Coming To A Reckoning

The Colorado legislature will take up a proposal to alter the state's labor law in the new session - beginning Jan 8, 2025.

To me, the simple fact that The Chamber Of Commerce is against it, means it's a good idea - that it'll open the way for workers to regain some of the rights that corporations and coin-operated politicians have been stripping away from them for 45 years.

Opinion:

Democrats, don’t break Colorado’s 81-year-old labor ceasefire

A misguided proposal would unravel the Labor Peace Act

A coalition of Democratic legislators has announced plans to drop a political nuclear bomb the first week of Colorado’s legislative session, breaking an 81-year-old ceasefire between Colorado businesses and labor.

This move is bad for Colorado’s economy and the battle it starts may quickly spiral out of control.

Since 1943, Colorado has been a red state, purple state, and blue state, and during that time Colorado’s Labor Peace Act has held the middle ground, successfully governing workforce unionization in a harmonious way that may be the best such law in the country.

On one end of the political spectrum are so-called right-to-work states that prohibit mandatory union membership and the payment of union dues as a condition of employment. These laws, usually in red states, ensure employees’ rights to make their own choices regarding union affiliation. Right-to-work laws do not prevent workers from unionizing the shop floor, but the workers are not compelled to join the union or pay dues.

For many companies and site selectors looking for a new location, a right-to-work state is often among the top criteria. Today, roughly 26 states have right-to-work laws, with six of these states coming onboard within the last 14 years.

And, importantly, seven of Colorado’s top 10 competitor states are right-to-work states.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, are “union shop” states that do not have right-to-work laws in place. In these 23 states, employers and unions require workers, where applicable, to join the union or otherwise to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they were not union members when hired. In these states, workers may be compelled to become union members or contribute financially to the union, even if they do not want to join. These laws strengthen the union’s bargaining power and influence in the workplace.

Colorado is a unique outlier, a compromise state. It is neither a right-to-work nor union shop state. Under Colorado’s Labor Peace Act, workers can form a union with a simple majority vote, but to permit union security, which allows organized labor to deduct fees from their checks to fund the union work and bargaining activities, they must obtain a 75% vote of members.

Colorado’s balanced approach has promoted the state’s economy and brought us good jobs with good wages. While 75% is a higher bar, it seems appropriate that a higher threshold should be met before requiring all employees to pay union dues and belong to a union.

However, this coalition of politicians seeks to eliminate that second, higher-threshold vote, making it much easier for workers to unionize and fund union work and bargaining activities. Make no mistake, this is a pro-labor, anti-business bill, that will galvanize both sides and spill over to other issues with potentially adverse consequences for all.

While I was a Democrat in a Republican-controlled legislature in the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans came together to defeat right-to-work legislation. And, in 2007, when the legislature sent a union shop bill to former Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter’s desk, he vetoed it. The peace was maintained.

This is a dangerous time to tinker with Colorado’s economy. A recent 2024 CNBC analysis ranked Colorado 39th for its cost of doing business and 32nd for business friendliness. There is strong evidence from respective leaders and experts that becoming a union shop state will make it more difficult to recruit and retain Colorado businesses. Attracting companies to Colorado draws fierce competition amongst states.

Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce’s press release in response to this proposed legislation aptly noted that, Colorado “risks losing critical opportunities for job creation and economic growth” if this legislation passes. In fact, that was the primary reason why Governor Ritter vetoed it in 2007.

Between 2018 and 2023, Colorado’s average annual employment growth rate of 1.5% was more than three times that of union shop states and over 20 years was double that growth rate.

Bringing this issue forward now may also be a risky political miscalculation. In response, business leaders will likely decide to take their case directly to Colorado voters, launching an expensive and protracted right-to-work ballot measure that could succeed. It’s a real gamble that shouldn’t be ignored and would be on the ballot in 2026, a critical election year.

Rather than break this 81-year-old ceasefire, business and labor and our political leaders should sit down together, roll up their sleeves and find an appropriate off-ramp. Perhaps rather than eliminate the second vote altogether, they could simply agree to lower the threshold from 75% to 66.6% for the second vote.

Colorado law has long protected the right to organize as well as provided a path to strengthen unions through union security agreements. That’s the Colorado way and there’s no good reason to break the ceasefire here.

Overheard

To a corporation,

you're a money battery.

When you've been depleted,

they will dispose of you.

Followup

Here's a weird-ish little something that tags along after that healthcare CEO got popped in NYC.

People will only be pushed so far.

Overheard

The Project 2025 pimps will put a finger rapist in the Oval Office, and other known sex offenders in various jobs throughout the Executive Branch, but they intend to throw your ass in prison for writing, selling, or owning a spicy romance novel.

What A Revoltin' Development

I guess I'm wondering about two things here.

Maybe the fact that we have way too many guns in this country will be something of a deterrent to the accelerating rise of plutocracy.

And if that's case, then I have to wonder when we might see a total reversal of the norm that's favored ammosexuality for the last 45 years, so the big companies lobby the regime in Washington to start pushing to disarm America - fully supported by MAGA, and vehemently opposed by "the left".

Is the insurance carrier committing a violent act by denying care?

Can we overlook the murder of an insurance exec, calling it justifiable homicide?

Shit just gets weirder as we go.

Today's Boomer

Find Your Voice

... and let it be heard.

United Food & Commercial Workers

(to find the local near you)

UFCW Local No. 7R

7760 West 38th Ave, Suite 400

Wheat Ridge CO 80033

303-425-0897

Yikes

This is being reported as a real thing that actually happened. I have my doubts of course, but this is Jameis Winston we're talking about - the guy's working with less than a full palette.

“Hell of a game, my brother, my guy, my comrade, my battle angel,” Jameis Winston proclaimed, gripping Bo Nix’s hand, his eyes unnervingly wide, sparkling with a manic energy that suggested he was teetering on the edge of a gospel choir solo.

“You bring unspeakable honor to that horsey on your helmet. Majestic. Divine.”

Bo blinked, unsure how to process their interaction so far, but Jameis didn’t leave room for awkward silence.

“Listen, young stallion,” Jameis began, leaning closer. “You’ve got greatness written all over you, but if you want to take it to the next level, you’ve gotta let me bestow some knowledge. I’m talking sacred lore.”

“Oh God, that would be amazing.” Bo said, cautiously intrigued.

Jameis took a deep breath, "First off, stop blinking. I learned this early in my career. Used to squint… big mistake. Now? Wide eyes, unbroken stare. Look into your receiver’s soul. Make him feel seen. Make him feel loved. Make him feel God. When your eyes are so dry that all you see is darkness? That’s God telling you it’s working.”

“Right... keep my eyes on the prize. Got it,” Bo said, trying to nod along.

“Second, you looked scared throwing the ball tonight. That’s mental shackles, my guy. You gotta embrace the chaos. You think Picasso painted masterpieces without splashing some paint on the floor? Be the Picasso of turnovers, Bo. Tonight I was the Michelangelo of turnovers, and that’s why y’all lost the style battle.” He jabbed a finger into Bo’s chest pad for emphasis.

“...In God’s eyes. He don’t care about turnovers. He could be anywhere on earth watching aurora borealises, but he’s here watching you throw. Make sure it’s a completion, a catch is a catch and a score is a score in HIS eyes. Even if it’s to a guy showering in a different locker room.”

Bo, thoroughly confused, opened his mouth to reply, but Jameis steamrolled onward. “Pineapple juice,” he said abruptly.

 
“On you at all times. Keep it in your socks, your pockets, wherever. Hydration through osmosis. Science hasn’t caught up yet, but when it does, remember where you heard it. From me. From God.”

“I’m learning a lot,” Bo said, nervously glancing around for an escape.

“That’s just the appetizer, my battle angel.” Jameis clapped a hand on Bo’s shoulder with unsettling force.

 
“Now, about the sidelines… you’re too quiet. Your team doesn’t want to hear the coaches. They want to hear you. You gotta squawk, my guy. Pick a bird call. Mine’s the osprey.” He tilted his head back and unleashed a piercing screech that echoed across the field, drawing startled looks from nearby security guards.

As the last note of the screech faded, Jameis’s expression turned grave. He leaned in, his voice a low whisper. “One last thing, Bo. Don’t trust the mascot. They know too much. Real horseys keep your secrets. But that guy?” He gestured toward the Broncos mascot.
“He’s just a man pretending to be a horse. Don’t tell him about the thing you did at FSU. I learned the hard way with a pirate down by the Bay.”

Without another word, Jameis spun on his heel and strode into the night, leaving Bo standing in stunned silence, unsure if he’d just been blessed, cursed, or recruited into a cult.

Stop blinking?

More On Patel

... or: Moron Patel.

I think we all know the FBI needs work. We've given it much too much leeway in its mission to protect us from the bad guys.

It's a very old concept:

Who's going to protect us from the bad guys who're working for the guys who're supposed to be protecting from the bad guys?

Reform is one thing, but Kash Patel would be working for people who intend to tear it all down and rebuild it into exactly the kind weapon we all know it shouldn't be.

ed note: This is the kind of "reporting" we need to be wary of. It takes an obviously grave threat and turns it into a casual observation - as if it was little more than a piece about red light cameras or pot holes.

I've subscribed to DenPo because it's my hometown paper now - and $6 for the first year is a pretty good deal - but it has the same problems as most of legacy media, in that it's decided to prioritize its revenue stream in the guise of "fair and straight reportage".

 

Taking a neutral stance in the face

of a clear and present danger

puts your ass on the wrong fucking side.

Trump’s FBI pick has plans to reshape the bureau. This is what Kash Patel has said he wants to do.

WASHINGTON — Kash Patel has been well-known for years within Donald Trump’s orbit as a loyal supporter who shares the president-elect’s skepticism of the FBI and intelligence community. But he’s receiving fresh attention, from the public and from Congress, now that Trump has picked him to lead the FBI.

As he braces for a bruising and likely protracted Senate confirmation fight, Patel can expect scrutiny not only over his professed fealty to Trump but also for his belief — revealed over the last year in interviews and his own book — that the century-old FBI should be radically overhauled.

Here’s a look at some of what he’s proposed for the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency. How much of it he’d actually follow through on is a separate question.

He’s mused about shutting down the FBI’s Washington headquarters
The first FBI employees moved into the current Pennsylvania Avenue headquarters 50 years ago. The building since then has housed the supervisors and leaders who make decisions affecting offices around the country and overseas.

But if Patel has his way, the J. Edgar Hoover Building could be shut down, with its employees dispersed.

“I’d shut down the FBI Hoover Building on day one and reopen it the next day as a museum of the ‘deep state,’” Patel said in a September interview on the “Shawn Ryan Show.” “Then, I’d take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals. Go be cops. You’re cops — go be cops.”

Such a plan would undoubtedly require legal, logistical and bureaucratic hurdles and it may reflect more of a rhetorical flourish than a practical ambition.

In a book last year titled, “Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth and the Battle for Our Democracy,” he proposed a more modest reform of having the headquarters moved out of Washington “to prevent institutional capture and curb FBI leadership from engaging in political gamesmanship.”

As it happens, the long-term fate of the building is in flux regardless of the leadership transition. The General Services Administration last year selected Greenbelt, Maryland, as the site for a new headquarters, but current FBI Director Christopher Wray has raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest in the site selection process.

He’s talked about finding ‘conspirators’ in the government and media
In an interview last year with conservative strategist Steve Bannon, Patel repeated falsehoods about President Joe Biden and a stolen election.

“We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,” Patel said. The same applies for supposed “conspirators” inside the federal government, he said.

It’s not entirely clear what he envisions, but to the extent Patel wants to make it easier for the government to crack down on officials who disclose sensitive information and the reporters who receive it, it sounds like he’d back a reversal of current Justice Department policy that generally prohibits prosecutors from seizing the records of journalists in leak investigations.

That policy was implemented in 2021 by Attorney General Merrick Garland following an uproar over the revelation that the Justice Department during the Trump administration had obtained phone records of reporters as part of investigations into who had disclosed government secrets.

Patel himself has said that it’s yet to be determined whether such a crackdown would be done civilly or criminally. His book includes several pages of former officials from the FBI, Justice Department and other federal agencies he’s identified as being part of the “Executive Branch Deep State.”

Under the FBI’s own guidelines, criminal investigations can’t be rooted in arbitrary or groundless speculation but instead must have an authorized purpose to detect or interrupt criminal activity.

And while the FBI conducts investigations, the responsibility of filing federal charges, or bringing a lawsuit on behalf of the federal government, falls to the Justice Department. Trump intends to nominate former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi as attorney general.

He wants ‘major, major’ surveillance reform

Patel has been a fierce critic of the FBI’s use of its surveillance authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and in his “Shawn Ryan Show” interview, called for “major, major reform. Tons.”

That position aligns him with both left-leaning civil libertarians who have long been skeptical of government power and Trump supporters outraged by well-documented surveillance missteps during the FBI’s investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign.

But it sets him far apart from FBI leadership, which has stressed the need for the bureau to retain its ability to spy on suspected spies and terrorists even while also implementing corrective steps meant to correct past abuses.

If confirmed, Patel would take over the FBI amid continued debate over a particularly contentious provision of FISA known as Section 702, which permits the U.S. to collect without a warrant the communications of non-Americans located outside the country for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.

Biden in April signed a two-year extension of the authority following a fierce congressional dispute centered on whether the FBI should be restricted from using the program to search for Americans’ data. Though the FBI boasts a high compliance rate, analysts have been blamed for a series of abuses and mistakes, including improperly querying the intelligence repository for information about Americans or others in the U.S., including a member of Congress and participants in the racial justice protests of 2020 and the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Patel has made clear his disdain for the reauthorization vote.

“Because the budget of FISA was up this cycle, we demanded Congress fix it. And do you know what the majority in the House, where the Republicans did? They bent the knee. They (reauthorized) it,” Patel said.

In his book, Patel said a federal defender should be present to argue for the rights of the accused at all FISA court proceedings, a departure from the status quo.

He has called for reducing the size of the intelligence community
Patel has advocated cutting the federal government’s intelligence community, including the CIA and National Security Agency.

When it comes to the FBI, he said last year that he would support breaking off the bureau’s “intel shops” from the rest of its crime-fighting activities.

It’s not clear exactly how he would intend to do that given that the FBI’s intelligence-gathering operations form a core part of the bureau’s mandate and budget. Wray, who’s been in the job for seven years, has also recently warned of a heightened threat environment related to international and domestic terrorism.

After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller faced down calls from some in Congress who thought the FBI should be split up, with a new domestic intelligence agency created in its wake.

The idea died, and Mueller committed new resources into transforming what for decades had been primarily a domestic law enforcement agency into an intelligence-gathering institution equally focused on combating terrorism, spies and foreign threats.

Frank Montoya Jr., a retired senior FBI official who served as the U.S. government’s national counterintelligence executive, said he disagreed with the idea of breaking out the FBI’s “intel shops” and viewed it as a way to defang the bureau.

Doing so, he said, “makes the bureau less effective at what it does, and quite frankly, it will make the intelligence community less effective at what it does.”

A Christmas Homily

Understanding what you say you believe in - but seem never to bother to investigate for yourselves.