A panel of Colorado legislators on Tuesday advanced a proposal to eliminate provisions of a law governing the process for imposing union fees on non-union members.

Under the 80-year-old law, the first election to form a union must receive a simple majority to pass. The second election, which allows the collection of dues on non-union members, requires 75% of the workers to say “yes.” Colorado is the only state in the country with the second election requirement, making it not quite a right-to-work state, in which employees do not have to pay union dues if they don’t belong to a union, but not quite a right-to-organize state, either, in which, depending on the outcome of negotiation, all workers could pay union dues, regardless of whether they’re members or not.

The Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee advanced Senate Bill 005, which eliminates the second election, on a party-line vote of 4-3.  

The bill’s supporters argued that the current law is antiquated and that unionization is ultimately good for workers and the state economy. Critics said the current law is working and upending it will undercut Colorado’s economic gains.  

The bill’s fate, even if reached the governor’s desk, remains uncertain. In his annual State of the State address, Gov. Jared Polis said that he would only support changes to the law if it has the buy-in of both labor and business. Polis vetoed three labor bills last session. 

Sens. Robert Rodriguez, D-Denver, and Jessie Danielson, D-Wheat Ridge, and Denver Democratic Reps. Jennifer Bacon and Javier Mabrey authored the bill. 

Rodriguez called the current law antiquated, adding it was passed during a time when women could not serve on juries, Republicans controlled the state legislature, and a Japanese internment camp was operating in Colorado.

“The passage of the Colorado Labor Peace Act in 1943 was driven by way of anti-union sentiment from business leaders and conservative politicians as reaction to the increasing power workers have across the country,” he said. 

The benefits of unionization are clear, Danielson added.

“Better pay, better healthcare, better retirement and safety in the workplace, a seat at the table. All of those things make life better for workers across the state,” Danielson said.

Large corporations oppose unions because the latter disrupt the power imbalance between employers and employees, Danielson added.

“Why don’t we trust workers to make their own decisions in negotiations?” she asked. “Why is the state of Colorado holding up this additional barrier for workers who have already decided that they want this?”

Opponents: Proposal won’t help workers

Several workers from the restaurant industry testified that the proposal would negatively effect their sector. 

Kenny Minton, a chef at Denver’s Coperta restaurant, said the proposal could negatively impact the restaurant industry because workers who aren’t able to attend elections due to their schedules wouldn’t have a say in the unionization process. 

“I question who this bill helps, apart from the executives,” he said. “It doesn’t seem to help workers at all. We’re already protected and able to form unions under the Labor Peace Act as it stands.”

Toni Orozco Joyce, general manager at Twenty One Steakhouse in Pueblo, argued that unions often disrupt camaraderie between coworkers and can lead to higher turnover rates. She echoed Minton’s sentiments, saying the bill isn’t a good fit for restaurants because it “lumps the industry into a framework that would ultimately harm employees and business.” 

Sonia Riggs of the Colorado Restaurant Association said the industry is being “targeted” by unions, adding that restaurants are still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and Denver lost more restaurants than it gained last year. 

“This bill does not protect Colorado restaurant workers,” she said. “Instead, it directly harms them by eliminating the right to a second union vote.”

“Being able to switch shifts or add or reduce hours is what makes restaurants professional havens for people who need non-traditional schedules. That’s why this bill is so burdensome for Colorado workers,” Riggs said. “Any employee who isn’t able to be there for the proposed one and only union vote is denied a voice in an important decision that impacts how much of their hard-earned wages they get to take home.”

Supporters: Law creates unnecessary barriers to unionization

AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Fred Redmond, who represents labor organizations nationwide, said Colorado has some of the most anti-union statutes in the country. He said the Labor Peace Act is a significant reason behind the state’s low union membership rate, which is among the lowest in the nation. 

“(The Labor Peace Act) is not just outdated, it is fundamentally unfair. Colorado workers should not be held to a higher standard than their politicians. If a simple majority is enough to elect Colorado leaders and decide critical statewide policy, it should be good enough for workers who are simply trying to negotiate for better pay, benefits, and safe workplaces,” he said.  

Larson Ross, a former warehouse worker for Hello Fresh in Aurora, said unionization efforts began at his workplace after a pallet fell on one of his coworkers, breaking the latter’s back.   

Over the next two and a half months, Ross says anti-union consultants consistently interrogated workers and held “captive” audience meetings, during which they shared the names, photos and personal information of pro-union workers and told employees not to trust them. 

The “intimidation tactics” worked, Ross said, adding they lost the first election, despite having more than two-thirds of their coworkers’ support before the consultants arrived. 

“Workers go through all of this just to be able to achieve fair conditions,” he said. “Not only do they have to do it once, but in Colorado, they have to do it twice. This puts workers in a position of being bullied all over again.”