business-friendly moderate candidate in 2006 has been exposed as the charade it was. Katy Atkinson is right: Ritter doesn't have enough credibility left with business leaders to convince them to stop the ballot initiative that would protect workers from mandatory union fees.

Look forward to a bitter and costly political showdown this fall. It's hard to see how business and labor are going to holster their weapons now.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Big Labor Has Ritter Running Scared

Writing over at Politics West, my Independence Institute colleague Jessica Corry (no, we didn't collaborate) calls out Gov. Bill Ritter's plea for business and labor to get along as one-sided and politically motivated:

A battle over labor issues could cost Ritter and the Democratic Party serious political capital. And with national Democrats coming to Denver this August for their national convention, the last thing Ritter needs is an extremist union agenda to impede his party's effort to appeal to moderate small- and medium-sized business owners.

It's no surprise really then that Ritter is being ignored.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Ritter Throws Weight Behind Big Labor, Says: "Holster Your Weapons"

Yesterday we learned that Big Labor has pulled out some more big guns to blast a hole in Colorado's economy, in the form of five new anti-business ballot initiatives. Supporters of right-to-work - who are well on their way to getting their measure on the ballot - and union bosses - who appear to be calling their bluff - may be loading up for a real duel, High Noon-style.

It didn't take long for Governor Bill Ritter to come riding into town, telling everyone to "holster your weapons":

Hoping to avoid an ugly confrontation between business and labor this fall, Gov. Bill Ritter wants the two sides to withdraw their competing ballot measures, his spokesman said Tuesday.

"The governor believes the best thing for all of Colorado would be if none of these measures were on the ballot in November," said Evan Dreyer, the Democratic governor's spokesman. "The governor has had conversations with both sides and will continue trying to bring everyone together and find common ground to get to a place that's good for the entire state."

In 2007, union leaders unleashed House Bill 1072, the original bomb that prompted the right-to-work response. Now that the initiative is almost ready for the ballot, union leaders are throwing a bunch of economically harmful proposals up against the wall to see what will stick, but mainly as a giant threat to get the right-to-work supporters to back down.

Bill Ritter is taking his script from the Big Labor playbook. Step in as the third-party arbiter telling both sides to back down, when that tactic gives an advantage to the union boss side more than the worker freedom side. Besides, it's hard to see Ritter as a neutral third party after his executive order empowering union leaders to play a greater role in state government.

But if you want to know the biggest reason why Ritter felt impelled to intervene and do it quickly, political analyst John Straayer let the cat out of the bag:

He predicted that money would flow in from all across the country to back issues on both sides. Such a nasty fight could bring unwanted attention to Colorado and to Denver as it hosts the Democratic National Convention in August, Straayer said.

Political leaders are going to try to avoid that, he said.

Since Ritter helped to set the wheels in motion that got Colorado to where it's at now, I guess he really had no choice but try to step in and stop it: for his own sake, for the Democratic Party's sake, for the sake of Big Labor.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Dems' "No-Strike" Bait-and-Switch a Boon to Ritter

The Democrats at the State Capitol are trying to pull one over on Colorado voters in an attempt to give cover to Gov. Bill Ritter's executive order that provides for the unionization of state employees. Startled by the Attorney General's revelation that his order could not prevent strikes, Ritter quickly and publicly agreed to support the concept of a no-strike law in the state legislature brought forward by Republicans.

Well, today we receive word of a bait-and-switch. After killing a bill sponsored by Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, that would provide real enforceable penalties that deter public employee strikes, the Democrats went ahead and gave mere lip service to public order and accountability:

[The House Business and Labor Committee] voted 6-5 in favor of House Bill 1189, sponsored by Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley, which would prohibit strikes for the roughly 37,000 state workers eligible for Ritter's so-called employee-partnership agreements.

Ritter had argued that his order barred state workers from striking. But he agreed to sign legislation banning strikes after concerns were raised that his order could not supersede an existing law allowing a qualified right for public employees to strike.

Riesberg's bill would make it a misdemeanor to violate the prohibition. He urged its passage in the interest of helping the legislature move on to what he said is more important business. [emphasis added]

Yes, the whole topic of preventing public employee strikes is just a nuisance to Democrats, who need to keep their alliances with deep-pocketed labor officials well-fed and fat, while throwing an unenforceable "no-strike" bone for the people of Colorado to chew up. Misdemeanor, eh? That's really going to have a deterrent effect to stop union collective action against the public interest.

Unless the Democrats' bill can somehow be amended first, it will end up on Ritter's desk where he can sign it and look like a champion of order and the public good while giving a wink to government employee union leaders.

But that won't stop Republicans from trying:

Afterward, House Minority Caucus Chairwoman Amy Stephens, R-Monument, said that her party would try to toughen up Riesberg’s bill at its next stop on the House floor.

And lest you think we've heard the last of the sops to special interest Big Labor, one union leader confessed to reporters the plan to make Ritter's executive order work more strongly to their benefit, at a cost sure to be felt by taxpayers:

Teamsters Local Union 455 Political Director Ted Textor said he is working with an unidentified legislator on a bill that would grant state workers collective bargaining, in which they present proposals on everything from salaries to safety to their bosses and then vote as a group whether to accept the state’s terms. The “partnerships” that Ritter created carry less power, he said.

Now, we've already established that Ritter's order grants collective bargaining rights. This description sounds like maybe union leaders want costly binding arbitration and/or guaranteed agency fees imposed on state workers.

Gov. Ritter has let the Big Labor genie out of the bottle. What's he going to do when this proposal floats to his desk?

Cross posted at Mount Virtus