[ed. Note: I will be writing occasional pieces on legislation that I see working its way through the Colorado State Assembly. I am going to start by following the proposed fix to a loophole in our unemployment laws. This first column will give the history of how it landed on Capitol Hill.]
Deep in the moldy corners of the Colorado Politics Hall of Shame you will find the names Marilyn Musgrave and Jim Congrove crudely scratched into the stone walls, but back in 1999 when they were still young State Senators, their Republican held chamber churned out bill after bill to weaken worker protections, injury compensation, and minimum wage rules. Cementing their status as rising disasters was their crowning gift to lovers of unfair business practices; SB 99-155.
For over thirty years in Colorado, if a corporation tried to squeeze concessions out of their workers by shutting them out of their jobs, the employees could at least scrape by on unemployment benefits while forced out of work. This might sound reasonable, but the corporations felt that starving families was exactly the point and they wanted the rules changed.
In 1996, Safeway wanted to reduce the wages, rights, and benefits of their employees. Also at that time, King Soopers was engaged in a labor dispute of its own. Individually the large employers enjoyed a great advantage in the negotiations, but by presenting a common front they could stop their customers from using the free market to bring pressure on them to deal fairly.
Companies like the advantage of size they have in a negotiation with a single worker. When that is offset, by the one worker joining with others, the companies respond by upping the ante. Safeway and King Soopers established a "Multi-Employer Bargaining Unit." They cut a deal with one another, and agreed that a strike against either of them would result in both of them putting its workers out on the street. If you took on one of them you had to fight them both.
As it happened, the King Sooper employees decided to go on strike. The Safeway workers were then locked out of their jobs. This happened due to no fault of their own, and without them having any choice in the matter. The company just shut its doors and told the employees they were not to report to work until either the workers at King Soopers buckled under, or they themselves were willing to take enough reductions to please the two corporations.
Like workers who decide to quit, the striking King Sooper workers were not eligible for unemployment, but like workers who are laid off, the locked out Safeway workers were able to file. Safeway was dissatisfied, and wanted the pain level turned higher, so it took it to the courts. Fortunately, the law was clear, if you are squeezing your workers for concessions then they get unemployment.
"...the individual will not be determined ineligible unless the lockout results from the demands of employees as distinguished from an effort on the part of the employer to deprive the employees of some advantage they already possess."
From SECTION 1. 8-73-109 (1), Colorado Revised Statutes; (edited out in 1999)
This is where Musgrave and Congrove enter the picture. Along with a passel of other Republicans, including primary sponsors Blickensderfer and McPherson, they gave Safeway a newly twisted law with everything it wanted. They heavily amended the existing codes to create all sorts of shades of "defensive lockouts" and "offensive lockouts".
If a Multi-Employer Bargaining Unit was involved it no longer mattered if your boss pushed you out for any arbitrary greedy reason. It didn't matter if you were willing to work and had been doing your job. If someone, somewhere, is in a labor dispute with one of their buddies, you can starve until they feel like letting you in to your job. The straight party line vote took the bill through the Republican Assembly and over the desk of the Republican Governor.
"(II) "Defensive Lockout" means a lockout:
...
(C) By any member of a Multiemployer Bargaining Unit or and employer engaged in coordinated bargaining with one or more other employers if such lockout is initiated because of a strike or labor dispute involving any member of such Multiemployer bargaining unit or coordinated group."
From SECTION 1. 8-73-109 (1), Colorado Revised Statutes; (added in since 1999)
Six years passed, and with a Democratic majority in the Assembly an attempt was made to fix the law. In 2005, Mike Cerbo introduced HB-1239. It not only rolled the law back, but strengthened protections by granting unemployment even during a strike. There are quite a few states where the law permits this right now, but due to the Republican Governor's veto pen, Colorado is not one of them.
This year, the UFCW and other supporters of working families are making a more modest attempt by just trying to undo the Republican give-away of 1999. Many of the supporters of the Cerbo bill remain in the legislature; including Senators Veiga and Tochtrop, the Chair and the Co-Chair of the Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee. In fact, it appears that Tochtrop, and her House counterpart Ed Casso, may be bringing the new bill to their committees.
I will follow the bill as the full text emerges and see if Governor Ritter will be able to hear the best interests of Colorado above the shrieking blather of anti-labor forces. No doubt the corporations will try to convince us that if the ability to starve locked out workers is taken away then all the Supermarkets will leave Colorado. But this time around, Congrove and Musgrave are busy dealing with their own problems, so maybe we can finally fix some of the things they broke so long ago.