The Senate today passed a controversial bill to change the way union shops are formed in Colorado, sending it on to Gov. Bill Ritter for final action.
The Democrat-controlled Senate voted 19-15 along party lines after 30 minutes of debate and continuing complaints about the process that cut off an attempted Republican filibuster against the bill on Friday.
Pressure from the business community to kill the bill now moves to Ritter, who campaigned as a pro-business moderate but who also indicated to labor that he would sign such a proposal.
Sen. Steve Johnson, R-Fort Collins, said the bill asks Ritter to break his word.
“When he was in northern Colorado he clearly said to us that he would not sign anti-business legislation. This is the most anti-business piece of legislation I’ve seen in 11 years.”
Business groups insist the proposal House Bill 1072, which would eliminate a second vote now required for labor to form all-union shops, will make it harder to attract new business to the state.
“We have not seen any evidence that this will discourage business from moving to Colorado,” said bill sponsor Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, noting that the change to Labor Peace Act simply eliminates a requirement that was removed from federal labor law in 1951.
The real issues discouraging new business Colorado involve health care, education and roads, she said.
And she emphasized that 1072 “does not in any way change the requirements on the way unions are formed in Colorado.”
She said the only thing it does is get the state out of the voting process, as it was charged with overseeing the second election current labor law requires before all-union shops can be formed.
“It does not mandate the outcome, it simply levels the playing field,” she said.
In all-union shops, employees who choose not to join still must pay the equivalent of union dues, which are called agency fees.
After the debate, Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, complained about Democrats cutting off debate on the bill Friday.
Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, D-Golden, defended the action, saying the decision was made only after consulting with legal counsel about Senate rules and after determining that Republicans were abusing the process by introducing scores of irrelevant amendments.
