A February 2 article by Mike Saccone in The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction and a February 2 article by David Milstead in the Rocky Mountain News uncritically reported business-community objections to Colorado House Bill 1072. The proposed measure to revise Colorado labor law has passed the House and is pending in the Senate. Both articles repeated variations on the argument, as reported by Milstead, that “Colorado is nearly surrounded by 'right to work' states where union shop arrangements are banned, and the change will make the state less attractive for attracting business.” However, neither article provided any substantiation for the argument.

Additionally, the Daily Sentinel made or repeated several distortions of the bill and current law, including the claim that HB 1072 “would make it easier for unions to set up closed shops in Colorado.” Closed shops are illegal under federal labor law.

HB 1072 would revise the Colorado Labor Peace Act to strike provisions regarding procedures under which workers preparing to negotiate a union contract can obtain necessary authority to make the contract an all-union agreement. Such an agreement requires all workers covered under the contract -- whether they are union members or not -- to contribute money to the union, through dues or fees. The bill's summary reads:

Eliminates the requirement that, in order to validly enter into an all-union agreement, the all-union agreement must be approved by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the employees eligible to vote or three-quarters or more of the employees who actually voted, whichever is greater. Makes conforming amendments.

As Colorado Media Matters has noted, Colorado newspapers reporting on the bill frequently have advanced conservative misinformation by uncritically reporting as fact unsubstantiated opinions from the bill's opponents about its potential negative impact on Colorado's businesses and its economy. Often, news coverage has not provided any substantiation to opposition arguments that the legislation would increase union representation in Colorado. Further, media outlets generally have not reported any context to show the current level of union representation in Colorado or in neighboring states where opponents dubiously asserted businesses would prefer to locate if the bill becomes law. These same failings appear in the articles about HB 1072 that appeared February 2 in the Daily Sentinel and the News.

The Daily Sentinel quoted Diane Schwenke, president and chief executive officer of the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce:

A pro-union bill making its way through the Legislature could discourage workers from entering Grand Junction's tight labor market, a prominent business leader said Thursday.

Diane Schwenke, president of the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, said House Bill 1072, which would make it easier for unions to set up closed shops in Colorado, could make it more difficult for area businesses to fill positions that open up as the result of competition from local energy development.

“There are people who don't like to belong to unions,” Schwenke said. “In a tight labor market, like we're experiencing here, where it is an employee-driven market, it will make it harder to attract employees.”

[...]

Schwenke said because Grand Junction sits so close to the border, companies who do not want to deal with Colorado's proposed closed-shop laws, might not move to the area.

“We're really that close to Utah and not that far away from Wyoming,” Schwenke said. “They could do that, set up shop in Utah and Wyoming. ... We do compete occasionally with Idaho and Utah and our neighboring states for business locations.”

In the end, Schwenke said the bill would be bad for Grand Junction and the state.

The News reported similar objections from Republicans and the business community:

Republican opponents and their business backers say Colorado is nearly surrounded by “right to work” states where union shop arrangements are banned, and the change will make the state less attractive for attracting business.

The Daily Sentinel article contained no comments from Colorado Rep. Michael Garcia (D-Aurora), the bill's sponsor; any representative of organized labor; or any other proponents of the legislation. Additionally, at no point did either article cite projections or comments from third-party sources regarding the degree to which businesses might choose states other than Colorado for location or expansion as a result of the bill. Nor did the article cite even anecdotally the opinions of employers, employees, trade groups, or employee groups on how the bill would affect their business prospects or their employment or union organizing decisions.

In contrast, a January 25 Denver Post editorial (an online version appeared January 24) and articles by the Post's Tom McGhee (here and here) noted that Colorado has a low level of union organization. The Post editorial -- which opposed the bill on the grounds that not enough labor-business dialogue about it had taken place -- stated:

In practice, removing this requirement would do little to effect the balance between management and labor in Colorado. Colorado had 170,000 union members in 2005, about 8.4 percent of the state's workforce. Many of those are public employees or work in the building trades and would not be affected by this bill. And contrary to some reports, its passage would in no way ease the burden faced by union organizers when trying to organize such militantly anti-union employers as Wal-Mart.

Furthermore, neither the Daily Sentinel nor the News noted readily available Labor Department statistics showing that, in fact, most of the states bordering Colorado -- including several “right-to-work” states -- already have higher union membership or representation rates than Colorado. That would have raised the unanswered question of why union-related issues would cause businesses to locate in those states instead of Colorado if HB 1072 becomes law. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the 2006 averages for percentage of work force with union membership and percentage of work force represented by unions, respectively, were:

Colorado -- 7.7 percent; 8.6 percent

Kansas* -- 8.0 percent; 9.3 percent

Wyoming* -- 8.3 percent; 10 percent

Arizona* -- 7.6 percent; 9.7 percent

Nebraska* -- 7.9 percent; 9.5 percent

New Mexico - 7.8 percent; 11.5 percent

Utah* -- 5.4 percent; 6.1 percent

Oklahoma* -- 6.4 percent; 7.7 percent

*Right-to-work states, according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The Daily Sentinel article additionally misrepresented some of the provisions of existing Colorado law and the bill. It stated that the bill “would make it easier for unions to set up closed shops” and noted that, according to Schwenke, companies might not “want to deal with Colorado's proposed closed-shop laws.”

In fact, as the News noted in a January 20 correction to a January 19 article, federal law prohibits a “closed shop” arrangement in which union membership at a workplace is mandatory for all employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement:

This story incorrectly said House Bill 1072 would essentially repeal the Colorado Labor Peace Act. The bill would replace part of the law. The article also described an all-union workplace inaccurately as a “closed shop,” in which all workers must become dues-paying, voting members of a union to keep their jobs. That is illegal under federal law. In an “agency shop” or “union shop,” the employees must pay the union for the costs of representation but may refuse to join.

Moreover, in characterizing the changes to existing law that could result from the passage of HB 1072, the Daily Sentinel inaccurately described the process for the establishment of an all-union agreement:

Colorado law requires workers who want to organize to undergo two, member elections: the first to form the union and the second to levy fees on all employees for the union representation.

For the all-union agreement to move forward in the second election, either more than 50 percent of all members or 75 percent approval of those voting need to agree.

Garcia's bill would eliminate the second election, allowing unions to require employees to either join or pay fees for the benefit of union representation.

The Daily Sentinel article left the misleading impression that a union's vote for an all-union agreement imposes that provision on the employer. As a January 23 article in the News correctly explained, the special vote required under existing law merely authorizes the union to discuss a “union shop” arrangement in contract negotiations:

House Bill 1072 strikes a part of Colorado labor law that mandates a special election to decide whether a “union shop” workplace, where all workers must either join the union or pay it for the costs of representation, should be on the table in labor negotiations. To pass, the special election needs the higher of 75 percent of the vote or more than 50 percent of eligible workers.