Labor Peace Act Deal Falls Through: What’s Next?

Liza Nielsen’s Story: The Starbucks Worker Who Faced the Second Election Challenge

Liza Nielsen applied to work at Starbucks because of the “promised magical benefits” the company offered, like tuition and health care reimbursement. But when she started at the coffee giant’s Superior store in early 2021, her expectations curdled. She and her coworkers were consistently shorthanded, she said, and they had to fight for enough shifts to unlock the benefits that had attracted Nielsen to the job in the first place. “It was a workplace built for burnout,” she said. Nielsen and her coworkers organized to form a union, part of a growing and national wave of worker organizing at Starbucks. Amid anti-union tactics that federal labor regulators found ran afoul of federal law, Nielsen and her coworkers successfully formed a union with 99% of staff voting in support, she said. The group has since joined with other Starbucks workers in a national effort to craft a first union contract. That process is still underway. But when it’s done, Nielsen said, unionized Starbucks employees in Colorado — like thousands of organized workers before them — will be alone in the United States in having to pass a second election before they can advance a key piece of their prospective contract: membership in the union and the collection of dues and fees. Nielsen, who left Starbucks and is now a full-time labor organizer, said trying to pass another election after the uphill climb of winning the first — with a higher threshold this time around — is “extremely anxiety-inducing and just feels super unfair.”

Voices From the Frontlines: Hear from Both Union Leaders and Business Owners

This legislative battle in Colorado is a microcosm of the broader national debate over labor rights and the balance of power between workers and employers.

Union Perspective

For labor unions and their allies, the second election requirement is an unnecessary obstacle that discourages worker organizing and weakens the collective bargaining process. They argue that it allows businesses to prolong anti-union campaigns and create a climate of uncertainty for workers who are trying to exercise their right to form a union.

“There’s no defensible reason to have the second election, except to throw up these barriers and make it really difficult for people to follow through with their own choice to form a union,” said Sen. Jessie Danielson, a Wheat Ridge Democrat and one of the bill’s primary sponsors.

Business Perspective

On the other side, business groups contend that the second election is a vital safeguard that protects the rights of non-union workers and maintains a balance between labor and management. They argue that it ensures that a union truly represents the majority of workers and prevents a situation where a small minority can impose its will on the entire workforce.

“We feel very strongly that the compromise has served us well,” J.J. Ament, the president and CEO of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, said of the second-election provision. “The economic data has shown that it’s served us well. Job growth in Colorado outperforms both fully right-to-work states and fully union-shop states.”

Navigating the Political Landscape: How Democratic Lawmakers and Governor Polis Differ

The debate over Senate Bill 5 has exposed a fissure within the Colorado Democratic Party. While a coalition of Democratic lawmakers support the bill and argue that it is a necessary step to modernize Colorado’s labor laws, Gov. Jared Polis has signaled his intention to veto the measure.

Polis, a Democrat who vetoed labor bills in May, has told lawmakers that he intends to veto this bill, too. In a statement to The Denver Post on Wednesday, Polis spokeswoman Shelby Wieman said the governor wanted to see the labor and business groups negotiate a compromise.

Analyzing the Stakes:

The outcome of this legislative showdown will have significant implications for Colorado’s economy, labor relations, and national trends in labor organizing.

Economic Implications: Will S.B. 5 Boost or Harm Colorado’s Business Climate?

Supporters of S.B. 5 argue that it will create a more favorable environment for businesses by reducing the uncertainty and legal costs associated with union organizing. They contend that Colorado’s current law creates a disincentive for businesses to invest and expand in the state.

Opponents of S.B. 5, however, warn that it will undermine the state’s business climate by making it easier for unions to organize and potentially leading to higher labor costs. They argue that Colorado’s current law strikes a balance between the interests of workers and businesses.

Labor Rights and Worker Empowerment: What Does S.B. 5 Mean for Colorado’s Workforce?

For labor unions, S.B. 5 represents a crucial opportunity to strengthen worker rights and collective bargaining power. They believe that eliminating the second election requirement will make it easier for workers to form unions and secure better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

Critics of S.B. 5 argue that it will empower unions at the expense of individual workers. They contend that the second election provides a crucial safeguard against union coercion and allows non-union workers to have a say in whether or not they want to be represented by a union.

Setting a Precedent: How Colorado’s Decision May Impact National Labor Trends

Colorado’s decision on S.B. 5 could have ripple effects across the country. If the bill is passed, it could embolden labor unions in other states to push for similar reforms. At a time when worker organizing is on the rise, Colorado’s actions could set a precedent for a more pro-labor environment in the United States.

Conversely, if Polis vetoes the bill, it could send a message to unions that Colorado is not a receptive state for labor law reform. This could discourage union organizing efforts in the state and potentially hinder national labor trends.