the quality of life in right to work states is atrocious compared to colorado. look up the statistics of right to work states, how they make an average of 7,000 dollars less a year and have no collective bargaining to fight for privileges that are considered basic in most developed countries. Then ask yourself, would I rather live there or colorado.

also colorado is not a right to work state already, it has the union peace act which is a modified version of right to work. make no mistake, it will destroy all unions and all collective bargaining. like unions or not, they are the reason non-union shops pay so well (in fear of being unionized) unless they are just simply fair like some business owners i have met (who are a minority)

you are right to a certain extent. I also belive that people should have to contribute to anything that they benefit from. However, you are assuming that everyone benefits from a union contract and therby you are also assuming that all union contracts are good. The reality is that a lot of union contracts do not help employees. Why should they pay union dues for a contract negotiated on their behalf that is not good for them. A contract while good for some, is not good for others. A contract can be very restrictive with regards to working hours, overtime, extra work, days off, vacation and so on…

There is little flexiblity in a contract which hurts a lot of employees when they need time off, or extra work, or the ability to come in later or leave early etc. The main point to all this is that you believe everyone should pay becaus they have a contract regardless if they benefiting from the contract or not. THIS IS WRONG. People should have a choice.

To you, a nominal fee might be insignificant, but to others, its a big thing. You just re-inforced what I was saying….you have to pay a fee to keep your job. You are assuming that everyone that works in an agency job wants to be a union member. This is the mistake that unions make over and over again. They want to force everyone to be a member and pay dues. I should not have to pay anything to have a job.

If the employer is unionized and I choose not to be a member, I should not have to join and pay a fee. This is simply called “Freedom of Choice”

Get your facts straight. No one is forced to join a union. No one loses a job if they do not join the union, and in Colorado, only in a very few places do you have union shops where all workers have to pay a nominal fee to cover the cost of the union representing them. None of those 'agency' fees can be used for political purposes.

Under your premise, individuals should have the right to benefit from what the union negotiates for them without paying for it. Some call that stealing; I will simply call it freeloading. Either way, its wrong and no one should have a right to do it.

Oh, and in Colorado, 75% of the employees have to vote for a union shop. 50% plus 1 does not cut it in CO.

So there really is no need for this intrusive amendment. All it does is dictate what kind of business arrangement an owner can have with their employees. That does not sound very free market friendly to me.

Lastly, Michigan is hurting not because of unions, but because of stupid decisions by the Big Three's decisions not to build small, more fuel efficient vehicles. Moreover, unions or not, America is losing manufacturing jobs in all sectors. That is globalization, pure and simple. Unions have nothing to do with it. Labor costs would be higher here even if we had no unions; thus we would still be losing those manufacturing jobs.

you are abosolutely right. I am from the great state of Texas. The reason I have such interest in this issue is because for so many years, Union's have ripped apart business, states, and employees. Look at Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania as an example. Look at the current situation in California, New York, Oregon. The unions are holding these states hostage with their strikes on local, city, and state governments and hospitals.

The unions only goal is to increase its membership at all cost. Your Governor in Colorado is making a big big mistake taking up with the unions in order to pay back political contributions and support. Just because I am from out of state does not mean I can't care about this issue. If you have such a big problem with out of towners budding in Colorado business then you should also be complaining to the out of town unions who have poured millions of union members dues from all over the country into Colorado to help defeat this Right-to-Work initiative.

You ever wonder why out of state unions are spending so much money to defeat this intitive in Colorado? Why don't you ask that quesiton instead?

First, I noticed you listed your zip code as 76513, which happens to be smack dab in the middle of Texas. I don't understand why an out-of-stater is so concerned about what Colorado voters will decide for themselves in November. This is up to Colorado voters. Out-of-state special interests need to stop trying to interfere with our jobs and economy by pushing these divisive initiatives.

Secondly, it's ridiculous to suggest Coloradans want stagnant business and high unemployment rates, and it's even more ridiculous to suggest that Amendment 47 will somehow keep this from happening. It's even worse yet to try to convince Coloradans that jobs will leave the state without this measure. What we Coloradans want is a balanced peace between business and labor, a healthy economy, good jobs, with fair wages, and benefits like health insurance to protect Colorado's families. Unions and business have managed to co-exist in this state for decades; what's so urgent about the situation now that we have to make such drastic changes to the Colorado Constitution? With the economy faltering nationwide, now is not the time to be making changes that may hurt Colorado's economy and take away good paying jobs.

And finally, it's important for readers to understand that federal law already prohibits forced unionization. The suggestion that this amendment is about the “right to work” and “freedom to choose” is ridiculous. It's quite deceptive to say so and I wish the newspapers would quit referring to it as “right to work” because it's a misleading title pushed by just one side of this debate.

This initiative puts a hurt on the union

AFSCME vetoes Non-union tree planters in Detroit

A plan to turn over an abandoned City of Detroit nursery to a nonprofit group that would use it to grow trees for neighborhoods and parks has been blocked by union objections. The Greening of Detroit, under an agreement approved by Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and the City Council, would manage the W.I. Meyers Nursery, a 125-acre plot in Rouge Park that has been closed for more than three years.

Using privately raised funds and volunteers, the group would restore the nursery and use it to provide mature trees to neighborhoods. Greening already plants 2,000 trees a year throughout the city.

But the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees obtained an injunction from Wayne County Circuit Court against the deal, saying it violates the collective bargaining agreement. The union says the bargaining agreement applies to any deals to turn over control of city operations to a third party — meaning city workers must staff the nursery.

The two sides are to meet in court today before Judge Robert Ziolkowski.

“It just seems funny to try to take a stand for an asset that's just being wasted,” said Rebecca Salminen Witt, president of the Greening of Detroit.

Terrence King, director of the city's General Services Department, called the union's position baffling. Not only would no city workers be displaced, but there should be more work for city forestry workers once the trees are grown, he said.

If AFSCME prevails, nonprofit groups could be discouraged from trying to help the city, King said.

But Melvin Brabson, president of AFSCME Local 542, which represents a variety of city employees, said the collective bargaining agreement is clear and the situation is no different from when the city handed over control of assets like the Detroit Zoo and Eastern Market to third parties.

In those cases, AFSCME agreed to modify the collective bargaining agreement to suit both sides' needs, Brabson said.

Although the nursery has been abandoned for years, Brabson said the Greening contract could set a precedent to eliminate city workers.

“If the city gets away with this, then no doubt they could close down any facility and give it to a third party,” he said