Liberal and Loving It

The Colorado Labor Peace Act of 2009

Ok, the election is over, 47 & 49 lost, 53, 55, 56, & 57 were withdrawn, and 54 is looking to be eviscerated by the Supreme Court. And that is a good thing, re-writing the business/labor rules via dueling ballot initiatives would pretty much guarantee that we all end up worse off.

But, the existing labor agreement is 66 years old. You know, some things have changed since then. And it's clear from the substantive discussion (yes there was some) around the initiatives, that we need to look at revising the agreement. Maybe it's time to get all involved parties together: The Governor, Legislature (both parties), business leaders, unions, and non-unionized workers. BTW- involved parties does not include spoiled trust fund babies (i.e. Jonathan Coors) or interest groups that represent an unknown set of funders (Independence Institute).

In this discussion we need to take into account the major changes in the jobs in this state since the previous agreement:

1. We operate in a global economy – pay and productivity in India & China impact what we can do here.
2. Education requirements have risen significantly – most good jobs now require a college degree.
3. Union representation has dropped significantly – no longer do union gains help large numbers of non-union employees.
4. Union representation of public sector has grown significantly – union voters are selecting their top management.
5. Businesses and union management are both expected to be more transparent & legitimate in their actions.

I think first, before we discusses specifics, the act should discuss the expectations we have on both parties. From those expectations, we can then come up with the specifics to reach them. For businesses these expectations should include (in priority order):

1. Be profitable, both short-term and long-term. If a company is not profitable nothing else matters, because it will be gone.
2. Provide value to the customer. If a company is not working diligently to make its customers happy, it is not going to thrive in today's environment. A company that is responsive and customer driven is going to do well.
3. Provide a quality work environment. Employees that are valued, treated well, and empowered to do their best will in turn do well for the company. And employees who do their best for a company have earned the right to be treated well.
4. Maximize shareholder value. Regardless of what all the free-market advocates say, this must come after the above 3 items. Why? Because the only way to maximize shareholder value is to live by the first 3 items.

Ok, that's business, what expectations should we have on the labor side of the equation:

1. Provide value to the company. Any employee who does not add value is then taking money from their co-workers, their employer, and their customers.
2. Do the best job they can. A large part of this in many jobs is working well in a collaborative group and constantly learning.
3. Work to make their company more successful every day. This is key because other companies are doing that and so staying constant means eventual closure.

And that brings us to the specifics. And here I have more questions than suggestions. But hey, it's a start. And these are in no particular order.

• Open shop, closed shop, no union – I think our present arrangement is fine but this needs to be put on the table again, even if it's just for 15 minutes while everyone agrees to leave it as is. The same for what dues are required for non-union members under a union contract.
• What is required to create a union. First off, unions are declining so I don't see why business is getting all worked up over this, but some are. Again, lets discuss it. But if business wants a secret vote, then maybe the answer is that the union only needs signed cards from 10% of the employees to have the vote instead of 50%. We also need to equalize the campaigning before the vote, that every action the company takes, the union is allowed to equal, so a required ½ hour meeting listening to the company is then followed by a required ½ hour meeting listening to the union.
• Union donations to political candidates, ballot initiatives, etc. We have 3 categories here. First are unions like grocery clerks where elected candidates have no real impact on their jobs. Second are unions like construction workers where candidates will vote on capital improvements that their company may then win the bid on – they are voting on people that have an indirect impact on their job. Third are public sector unions where the candidates are the people who then set their wages & benefits – a very direct impact. We need different rules for each but it seems to me the first category should face no restrictions, the second should not be allowed to campaign for capital improvement bonds and have some kind of limitation on political donations. And the third category should have very strict restrictions on candidate donations or advertising.
• Company donations to political candidates, ballot initiatives, etc. This is almost a mirror of the union categories above, and in fairness businesses should face the same restrictions depending on how closely they are connected. And we should also look at prohibiting companies and senior executives at those companies from contributing to capital improvement initiatives that they will bid on or to candidates that will select them for sole-source bids. Amendment 54 had a very good idea in it, it just went way overboard.
• Just as we have term limits & no nepotism laws on our elected officials, we should look at mandating the same for union officers. The existing union leaders have not been able to stem their decline, new blood in their leadership should help the unions turn this around.
• Public sector unions – good idea. There is advantage in the employees working for the government to have their own mechanism to discuss what they would like to see changed, prioritize those wishes themselves, then present them to management. The old paternalistic model where management will just decide what's best won't fly anymore – even if it reached the exact same decision, it will still piss people off.
• Both union & public sector job security – time to revise this. First off, job security does not protect the job, it protects someone doing a mediocre doing the job from being replaced by someone competent. We need to change it from protect the person holding the job to protecting that job slot by having someone productive in it. And to insure that employees are treated fairly, so that probation, and if necessary termination, occur for poor job performance. But key to this is unions and public sector employees buy off on replacing incompetent employees with competent ones.
• Just cause for firing employees. This ties in to union/public sector job security but we need to look at this for all companies in Colorado (and non-profits should be treated equally). So how about this, first we set this for employees below the director level because when you need to fire someone at the director level, you generally need to do so quickly. Let's put together a proposed probationary system, and it can be different based on industry and/or company size. Then companies can choose to follow it voluntarily for the next 4 years. Those that follow it can change it as they see fit – but they must provide feedback as to how it is working. If after 4 years we find a system that worked well for everyone, then we put it in statute. And the "put it in statute" part should get most companies volunteering to make sure what we end up with works well.
• Representation for non-union employees. I have no idea how to do this, but at least in the high-tech world, employees are strongly opposed to unions. Yet employees should have some way of discussing their concerns in-mass with management. The present system, even with all the efforts companies do listening to the concerns of employees is more paternalistic than people nowadays expect, and will soon demand.
• Health care. Create something like Hawaii's HMSA where all companies can easily set employees up with insurance. This will require the state to provide subsidies for industries that cannot be profitable with this cost, but we in total are better off if everyone is covered and those companies on razor thin margins stay in business and continue to provide jobs.

I'm sure there's more, the above is just to start the conversation. Any suggestions?

State level priorities

Now the easy part is over and the hard part begins – governing, and governing effectively and efficiently in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression. Ok, let's talk the State of Colorado – what do we need to do.

For the past 2 years we Democrats have done a competent job. And in flush times, that would be fine. But in these times, it's not enough. We need to step up and solve the big problems we face. In this election the voters made it clear that they need to see more from us – the state level vote was a let it ride for 2 more years. If the voters were thrilled with us, we would have seen more wins.

But put political advantage aside for a moment – there is a much more critical reason to step up and resolve these serious issues – because if we don't this state is going to be in a world of hurt. There's always reason to put off the hard decision till tomorrow – but we have done that so long that there is no more room to do so. We sit at a nexus where the actions of the state government over the next 2 years will have a long-term impact on our state.

It will require Bill Ritter to put it all on the line. It will require our Democratic majority to put it all on the line. It will require we expend every effort we can to include the Republicans in crafting solutions with us. And it will require that our Republican legislators get down to the hard work of finding effective compromises, when the compromising will be mostly done by the Republicans (and yes – that is very hard to do).

What's interesting is that most of these problems do not require money to resolve them. But they do require political decisions that will require vast amounts of political courage and skill. Here are our priorities (in order):

1. Our K-12 public schools are an abysmal failure. Statewide 30% of our children are not graduating. And a significant chunk of those who graduate High School do not graduate college, mostly because they did not receive the preparation they need. Virtually every student who does not get a college degree is sentenced to a life of economic poverty. And with that reduced economic productivity the state suffers, receiving less taxes, spending more on social services, and our GDP is lower.
   The good news is that this is not a financial issue. This country spends several times more per pupil than any other country. The bad news is this is a systemic issue. I'll write a separate post about my ideas on this but the bottom line is we need to radically change how we run our schools. We have tweaked here and there over the last 30 years all to no significant effect. Minor change won't accomplish squat.
2. Our higher-ed system is doing a good job, but is about to go bankrupt. And we should not be financing something so critical to our success on a wing and a prayer. At the same time, the actual cost of educating a student keeps outpacing the rate of inflation – and for no good reason. We need to reach agreement with the schools where the cost per student is fixed and raises at no more than the rate of inflation henceforth. In return the state needs to provide funds, both direct and via scholarships, so that the first 2 years of college are free and the remaining are easily affordable and based on ability to pay.
   For those that say we can't make the first 2 years of college free, why is it we pay 100% of the first 13 years of schooling and 0% after that? Thirty years ago a High School degree was sufficient for a good job. It's not anymore. And for our state economy to grow we need a highly educated workforce. Getting K-12 working and Higher-ed funded and affordable is where we determine the long-term future of our state. Get this right and long-term we will do very well. Get this wrong and nothing else will make up for this deficiency.
3. We need to create a list of infrastructure investments in this state, clearly prioritized, with compelling arguments that show the necessity of each item, and why it is ranked where it is. This process needs to be transparent, include both parties and officials from the county, city, school district, rtd and other areas. It needs to be completed quickly and be treated like the budget – it will be done, it will be done on time, and it will be built within clear parameters.
   Why so important? Because the consensus in Washington is rapidly heading toward a massive government investment in infrastructure to end the recession. When that happens, if we have already done the hard part of determining projects, their priority, etc. – we will see the dollars come in here a lot sooner, we will see more, and they will be better targeted.
4. Through luck, NREL, government action, and/or something else we have become a center for green energy. We need to do everything we can to encourage this to grow as we have the potential to become the silicon valley of green energy. Now part of that is to build up programs at the schools & labs. Part of it is to keep bringing in as many companies as we can.
   An even more powerful tool will be to make Colorado the first state to get off of hydrocarbons. We need to set the goal that in 5 years we will be generating electricity to meet all state needs via green sources (yes we'll still have the existing coal plants, but we will export an amount equal to their generation), that we have modernized the transmission grid in this state, and that all new cars here run on electricity or hydrogen. Putting this state on the fast track to a non-hydrocarbon future will force almost every green energy company to have a presence here.
   And to those who say it cannot be done, in 5 years this country went from peace and 1 army division that could go overseas to winning WWII, including having 100 army divisions placed world-wide. Compared to that, this is a piece of cake. It's also an effort that will create jobs and improve our financial situation.
5. The changes we will see in medical insurance out of Washington over the next 2 years will probably center around making it available to everyone and eliminating the noxious pre-existing clauses. Good improvements all, but they don't address the core issue of rising costs.
   We need to take on figuring out how to provide quality medical care at a cost we as a society can afford, and with the growth in costs staying below inflation. How to go about doing this is the subject of another post, but like K-12 education, it will require major changes in the whole system – tweaking here and there won't help much.
6. TABOR – fix it. Don't end it, the people of this state clearly want to be asked before taxes are raised. But come up with a way for revenue to roughly match GDP, and for taxes to be balanced (i.e. one set raised, another lowered) without requiring a vote. Until this is fixed, this remains the central constraint for most legislation in the state – and that does not serve us well.
7. Redistricting is coming in 2010. With a recent Democratic majority, and a possible Republican resurgence, we face a rare time when the parties are equally balanced. Safe districts do not serve the people of Colorado, they do not serve finding common ground in the legislature, they do not serve anyone except the office holder who has a lifetime lease and the interest groups on the far left and right that get extreme candidates in.
   The legislature needs to pass a law stating that the primary criteria of setting boundaries is to make as many as possible competitive, with a secondary goal being to minimize the number of partial counties and cities in each as well as keeping the boundaries geographically sane. And the boundaries are then set by an independent group, maybe 1/3 Democratic, 1/3 Republican, and 1/3 judges. Yes Dianna DeGette and Doug Lamborn will form a coalition (the only time you will see that) to fight this.
   But the state legislators, who make this decision, actually have two giant incentives to do so. First, this is step one to expanding or eliminating term limits as competitive seats create very effective term limits. Second, the Congressional seats in this state will open up more if they are more competitive and that gives our state legislators more opportunities to advance.
   As to the 99.999% of us that are not office holders in this state, we would get legislators that are more focused on us constituents, more moderate in their approach, and from that will be working harder to effectively govern.
8. Create a year round professional legislative staff. Especially with term limits, the lobbyists now are the only ones with institutional memory. The legislature needs resources of its own, both an office that exists for the legislature as a whole as well as staff for each individual legislator. With the recent disaster in the financial industry, people are open to the idea that, to do a good job, the legislature needs to actually hire some people.
9. Implement public financing for candidates in this state. Yes they should be required to raise some money on their own, yes this needs to include the 527s and others as well (including ful transparency of the original source of funds for all groups). But we need to eliminate the need for candidates to spend 18 months in a room on the phone begging for dollars. I think Joan Fitz-Gerald, Will Shafroth, & Diane Primavera can also speak to the tremendous advantage a rich candidate enjoys.
   The money for the campaigns does need to come from somewhere and in the present system the big cost is that we have legislators spending less time on legislative business, and instead they are thrown into non-stop contact with people that have money, and all too often want a favor.

Ok, that's it – piece of cake no? Here's the thing, the people in this state know that we are in a world of hurt. They know we need to step up and effect major change. What is accomplished (not what is talked about – what is accomplished) over the next 2 years determines if Colorado will help lead the United States in this new millennium.

Hillary Hall fails once again

Update: There have been a number of excuses, along the lines of the dog ate my homework, that have been made for the inept Ms. Hall. Let's address them:

1. Better to be slow and accurate than fast and inaccurate. True. But even better to be both fast and accurate - as every other county in the state managed to do.
2. It's the fault of the machines. If so, who decided to use those machines? Hillary Hall. If the machines are not dependable, she should have recognized this and switched to a different system.
3. It's the fault of the printer. Ok, if so - why was this not determined before they went to count the votes. They had those printed ballots for weeks before election day.
4. They just happened to notice the errors the Saturday before the election so there was not time to fix it. They just happened to? In other words, it was pure luck we even knew there was a problem. This is the biggest indictment of Ms. Hall - that they don't do random visual vs machine counts on a set number of ballots to verify that the machines are working properly.

The nice thing about being an elected Democrat in Boulder is, no matter how incompetent you are, you get to keep your job. Thankfully we have term limits so after 3 terms, we roll the dice and get another random selection - that may be better, or may be worse.

But for now we're stuck with Hillary Hall who once again is maybe half way through the ballots while the rest of the metro counties are done. Hillary, hang on to this job as long as you can because if you were this inept in the private sector - they'ld fire you.

What did you do today?

So dad, what did you do in the all-important 2008 election? Well kids, let me tell you about today's effort...

I went down to the Obama South Boulder office (Neptune Mountaineering in the Table Mesa Shopping Center) to volunteer from 9:00 - 10:45. They put me on phone calls.

The calls went really well - I've done a lot of telesales (enterprise software) and so this was pretty straightforward although it has differences from selling software. I was able to help the ones there who did not have any experience at it on how to ignore the 25% who were rude or mean or fed up with the calls. The trick is to think of one that went well when making each call - and you have to know that the next one will go great.

Got a pretty good response on this including one woman who lost her mail in ballot and so has to go vote on Tuesday, and 2 people who thought they could turn the ballot in at their polling place (why can't you?).

While I was working Mark Udall's wife came in to thank the volunteers individually. When I introduced myself she knew who I was - and was very very classy about it. She also said it was nice to see that some bloggers actually get out and work on the campaigns. I told her that most do - but everyone here, add a comment for what you did today to list it out.

At 10:45 I took off to go canvass for Joe Whitcomb. It's the closest legislative race and so I wanted to put in a day helping. To take the optimistic view in action as well as words.

We met at 11:30 in Broomfield to then be told to drive up to Fredricksburg to be there at 12:30. I wish campaigns would just give the final location/time as I could have called for another 45 minutes. But I know it works better to get people lined up this way.

So we get up there and they give me my list in Firestone (next to the towns of Goodyear, Pirelli, and Michelin). Joe was having us hit undecided female voters.

So I get out of my car and the first 3 yards have McCain signs and I'm thinking, ok this is going to be a rough day. The next house is my first stop and has no yard signs. Turns out the husband & wife there both voted the straight Democratic ticket.

To make a long story short, both the first and second lists they gave me were in neighborhoods that seemed pretty evenly matched. What was amazing was over half the yards had political signs. People are involved in this election. This is a place where you get a decent home cheap, the backyards all have trampolines and the garages all have motorbikes. And this election matters to the majority of people here - a lot. Our democracy is healthy.

So how's it look for Joe? Who? Joe, Joe Whitcomb - state Senate. What party is he? Democratic. Well I voted all Democratic/Republican for all those other races so I voted for him/his opponent. I met one person who remembered talking to him and one person who left that vote blank because they didn't know either candidate. And everyone else who had voted already voted the party.

But I think my talking and literature dropping helped because for those who have not voted, they actually have had a reach out from one of the candidates. That should help for a couple of votes.

There were 6 of us total, Joe, his campaign manager, and 4 volunteers. This strikes me as poor the weekend before the election but my measure is my mom who will have 20 out there if she has an opponent (half of them family). Are these good numbers or bad?

I didn't see anyone else out canvassing but I did see literature on an occasional door - either a Republican or Democratic party drop. The Republican ones were McCain/Palin only while the Democratic ones had a number of things in them from the look of the bag.

So done around 6:30 and I felt pretty good - we had all been out there, no sign of Shawn Mitchell. I saw 2 Shawn Mitchell signs (and no Joe Whitcomb ones) so looking solid. And as I drove out of Fredrick...

There at a major intersection was a boatload of Shawn Mitchell signs just put up and a bunch of clean-cut kids all wearing Mitchell shirts and waving. If they were out all day hitting doors then they had a bigger presence than Joe. If all they were doing was this one waving and this was all Shawn had, then Joe did better.

I then met Mrs. Blog for dinner (my youngest daughter has a busy social life so she took off with her friends). And then headed back to the Obama office to make more calls as they told me earlier they would be open till 9:00pm.

Got there at 8:00pm and it was closed. If they closed because people would be annoyed if called after 7:30 then it was a good decision. But if it makes sense to keep calling till 9:00 and they left cause they were tired - not good. We have 4 days left.

What was unquestionably bad was there was no sign on the door as to what time they open tomorrow morning. While I was there looking another person drove up and she wanted to know when to be there tomorrow morning. I'm guessing they will have 20 - 40 people stop by with that same question. Bad move not putting what/when for Sunday on the door.

But it is a solid operation. I'd say we had 8 of us calling and the canvassing group had another 8 running the office while there was a constant stream of volunteers coming in, given packets, and then heading out to walk the streets.

What did YOU do today?

Boulder Police double down on stupidity

What is it about government agencies that when they do something stupid, rather than admit it, they continue to do the same dumb thing again? It's like a little kid jumping up and down and screaming "I'm right, I'm right." Chief Beckner I have bad news for you, no matter how much you insist you're right - you're not.

So last night we had the naked pumpkin run. And what in the past was treated as a prank and part of what makes Boulder weird - something that everyone in Boulder knew was going to happen - the police turn it into a crime. And the people arrested are facing the distinct possibility of being labeled sex offenders.

Boulder City Council, you need to regain control of the police department. Appropriate response people - appropriate.