DENVER (September 20, 2010) – Senator Michael Bennet’s continuing assertions that he won’t take a position on the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act (EFCA) because the bill has not seen movement in the U.S. Senate “fails the straight-face test” because in debates and other public forums – as recently as this weekend – he has taken definitive positions on numerous other issues regardless of their legislative status, the Coalition for Colorado Jobs (CCJ) charged today.
“In his most recent debate, Senator Bennet took strong and clear positions on Social Security and other hot-button issues on the minds of voters – issues that are not coming before the Senate anytime soon,” said Sandra Hagen Solin, state director of the Coalition for Colorado Jobs (CCJ). “He has no trouble passionately stating positions on numerous hypothetical topics, yet after 18 months as our U.S. Senator he refuses to disclose his position on the specific EFCA legislation that is before Congress. It’s time for Bennet to stand up and say clearly whether he stands with small businesses in Colorado and will oppose this job-killing legislation or whether he sides with national labor bosses in their attempt to secure another bailout at the expense of his constituents.”
CCJ has sent surveys to every Federal candidate receiving 14 signed surveys back to date and it looks forward to Bennet’s response.
The Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act would tip the balance in efforts to organize Colorado workplaces unfairly in the direction of union bosses, allowing for card check signature campaigns that would force workers to state their views about unionization in public, opening them up to pressure and coercion from organizers in the workplace. The bill would benefit unions by creating a binding arbitration process run by government bureaucrats that would determine the terms of a contract without approval from employees or employers. It would also increase fines on small businesses for violating federal law - without increasing fines on unions for the same violations. The additional liabilities and burdens placed on small businesses would force many to close their doors or move overseas.
