PPC Homepage

Amendment 54, 49, and 47 – Update on Critics

by | 5:25 pm, October 3, 2008 | 6 Comments

Here’s something interesting on that group desperately trying to persuade you to vote against Amendments 54, 49, and 47. 

Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future (as they’re known here at PPC) has been sending out flyers chock full of misleading and plainly dishonest allegations about these amendments, with images of police and firefighters carefully crafted to appear as if these folks are in uniform. The intent behind these images seems to be to give the casual reader the impression that the positions presented in the flyers represent an official position of police or fire departments, but with the “plausible deniability” that someone looking closely at the uniforms would recognize that they weren’t the real thing.

Clearly, though, the flyers’ authors rely on the fact that most people who find one of these things in their mailbox will look only at the hang-dog faces on the people who nobly protect our communities, read the misleading text to find out what has them looking so upset, and take away the impression that “The Police Department” and “The Fire Department” officially oppose Amendments 54, 49, 47.  But if anything, when the pictures are studied carefully, it’s actually a union position that’s being represented.

As a refresher, Protecting Colorado’s Culture of Corruption’s Future’s first flyer slamming Amendments 54, 49, and 47  stated:

For officers like Jeff Shaw – our safety is his top priority.

But at 2:00am when he responds to a call – Officer Shaw shouldn’t worry whether or not his vest can take that bullet.

But that’s EXACTLY what Amendments 47, 49, and 54 will do.

These amendment swill stop Officer Shaw from joining with other officers to advocate for better body armor and modern equipment – giving him the tools he needs to protect and save lives. 

If you look closely at the pictures in that flyer, you’ll notice that Officer Jeff Shaw isn’t quite wearing a uniform, but a black police-uniform-style shirt with what appears to be a name bar and police badge on it – a badge which bears the letters “F.O.P.”, the acronym of the Fraternal Order of Police.  While the central body of the F.O.P. doesn’t explicitly describe itself as a union, it performs many of the functions of one. I’ve got no problem at all with citizens organizing into professional associations or unions – especially if those groups put the interests of their members before the interests of the group’s leaders.  

But…when you read their words, Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future’s argument is that only by stopping Amendments 47, 49, and 54 will our state’s police and firefighters be able to participate in organizations like F.O.P. They imply organizations like F.O.P. – unions, in short – are the only route for securing the workplace safety of our policemen and firefighters. For getting them the body armor and modern equipment they need.  For obtaining the tools they need to protect and save lives. 

One might construe from that that the F.O.P. is concerned about safety, right? Well…Take a peek at the current F.O.P. Sherriff Lodge 27′s collective bargaining agreement.  Here are a few sample pages (full document can be found at FOP Sheriff Lodge 27′s website):

Full, legible document here [pdf].  

Since we’re all about looking at things closely, we took a close look at this document. 

In this collective bargaining union agreement, the words “pay”,  ”payroll”, “paydate”, or “salary” appear no fewer than 92 times, the words “vacation”, “leave”, or “sick leave” appear no fewer than 108 times, and the word “overtime” appears no fewer than 8 times. 

Since this is an employment agreement we’re talking about, it’s obviously going to include text about pay and benefits. That’s part of what an employment agreement is for, right? But in contrast, throughout the entire agreement, the word “safety” does not appear once; nor do the words “bulletproof” or ”vest”. 

Not. Once.

It’s a completely bogus argument to claim that Amendments 47, 49, and 54 will prevent anyone from joining any union or professional organization they choose – in fact, securing that element of choice is exactly what Amendment 47 in particular is about – or that workers will be unable to organize to negotiate better conditions or the right equipment for the job. It’s also questionable to imply that those unions are the sole route to workplace safety, when the union leaders don’t bother to mention safety alongside hundreds of pay and benefit provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

You’d think if collective bargaining were the sole means available for securing the safety of their members, the union leadership crafting that collective bargaining agreement would have seen fit to mention it, even just once .

Share
Category: Colorado, Colorado Amendment 47, Colorado Amendment 49, Colorado Amendment 54
Tags: > > > >

Comments

  1.   Chris Pentelute
      October 7th, 2008 @ 9:46 am

    I am appalled that you people of so blind to the facts. I guess ignorance really is bliss, you are doing absolutely no good for anyone with your propaganda. I am speaking on your so called amendment 47, idiotic at best. And by the way Officer Shaws shirt is BLUE, but you knew that!

  2.   Todd Marty
      October 16th, 2008 @ 9:28 am

    Your claims that the word “safe” or “bulletproof” should appear in their contract is outrageous. Contracts are in place to make sure BOTH side follow the rules. The idea that police officers must fight for better gear takes place in politics and NOT a contract. You all are simply truing to bust unions and when you succeed, you will silence public safety. When you do silence us, we will not be able to fight for safe measures as a GROUP to protect you! You, the citizen, will LOSE in the end. OUTRAGEOUS!

  3.   zombiehunter
      October 16th, 2008 @ 11:52 am

    Since Amendment 47 DOES NOT prohibit unions or union membership, why won’t you be able to advocate as a group? Please tell us SPECIFICALLY with EXAMPLES. Amendment 47 just gives the right to public employees to not join a union if they so choose. Why are you two against giving people the right to make their own choices?

  4.   zombiehunter
      October 27th, 2008 @ 3:52 pm

    Gosh Todd, a full week and no response? It’s probably harder to come up with real examples than it is to come up with your lies, huh? Pathetic collectivist.

  5.   Doug Nassif
      October 29th, 2008 @ 10:49 pm

    In all my years of voting…and living in several different states…I have never seen the kind of misdirection and distraction and general BS that the Union-Bought-and-Paid-for anti 47-49-54 crowd. No need to bust unions…you are imploding and are outliving your usefullness anyway. And trying to trick and mislead voters with your sob stories and massive ad campaigns wont help. “Pathetic collectivist”…that should be the final word on this one.

  6.   zombiehunter
      October 31st, 2008 @ 4:28 pm

    Actually, “GODZILLA!” works pretty well as the final word, too. Heh.

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

  • "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts




  • When a young girl gets close to the truth about a long-forgotten mystery, a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!