Dan Pilcher

CACI Senior Vice President

& Chief Operating Officer

Phone: 303.866.9600

E-Mail: dpilcher@cochamber.com

Friday, March 13, 2009

House Scheduled to Debate Controversial Union-Advocated UI Lock-Out Bill on Monday: The Business-Labor Battle Grows

The House Business Affairs and Labor Committee this week continued to debate HB-1170, both on Tuesday and again on Wednesday, when the Committee amended the bill and finally approved it on a party-line 6-5 vote, thus sending it to the House Floor for Second Reading on Monday.

If this bill is approved on Second Reading in its current form, CACI will then take note of the recorded final, Third Reading Vote as a KEY VOTE, and the legislators will be informed in advance of CACI’s intention.  A legislator’s KEY VOTE will be an important factor when CACI analyzes an incumbent’s voting record to decide whether or not to endorse the incumbent for re-election and then provide financial support from CACI’s political action committees.

Current law allows UI benefits to be awarded to unionized workers if they are preemptively locked-out by an employer seeking to force the workers to agree to the employer’s proposed agreement.  This is defined as an “offensive” lockout.  But, if the employer locks out workers during a labor dispute as a “defensive” measure to protect its property and operations from union action, then the workers do not receive UI benefits.  Both terms are defined in current law.

HB-1170 seeks to obtain UI benefits for workers in a labor dispute when the employer locks them out as a defensive measure.  Such an employer might have to hire temporary workers as well as pay a higher unemployment insurance tax as a consequence.  The bill seeks to baldly force the employer to pay the union’s cost of the strike.

In opposing the bill, Representative David Balmer (R-Centennial) said that HB-1170, if it becomes law, will hang a “Closed for Business” sign on the state’s economic development efforts.  Also opposing the bill was Representative Larry Liston (R-Colorado Springs), who said that the bill, if it becomes law, may endanger the state’s Unemployment Insurance (UI) Trust Fund, given that the state’s unemployment rate dramatically rose to 6.6 percent in January from 5.8 percent in December.

Moreover, The Denver Post editorialized yesterday against the bill, calling it “misguided”:

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_11890033

CACI continues to lobby against the bill, which is sponsored by Representative Edward Casso (D-Commerce City).  The bill’s primary advocate is the United Food and Commercial Workers (UF&CW) Union Local Number Seven, backed by a coalition of unions and pro-union organizations:

http://ufcw7.canvastoolbox.com/

UF&CW Local Seven chief Ernie Duran told the Committee on Tuesday that he needs the bill to help him when he negotiates in May with King Soopers and Safeway when the current contract expires.

CACI has opposed similar bills in past sessions because CACI believes that UI benefits should be administered according to the purpose of the UI system, which is an employer-funded but government-administered system.  The purpose is clearly stated on the Web site of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE):

“Unemployment insurance is an income maintenance program that may be available to you if you are unemployed through no fault of your own. The monies you receive provide temporary help until you return to suitable work.”

Consequently, during a time of great economic distress, with more than 180,000 unemployed Colorado workers applying for and receiving UI benefits, CACI strongly believes that the UI Trust Fund should not become a source of benefits for locked-out union workers under HB-1170.  After all, unions create “strike funds” to support their members during such labor disputes and, moreover, they have not lost their jobs and presumably are not looking for work.

Under the current law, which was passed in 1999, there have not been any labor disputes in between unions and employers in “multi-employer bargaining units” such as King Soopers and Safeway vis-à-vis the UF&CW Union Local Seven.

The 1999 law followed the fractious labor dispute of 1996 between Local Seven and the grocers that lasted many weeks.  Safeway locked out its workers after Local Seven struck King Soopers.  And the Safeway workers received UI benefits.  Local Seven seeks to repeal the 1999 law and return it to that which existed in 1996.

Committee Chair Joe Rice (D-Littleton) sponsored an amendment that aims to deny UI benefits when one union initiates a “whipsaw” strike against one employer of a multi-employer bargaining unit.  But the amendment also would grant UI benefits to the workers if the employer launched the lockout.

For business, a serious implication of the amendments is that it will put Colorado State Government in the role of deciding whether the union or the business is responsible for a lock-out and, therefore whether UI benefits should or should not be granted to union workers.  Consequently, unions and employers will likely become embroiled in legal actions with the State over UI benefits and bargaining agreements.

To defeat the bill, CACI is working with other business organizations including the following CACI members: Colorado Retail Council, Rocky Mountain Food Industry Association, Associated General Contractors and Associated Builders and Contractors.

Senate Committee Approves Mandated Parental Leave Bill and Sends it to the Senate Floor

Yesterday, the Senate Education Committee amended and approved HB-1057 on a partisan 5-to-3 vote.  The bill now goes to the House Floor for Second Reading consideration.  The Senate sponsor is Senator Bob Bacon (D-Fort Collins).

HB-1057 would require companies that employ 50 or more workers provide up to 18 hours of unpaid leave in an academic year in three-hour blocks to workers who want to attend parent-teacher conferences or other academic activities related to the educational achievement of the employee’s child.  The worker could take no more than six hours in one month.  The worker also could elect to take paid sick or vacation leave instead of the unpaid leave.  The leave could be used for parent-teacher conferences and for meetings for a special-education student, to prevent a student from dropping out, or for disciplinary matters.

The amendments added by the Senate Education Committee reflected the lobbying efforts of CACI and other business organizations to strengthen the right of an employer to refuse a worker’s request for leave “in cases of emergency or other situations that may endanger a person’s health or safety or that necessitate the presence of the employee.”

Loren Furman, CACI Vice President of Governmental Affairs, told the Committee that CACI still opposes the bill, although amendments in the House had improved the bill.  She said that CACI members, particularly small firms, were objecting to State Government placing more mandates on them, given the tough economic times that they are facing.  She also said that CACI believes that the same mandates in the bill on business should be applied to school districts and schools.  CACI lobbied hard when the bill was in the House to have the introduced bill amended to lessen its impact on businesses.

During the debate, Senator Chris Romer (D-Denver) said that he wished the introduced bill would have included a balance between the responsibility of school districts and businesses to encourage the involvement of working parents in their children’s academic activities versus placing the entire burden on business.  Senator Rollie Health (D-Boulder) said he believes that most businesses do provide their workers with the flexibility that they need to attend their children’s academic activities at school, but that the bill is aimed at the “few bad apples in the barrel” who bar such leave.

Senator Keith King (R-Colorado Springs) said the bill is a “double-edged sword” because it lacks “ownership” by schools to get parents involved in their children’s academic activities.  He also argued for a better balance between schools and businesses in the bill.  And Senator Mark Scheffel (R-Parker) cautioned the Committee about “interjecting” state government into the “private relationships” between workers and employers, which he said is what the bill would do.

Proposal to Use Hospital Fees to Leverage Federal Dollars and Provide Health Insurance for 100,000 Coloradans Heard this Afternoon

Called the “Colorado Healthcare Affordability Act,” Governor’s Bill Ritter’s proposal, HB-1293, was being heard this afternoon by the House Health and Human Services Committee.  It would impose $600 million in fees on hospitals that could be used to obtain matching Federal funds to provide health-insurance to 100,000 residents.

CACI President Chuck Berry recently sent a letter to Governor Ritter about the bill, saying that “There must be clear assurances . . . that the provider fee proposal will not add to the cost shift to Colorado businesses. Employers and their employees cannot afford higher premiums in these times of economic downturn and competition in a global market.  We hope there will be transparency in the program and evaluation of the fee so that business can be assured that a cost shift of the fee does not take place, resulting in higher premiums for employers.”

For more on the proposal, click on:

http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_11796387

Bill to Create the “Colorado Health Care Authority” to Develop a State-Run, Single-Payer Health-Care System Faces First Hearing Wednesday

The bill, HB-1273, is set for its first hearing on Wednesday, March 18th, when the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee convenes at 1:30 p.m. in the Old Supreme Court Chamber.  CACI strongly opposes the bill.  The bill is sponsored by Representative John Kefalas (D-Fort Collins) and co-sponsored by 15 fellow House Democrats.

HB-1273 would create the “Colorado Health Care Authority” with the power to develop a state government health-care system and administer and pay for health-care services.  The bill is called “The Colorado Guaranteed Health Care Act” and seeks “to establish the principle of universal health care coverage.”  This bill would be the first building-block in creating a government-run “single-payer” health-care system, the most well-known to Americans being the Canadian system.

CACI-Opposed Senate Bill to Increase Dependents’ Age to 30 for Health-Care Coverage Awaits House Committee Action on Wednesday

A Senate bill, which is awaiting action by the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee, would require that health-insurance carriers increase the age for dependent coverage to age 30 from the present 25 for a worker’s unmarried dependent children even if they are not students.

The Committee is scheduled to hear SB-159 when it convenes in Room 112 on Wednesday, March 18th, following recess of the House Floor Session.

SB-159 was approved by the Senate on February 25th on a 21-to-12 party-line vote.  The bill was sponsored by Senator Paula Sandoval (D-Denver).  In the House, it is co-sponsored by Representative Anne McGihon (D-Denver) and Representative Debbie Benefield (D-Arvada).

In 2005, Representative McGihon sponsored HB-1101, which removed the requirement that an unmarried child under 24 years of age be enrolled as a full-time student in order to be considered a dependent for the purposes of mandatory coverage under a health benefit plan.  CACI opposed that bill.

CACI has historically opposed bills that would mandate additional coverage on employer-provided health-care benefits because it drives up the cost of the insurance premiums for both companies and workers. 

If this bill reaches the House Floor, CACI will take note of the recorded final, Third Reading Vote as a KEY VOTE, and the legislators will be informed in advance of CACI’s intention.  A legislator’s KEY VOTE will be an important factor when CACI analyzes an incumbent’s voting record to decide whether or not to endorse the incumbent for re-election and then provide financial support from CACI’s political action committees.

Among the reasons that CACI is urging legislators to oppose this bill are the following:

• The legislative Fiscal Note projects a possible increase in health-insurance premiums for state employees of up $3.7 million per year.

• Private insurance markets will see similar increased costs in premiums to cover adult children as dependents.

• There is no need for the bill because healthy adults ages 25 to 30 can obtain insurance coverage through the individual market. 

• Another reason that the bill is not needed is because adults ages 25 to 30 with serious medical conditions can receive coverage through CoverColorado. 

• Insurers currently fund CoverColorado, which provides insurance coverage in cases where private coverage is unavailable or cost-prohibitive.

• Businesses will be paying double, first to continue to fund CoverColorado as well as the increased costs through employer-sponsored health-insurance plans that are required to cover dependent adults ages 25 to 30.

• Cumulative effect of state mandates is to increase incentives for employers to self-fund their health-insurance benefit plans.

• Self-funded plans are generally not under the jurisdiction of state law or subject to regulation of the Colorado Division of Insurance. 

• It does not make sense to expand the pool of covered dependents at a time when businesses are struggling to provide affordable, quality health-care coverage to workers and their dependents.

• Increasing the age of covered dependents will result in employers making the difficult choice of either passing on 100 percent of the additional cost to workers or sharing in some percentage of the cost as most already do for the cost of dependent coverage, which will then increase costs for businesses.

• Because it is difficult to ascertain whether an adult child is truly a dependent and actually living in the home of the parent or parents, the bill creates potential for fraud and abuse.

In opposing this bill, CACI and CACI-members Cigna HealthCare and the Colorado Association of Health Plans are part of a coalition of businesses and business organizations that also includes the Colorado Municipal League, which represents cities and opposes this mandate.

Finally, around the State Capitol, the proposal is irreverently called the “bum in the basement” bill for obvious reasons.

Upcoming CACI Council Meetings

On Wednesday, March 18th, the Labor and Employment Council will meet, and the featured guest is Senator Ted Harvey (R-Highlands Ranch), the ranking Republican member of the Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee.  We thank Scott Jones of Robinson Dairy for sponsoring this luncheon meeting:

http://www.robinsondairy.com/

On Thursday, March 19th, the HealthCare Council will meet, and the featured guests are Representative Anne McGihon (D-Denver), a member of the House Health and Human Services Committee, and Senator Shawn Mitchell (R-Broomfield), a member of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.  We thank Kara Miller of Corporate Advocates for sponsoring this luncheon meeting:

http://www.corporateadvocates.net/

NOTE:  CACI councils meet at 12 Noon in the Conference Room at the CACI Office.  Information about council meetings and agendas can be accessed on the CACI Web site.  If you, as a CACI member, are not yet a member of these councils and want to join, please e-mail Misty Fox at mfox@COchamber.com

For More Information on Legislation . . .

CACI members with questions about legislation that CACI opposes or supports should contact Chuck Berry, CACI President, at 303.866.9652 or e-mail him at cberry@COchamber.com

Questions pertaining to health-care bills should be directed to Ralph Pollock, Chair of the CACI HealthCare Council, at 303.866.9657 or via e-mail at ralph@apaccess.com