Marianne Goodland
Silver & Gold Record reporter

Outrageous. That's the reaction from a Colorado state senator regarding the phone calls and visits to employees' homes made by union organizers since Nov. 2, when Gov. Bill Ritter signed an executive order allowing employee partnerships.
Last week, human resource directors from many state agencies met with leaders from several unions to voice their concerns about union organizers' tactics, which some called over-aggressive. One union organizer, employed by Colorado WINS, was arrested in downtown Denver in November for allegedly trespassing on Regional Transportation District property after attempting to distribute leaflets in an adjacent private building where a state agency is located. In a more recent incident, a union organizer who visited a Department of Corrections (DOC) employee at home, found himself on the business end of a gun. (The DOC could not confirm the incident, but S&GR learned about the incident from two union leaders, both of whom volunteered the information.)

The response from union leaders at the Jan. 25 meeting was that if unions are denied access to state employees in the workplace, home visits and home phone calls may be their chief way to get petitions signed for employee partnerships.
"This is a very new experience for employees and for all of us," said Mark Schwane, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 76, part of Colorado WINS. "This is new to people who haven't had union exposure." Al Kogler, an organizer for the Communications Workers of America, told the HR directors that his union prefers to hold informational meetings in the workplace. However, the majority of employers won't allow that, he said. His organization, which is affiliated with the Colorado Public Employee Alliance (CPEA, formerly the Colorado Federation of Public Employees), has not conducted home visits but will probably do so. He noted that 30 percent of the employees contacted do not want to hear from the unions, and they can ask to not be contacted again. He said HR directors may be hearing from that vocal 30 percent. However, "it is a waste of our time" and resources to continue to contact people who don't want to hear from the unions, Kogler said. "This is a work in progress," Schwane added. "If we're alienating people on a regular basis, our mission has failed."
Jo Romero of CPEA said her organization has not done home visits, but that it is a common tactic in union recruiting. It's just new in Colorado, she added.
Miller Hudson of the Colorado Association of Public Employees, one of the three unions involved in Colorado WINS, said that if organizers were "barging" into offices, his organization would put a stop to it. He explained that Colorado WINS has hired a lot of new people recently to make contacts and that the number of complaints has dropped. "If someone is abusing their access, we want to know about it. It makes us look bad," Hudson said.
Heather Perdue, DOC human resources manager, told S&GR that her employees view the home visits as an invasion of privacy. Other HR directors said some employees have complained about multiple phone calls at home in the evenings. Hudson replied that there are at least three organizations trying to recruit and it's possible that employees are getting calls from three organizations in one night.
Hudson also addressed the issue of what messages are being communicated to state employees. He said his organization is talking about negotiating for better wages and benefits in recruiting messages, in spite of the Ritter administration's statements that those issues are non-negotiable due to existing statutory and budget limitations. Two recent fliers from Colorado WINS address health insurance costs, and say that employees who join Colorado WINS will "have the strength and experience needed to win better health care, wages and more reliable public services." Hudson said "those are the bread and butter issues" that the partnerships should be about. "We have a better chance of getting [better benefits] if we speak with one voice to the Joint Budget Committee," he told the HR directors.
Some lawmakers have received phone calls from state employees who are unhappy about the tactics. Rep. Buffie McFadyen (D-Pueblo West) said she has had calls from DOC employees in Pueblo and Cañon City about the home visits, and that she was troubled by reports that organizers not only had employees' home phone numbers and addresses, but also knew their ranks. McFadyen said correctional officers try to keep that information private, for safety reasons. She said the issue has put her in an awkward position: As a union supporter, she believes in representation, especially for DOC employees who have filed lawsuits over safety issues. "I don't like the tactics," she told S&GR. "But DOC [employees] desperately need representation."
Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R-Broomfield) said he also had heard stories, including ones from friends who are state employees and say they are being harassed. He said he suspects that a master list of state employees' home phone numbers and addresses may have been illegally provided to the unions, and that he is looking into the matter. The union tactics are "outrageous," Mitchell said, "but not surprising." He said the Ritter executive order is more about "throwing open the door to coercive recruiting tactics, not about creating a collegial partnership with state employees." Mitchell is a sponsor of SB 86, which would overturn the Ritter order. It is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on Feb. 6.
Hudson and Kogler told the human resource managers that those lists were purchased from information brokers who are "tracking down" state employees.
There is some progress being made by at least one union to represent state employees. In mid-December, the Association of Colorado State Patrol Professionals filed a petition with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to hold an election to certify them to represent state troopers in an employee partnership. The ACSPP had garnered petition signatures from 70 percent of that occupational group; a date for the election has not yet been announced.