Comment on Colorado’s governor vetoes landmark ban on rent-setting algorithms
match@pawb.social 6 days agoAnd when Polis vetoed a act that would have removed a superfluous block on unionization, did that also help make the law all smooth and happy?
MajorasMaskForever@lemmy.world 6 days ago
There’s enough nuance to that veto I disagree on that being superfluous a law existing on the books. It takes 50% of employees to vote in favor of forming a union. That part was not going to change under that bill. The repeal (and it’s subsequent veto) was entirely on the vote threshold to allow a union to charge all employees union dues regardless of membership status.
Now there’s is an argument that the law indirectly disincentives unions since in combination with another law unions in CO must act on behalf of all employees, regardless of membership status, so a union must do more work on less money since 50% of employees are needed to create a union for 100% of employees, but 75% of employees are needed to force all 100% of employees to pay for that extra representation. Most people if given the opportunity will act selfishly and won’t join the union and still reap the benefits. In that event, it’s pretty likely a union wouldn’t have the funds to perform necessary negotiations and representation ultimately leading the union to fail.
But that’s a set of laws and human behavior acting in concert, not a single law that on its own is entirely captured by another.
match@pawb.social 6 days ago
That law doesn’t strike you as messy, anti-union, and convoluted? As opposed to merely having the union gain that power when the employees vote to unionize? Are we afraid that without that law, we’ll see the return of the 1930s unions that fought guerilla wars in southern Colorado to take over company towns?