By Gene Davis, DENVER DAILY NEWS
The daughter of a union boss is refuting claims that her dad is trying to hijack the election of Colorado’s biggest union.
The newly elected Local 7 president and secretary-treasurer Wednesday accused current union president Ernest Duran of “trying to steal the election from the workers.” Chrisanta Duran, Ernest’s daughter and the union secretary-treasurer, called the accusations unfounded.
“We obviously don’t have the power to do that,” she said.
Last week, Duran fired Cindy Lucero, the woman who recently defeated Chrisanta in the union secretary-treasurer race. And before the union president election began, Duran fired Kim Cordova, the woman who ended up beating him for the position. Regardless of being fired, the two women are set to take over their new leadership roles on Jan. 1.
Chrisanta said she isn’t able to discuss why Lucero and Cordova were fired unless they sign a release. But she denied that they were fired for a sinister reason, and pointed out that Cordova changed her own story for why she was fired three times.
“We just have a huge amount of liability if we release any information at all in regards to personnel decisions,” she said.
During the election campaign, Chrisanta and Lucero accused Duran of nepotism. Duran hired Chrisanta and her brother, Ernest III, to union positions that paid more than $100,000.
Chrisanta said that she and her brother’s past qualifications speak for themselves and should clear her father from the nepotism charge. Chrisanta is a licensed attorney who has won several arbitrations, and her brother helped a run successful campaign against an anti-union initiative.

Seeking a second election
The Durans are calling for a second election so the union members can vote again. Chrisanta believes that because almost 2,000 members self-reported that they did not receive ballots, union documents were stolen, and people lied to members in the media about how and why funds were spent, the election was not fair. Only 13 percent of the union members turned in ballots.
“It is in the best interest of the union membership to make sure there was a fair election,” said Chrisanta.
Meanwhile, Lucero disagrees on the need for another vote.
“Members are telling me they elected us fair and square, and want Duran to honor the workers’ vote,” she said in a statement Wednesday.
It is up to the U.S. Department of Labor to decide whether there should be another vote.
The controversy over Local 7 leadership started after KMGH-Channel 7 ran an investigative piece revealing that Duran spent union dues on international trips, lavish dinners and Broncos tickets, to name a few.
Chrisanta in September defended the spending to Denver Daily News reporter Peter Marcus. She said that an executive board and an audit committee within the union itself approved every penny.
The controversy over Local 7 leadership came as 17,000 unionized grocery workers were working to reach a contract agreement with King Soopers, City Market and Albertsons.
Since KMGH ran the investigative piece, the grocery chains have not come back with another offer, according to Chrisanta. She partly contributed the lack of progress to Cordova, Lucero and others creating controversy.
“To air internal union issues out to the public…doesn’t hurt us, it really does hurt the membership’s ability to be able to get a fair contract,” she said. “We have tried since the election to focus completely on negotiations.”
Cordova agreed that contract negotiations are what matters right now. However, she placed the blame over the lack of progress on Duran.
“Duran needs to remember he works for the workers…and what the workers want is a contract, not back-room union politics,” he said.

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

From Politico: Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter is facing the prospect of a difficult reelection bid without the backing of a key Democratic Party constituency: organized labor.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
The daughter of a union boss ousted this week by grocery workers is defending the use of membership dues to challenge the results of the election her father lost.
Crisanta Duran, who serves as both general counsel and secretary-treasurer for the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, said Ernie Duran Jr., the longtime president of the union, lost his re-election bid because of defamation spread by his opponent, Kim Cordova.
Cordova targeted Ernie Duran as a corrupt union boss using union dues for personal gain and of nepotism for hiring several family members to high-paying positions paying more than $100,000 per year. The story was picked up by KMGH-Channel 7 in an investigative piece that revealed the union boss spending dues on expensive international trips, lavish dinners and Broncos tickets, to name a few.
But Crisanta Duran Wednesday defended the spending, arguing that every penny was approved by an executive board and an audit committee within the union itself. She said all the expenses were for official business, such as the Broncos tickets that were used as a winning prize in a raffle played by union membership.
“All union expenses have been legitimate and they have been approved by our executive board, our audit committee and also voted on at all of our membership meetings throughout the state,” Duran told reporters during a media briefing at the UFCW Local 7 building in Wheat Ridge. “We have a very transparent process, and just once again, they were all legitimate and approved.”
Cordova, however, used the expense reports and the fact that Ernie Duran has hired his daughter and son to high-paying union positions as fodder to advance her campaign.
From the Web site, VoteErnieOut.com, Cordova and her supporters have posted receipts from expensive dinners at Gaetano’s, Cuba Cuba Cafe and Bar, and Red Lobster — all paid with union dues. The union boss is portrayed as Ernie from “Sesame Street,” and membership is asked to vote out the “Duran Clan.”

Outrage
Cordova’s supporters are outraged that the Duran family is challenging the recent election, describing the union family as “sore losers.” Of most concern to Cordova’s supporters is that the Durans are using union dues to challenge the election in which membership decided to vote them out.
A robocall and text messages went out this week asking membership to report if they hadn’t received a ballot, indicating to membership that its current leadership plans on challenging the election to the U.S. Department of Labor.
Critics say union dues should not be spent on fighting an election that union bosses lost at the hands of their membership.
But Crisanta Duran said the election was held under false pretexts, which has done membership a disservice, especially given ongoing contract negotiations between the union and Colorado’s three major grocery chains. King Soopers workers in the Denver metro area have voted to reject the company’s latest offer, though voting is expected to last through next week. Safeway workers have voted to re-authorize a strike, though it is more likely that the two bargaining teams will head back to the table before going on strike. Negotiations with Albertson’s is ongoing.
Duran said it is acceptable to use union dues to fight for her and her family’s positions because the overall challenge serves the needs of its membership.
“Members deserve to be part of a fair election, and when you have people going out and lying to them, using documents and saying that they were used for different reasons than what they actually were, and lying to members about how and why union funds were spent — the members deserve to be able to have a fair election,” she said.
The challenge also points out that only 13 percent of members voted and that the election was very tight. Before taking the challenge to the Labor Department, it can be brought within 15 days to the international UFCW organization for a decision on whether another election is warranted. If the union as a whole chooses not to authorize another election, then the challenge can still be brought to the Labor Department.

Cordova set to take over Jan. 1
Cordova, a former union representative before she was fired by the union, is set to take over as president on Jan. 1. She would become the first woman president of the Colorado union. Cordova alleges that she was wrongfully terminated, but union officials will not comment on why she was fired from her position, stating that Cordova would need to sign a release to allow them to release records.
Crisanta Duran says the union has asked Cordova to sign the release, but that she refuses to do so.
Also decided in the election, Cindy Lucero, who ran on Cordova’s slate, is set to replace Crisanta Duran. Nineteen of 25 board members who ran as part of Cordova’s team were also backed by membership.
In addition to 17,000 grocery workers, Local 7 represents approximately 6,000 meatpacking and private-health-care workers.

Investigation
Meanwhile, the Labor Department is investigating whether Local 7 illegally spent union dues. While the Labor Department is not commenting on the investigation, Crisanta Duran said an audit cleared them of all wrongdoing. She said an exit interview back in June indicated that the feds found no money was missing and that all expenditures were properly accounted for.
Adding fuel to this controversial fire, Crisanta Duran has accused Cordova of attempting to extort $350,000 from the Durans in exchange for her not running for president. The money would have come as part of a wrongful termination suit, but no action was taken.
Duran cites a letter written by Chris Osborne, a union member, who says that before a recent monthly make-up membership meeting began, he overheard Cordova confronting Ernie Duran about the extortion. But when asked to provide minutes from the meeting, Crisanta Duran said no minutes were taken.
Often accusing Colorado’s three major grocery chains of paying its executives high salaries while refusing to offer its workers even a living wage, Crisanta Duran defended her $133,410 salary, arguing that this year she gave up almost a third of her salary to “dedicate to the workers’ struggle in negotiations.” Duran added that her salary last year was actually $71,511 — but that is because she took six months off from work to campaign for Mark Udall, who ran a successful campaign for U.S. Senate.
Duran added that it is not uncommon for union leaders to hire family members to rank and file positions, pointing to Lucero who has her son working as a union representative and Cordova who added three pairs of family members to her slate.
“We’re not using union dues to fight the election results,” concluded Duran. “What we are doing is we are collecting statements with regard to the defamatory allegations against the organization as a whole.”

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Wheat Ridge lawyer Ernie Duran Jr., the longest-standing president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 union, lost his re-election bid this week as union members approved sweeping leadership changes amid allegations of nepotism and misspent funds, The Denver Post reported. FaceTheState.com covered the issue last fall.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
Safeway Inc. presented Colorado grocery workers on Wednesday with a final five-year contract offer.
But the union representing workers says it is “disappointed” with the offer. It was unclear Thursday whether the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 would organize a vote of its membership to officially decide on the contract offer.
Contract extensions for both Safeway and King Soopers employees ends at midnight on Saturday. Offers from the two supermarket chains are expected to be similar.

Not necessarily last offer
UFCW spokeswoman Laura Chapin said the final offer from Safeway is not necessarily their so-called “last, best and final” offer, which means it is unclear whether the union would need to take action on it.
Safeway spokeswoman Kristine Staaf told the Denver Daily News that the offer was the company’s final, but would not elaborate on whether it was the chain’s “last, best and final.”
“This action by the company did not come lightly,” Staaf said in a statement. “It has been our sincere desire to reach a negotiated settlement, but after 17 session with the union, beginning some five months ago in early April, the parties have been unable to resolve their considerable differences.”

Strike soon?
With the contract ending Saturday, workers could choose to strike. Safeway workers have already voted to authorize a strike if the company does not offer a contract proposal that includes “livable wages and a secure retirement.”
Crisanta Duran, legal counsel for UFCW Local 7, said the offer has hardly changed since April when discussions began. Grocery workers are seeking preventative health care coverage to be added to their policies, and for their pension plan to be fully funded. The grocery corporations have proposed cutting pension funding, but have reached a tentative agreement to include preventative health care coverage.
Union members — about 17,000 grocery workers at Safeway, King Soopers/City Market and Albertson’s — are also seeking a “modest wage increase,” that equals about 75 cents per hour, said Chapin.
Also at issue is the two-tier wage system in which workers hired after May 2005 receive $1 less per hour and have to wait a year to get health care for themselves and three years for their families.
Albertson’s workers are currently operating without a contract, but are still technically protected by the previous contract, said Chapin. Negotiations with that chain are ongoing.
“These are highly profitable corporations with CEOs making millions,” said Duran. “They are thriving in this economy thanks to the very workers whose wages and pensions they want to cut.”
Safeway says it has offered a fair contract, including pay raises, shortened dependent wait time for health coverage and access to a new “first-class” health and care management program. Staaf added that the final offer also includes millions of dollars in increased employer pension contributions.

Temporary workers sought
Meanwhile, King Soopers and Safeway continue to look for temporary workers in case grocery workers choose to strike. Applications are being accepted at stores across the state.
The two companies have also agreed to lock out employees if workers from one store go on strike. In other words, if Safeway workers decide to put up the picket lines, King Soopers would lock out its employees that are part of the union.
“We always want to be prepared,” said Diane Mulligan, spokeswoman for King Soopers. “We’re coming up to the end of a contract on Sept. 12th, and so we need to make sure that our customers are taken care of. We always prepare ourselves with temporary workers, but we hope that we never have to call anybody that we’ve gotten on the list. But just in case, we have to be prepared to keep the stores open and be able to take care of our customers.”
Patrick McCurdy, a five-year King Soopers employee from Morrison, seemed insulted by actions taken by the grocery chains.
“This shows a lack of trust on the corporation’s side and a belief that they can’t get it done having open negotiations with their own workers,” said McCurdy. “If these people weren’t good enough to be employed already by the stores, I don’t see how they’re good enough to replace their loyal workers.”
“Instead of offering more money to replacement workers, the stores should provide a fair contract with livable wages and a secure retirement to their current employees, the ones who have been with them for years,” he continued.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
Small business owners and leaders Wednesday said a proposed move by Congress to make it easier for employees to unionize would subject them to “union thuggery.”
But supporters of the Employee Free Choice Act say it is employers who do the intimidating. They are calling for allowing workers to form a union by getting a majority of workers to sign cards instead of holding a so-called secret ballot election.
“Looking at the reality of the situation, it’s clear that the intimidation is coming from the employers side, not from the union side,” said Linda Meric, executive director of Denver and Milwaukee-based 9to5, a grassroots group dedicated to the issues of working women. “And what EFCA does, really, is just give employees a voice in the workplace, the ability, if a majority of them decide that they want to be in a union, to actually allow them to be in a union.”
Meric added that every 23 minutes a worker in the United States is fired or discriminated against for trying to form a union, according to federal labor statistics.
Employers are currently allowed to decide whether workers must hold an election or organize via the so-called “card check” system. EFCA would give workers the option of forming a union by card check or secret ballot.
The legislation would also mandate that a government arbitrator intervene if employers and workers cannot reach a contract within 120 days.
But opponents believe the legislation would subject workers to “intimidation by union bosses” by taking away the element of ballot secrecy.
Tony Gagliardi, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said Wednesday outside the headquarters of the Hispanic Contractors of Colorado that any hope of negotiating contracts in good faith would end if Congress is to back the measure.
“If you think that labor is going to want to negotiate in good faith, not a chance — you believe in unicorns,” said Gagliardi. “What’s going to happen is they will stall and put off the process until the federal government sends in a federal arbitrator that knows absolutely nothing about the business that they’re going to negotiate an agreement on.”
“We are not going to subject our members to this union thuggery that this act’s going to bring about,” he said.

Support for EFCA
But Denver small business owner Estevan Trujillo says he has never felt intimidated by his 28 employees who are unionized. As the co-owner of Raymond’s Painting and Decorating, a 33-year-old family business, Trujillo supports EFCA because he believes it is right for America.
“The more that people are able to collectively bargain will help to bring up living wages, and hopefully instill some sort of health care … as well as pension plans or retirement,” he said. “Without employees having an option and a plan to negotiate for them in a better fashion, they’re just very difficult to come by.”
Trujillo said EFCA would actually help his small business by leveling the playing field. Because he believes in paying his workers a living wage, he and his partners have had to make sacrifices in order to pay them more. The result is that competing businesses with lower salary overhead are able to place more competitive bids on contracts.
If those businesses were paying similar wages as Raymond’s Painting and Decorating, they would not be able to undercut him by as much, he said.
Trujillo added that having unionized employees — members of International Union of Painters and Allied Trades Local 79 — has actually been a benefit to his small business.
“We’re able to talk to them about issues that affect us and our bidding practices and what not,” he said. “And they share that information with other members and it helps us to bring an understanding when we come to the negotiations table of, ‘Hey, times are really bad, is this the time to go for this?’ It helps us to all come to a better understanding of where everyone’s at.”

Would EFCA increase job losses?
With Labor Day approaching, however, many business owners and leaders are arguing that EFCA would lead to sustained job losses and an elimination of worker rights. The opposition is part of a national campaign by the Workforce Fairness Institute.
“For some businesses struggling through these difficult times, it could easily be the final nail in the coffin that forces them to close their doors,” said Gagliardi. “When that happens, we all lose.”

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

FACE THE STATE
Unions have challenged the language of a ballot initiative that would amend the Colorado Constitution to guarantee employees’ right to a secret ballot in unionization elections. Meanwhile, legislation is pending before Congress that would remove that requirement from federal law.
“The purpose for this amendment is to guarantee the fundamental right of an individual to vote by secret ballot,” said Patrick Davis, a Colorado Springs political consultant backing the measure.
The Employee Free Choice Act would repeal federal requirements for private voting and clear the way for a method called “card check.” Workers would still have a choice to opt for a secret ballot election, but unions are unlikely to back such a move. Since signature cards may be filled out anywhere and may take various forms, critics are concerned the process is more susceptible to fraud and intimidation.
Davis and former congressional candidate Jeff Crank founded the Colorado chapter of Save Our Secret Ballot; the group is organizing a campaign aimed at amending the state constitution to preserve employees’ right to a private vote. The legal theory is that states may provide greater worker protections than are established in federal law, so long as the requirements are not in direct conflict. The proposed constitutional language takes the secret-ballot option and returns it to a guarantee.
The 39-word proposal reads, “The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires or permits elections or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed.”
A state board has approved a title for the initiative, which is now being challenged by organized labor. Opening briefs are due to the Colorado Supreme Court today. Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin, who litigated elections issues for labor in 2008, is handling the challenge on behalf of Philip Hayes of the AFL-CIO. The union alleges the ballot language violates the singles subject rule, a constitutional requirement that amendments address only one topic so as not to confuse voters.
Should the title and language be cleared by the state Supreme Court, the campaign will then be allowed to circulate its petition and gather signatures.
“This is a short common sense language,” Davis said. “We don’t expect the court to give us much trouble.”
Some members of the business community are concerned about further backlash from unions should the initiative campaign move forward. Tony Gagliardi, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, said he’s been hearing the powerful business coalition Colorado Concern is worried that Save Our Secret Ballot could provoke another fight between business and labor as was the case in 2008.
During the last election cycle, Amendment 47, which would have granted workers the right to employment without a union contract, prompted labor interests to introduce four anti-business ballot initiatives. Back room negotiations to pull all the proposals ensued, with a deal emerging where Colorado Concern agreed to pay labor unions $3 million in exchange for their pulling their measures. Amendment 47 was ultimately defeated by voters.
Janice Sinden, executive director of Colorado Concern, says her group’s focus is currently on the bill in Congress, though they are keeping an eye on the initiative. “Our organization is committed to fighting EFCA effort at the federal level,” she said. “We just believe all energy needs to be focused on defeating that.”
If both EFCA and Save Our Secret Ballot were to become law, Davis says a lawsuit would likely follow with the courts deciding whether a state constitutional amendment is compatible with the federal statute. The ballot initiative does not address other provisions of EFCA, including mandatory federal arbitration in certain contract disputes.

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >