The 1958 Colorado Right-to-Work Ballot Initiative

    Colorado Republicans considered the right-to-less initiative on the ballot in 1958 "reckless-sort of like adding a second live cartridge in a game of Russian roulet-to publicly invite organized labor's opposition at the polls."
    In the end, the Republican prediction came true.   The people spoke 3-2 (314,00 against and 199,000 for) against a right-to-less law in 1958 and there was a Democrat landslide victory.
    Five states had the referendum on the ballot in 1958 but only Kansas supported it and only two states have adopted a right-to-less law since.
    Even though the election was 42 years ago, we can learn a lot about what is happening with that legislation now through a little look back.
    In a 1958 article, the Denver Post defined right-to-less as the struggle between the, "American labor movement and some big business and right-wing political forces who are seeking to curb its influence."
    Proponents, primarily Big Business and the anti-labor Denver Chamber of Commerce, gave scant lip-service in the pro/con article to a worker's right to choose, which we have by opting not to take union jobs.   However, the top argument used was that unions were gangster dominated or secret organizations where the members were afforded practically no voice.
    This outdated scare tactic is still a focus for right-to-less supporters.   While union violence still happens, it is an insignificant nudge when compared to the anti-worker war waged ferociously by Big Business that destroys families, cities and the environment with little legal penalty.
    Additionally, proponents at the time said the effects of this law in states that had enacted it had been negligible.   Labor advocates responded by arguing that the plight of unions in right-to-less states in 1958 was like asking somebody who just leaped off a 50 story building how they was doing after falling past the 31st floor.   All the person says is, "everything is still o.k."
    SMACK.
    The proof is in and workers' rights are the casualty in right-to-less states.   Lower wages, diminished benefits and increased worker fatality have been the results 40 years later.
    Nevertheless, even proponents conceded then as well as now that unions should be free to prosper so long as personal rights and public welfare aren't jeopardized.
    (Caterpillar doesn't subscribe to that philosophy.   CAT disrespects our union at every turn and even backed out of an agreement giving local union reps a chance to talk to new-hires during orientation.)
    Far from allowing prosperity, right-to-less laws make union-busting easy.   Companies can simply stack their workforce with non-dues paying, anti-union workers to gain the votes necessary to oust our organization.   The shop then becomes the "right-to-fire" in our at-will state.   (See Union Spirit March 2000 for a further explanation on at-will employment)   Shortly after becoming law, "right-to-work" could become a big lie.
    In all fairness, the Post stated that few companies would be willing to spend the money to do this.   Here things have changed.   With companies such as CF&I Steel in Pueblo and others striving to defeat unions at any cost, there is no doubt about the corporate will to sacrifice a few dollars to squash employee solidarity.
    Bottom line here is that the thinking pushing this punitive law designed to give the corporate world unlimited power over a state's labor force hasn't changed in over 42 years.   The only thing different is that legislators are highly unlikely to let us decide the fate of right-to-less initiatives.

Solidarity