Colorado lawmakers on Monday gave initial approval to a bill that would eliminate a key requirement before a unionized workplace may impose union dues on non-union members. 

Senate Bill 005 seeks to repeal the state’s 80-year-old Labor Peace Act‘s section for a second election in order for a labor group to establish a “union security” agreement at a workplace. Once agreed to by the company and the labor group, non-union workers would be required to pay union fees. 

Federal law governs union formation. In an election, a labor group must receive a simple majority to unionize — a related but separate issue than what’s before Colorado lawmakers.

Specifically, Colorado law requires a second election to allow a unionized workplace to negotiate over fees on non-union members. That election requires a higher threshold of a 75% “yes” vote to pass. The unions want to get rid of that second election.   

Business and labor have been divided on the measure since it was introduced early in the session. Polis told both groups he would not sign the measure into law unless they could reach a compromise, but as the end of session loomed, a deal has failed to materialized.

Even as sponsors brought the bill to the state House floor on Monday morning, reports said the labor community is threatening to introduce a ballot measure that would require employers to prove “just cause” for firing an employee. The ballot measure is listed on the Secretary of State’s website but has not yet been approved for circulation.

Reps. Javier Mabrey, D-Denver, called the argument that the bill will detract businesses from coming to the state and harm the economy “noise” from the opposition.  

“The profitability of businesses is essential to workers’ financial security,” he said. “Workers do not want businesses to fail. They want fair terms of employment. They want a fair share of soaring corporate profits that are often reaped by a thriving billionaire class that gets richer and richer, even as the rest of us have not gotten better off at all with soaring profits,” he said. 

Rep. Emily Sirota, D-Denver, said the bill has been “a long time coming,” describing the current law as “antiquated” and designed “specifically to be a roadblock to unionization.”

“It should only take one vote to determine whether or not workers in a workplace wish to come together to collectively bargain,” she said. 

Businesses have contended that to insist the bill is about workers’ ability to unionize is a red herring, arguing that union formation is governed by federal law and that the bill is specifically about imposing union feeds on the entire workforce. 

Republicans anticipate a veto. 

“We’ve spent more time on this bill this morning than the Governor will when it reaches his desk,” said Rep. Chris Richardson, R-Elizabeth. “He has already stated publicly, and it was reported in the press as recently as Saturday, that if there is no deal between unions, labor and business interests, he’s going to veto it.”

Richardson was referring to a story that Colorado Politics broke on Saturday, citing sources who said no deal had been reached.  

Not only is it fruitless to hold lengthy debate over a bill that is destined to fail, the bill itself would “force” people to pay union dues “against their will”, even if they don’t belong to the union, he said.  

All three sides — business, labor and the governor’s office — had each put forth their own proposals, sources earlier said. 

• The business community agreed to lower the vote threshold in order to permit a union to begin negotiating over what labor groups called “representation fees” — the dues on non-union members. Under this offer, if, in the election to form a union, a simple majority of employees eligible to vote or 66% of workers who show up to cast a ballot say “yes,” then the labor group automatically gets the permission to negotiate over the fees. No second election is necessary. This position moves business from its starting point of a 75% threshold. 

• The labor coalition wanted a lower threshold: If 53% of the workers who show up to vote in the first election say yes, then the labor group is authorized to negotiate over the fees. Under that scenario, a second election is also unnecessary. If the labor group failed to clear that threshold in the first election, a second election is necessary, under which the union must only secure a simple majority — 50% plus 1 — of the workers who show up to vote. 

• The governor’s final offer has not been made public, but sources said it’s very similar to his previous offer, with some tweaks. For bargaining units of under 50 employees, 66% of those workers must show up to vote in the first election to unionize and 66% of ballots cast must vote in favor. For units with over 50 members, the threshold changes to 55%. If the thresholds are met, then a union is automatically permitted to pursue “union security.” That also applies if 50% plus one of the total workforce, regardless of workforce size, supports unionization.  

The bill still needs a final vote — expected on Tuesday — in the state House.