HomeMy WebLinkAbout20222315.tiffRESOLUTION
RE: SUBMITTING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE WELD COUNTY HOME RULE
CHARTER TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS AT THE GENERAL ELECTION ON
NOVEMBER 8, 2022
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, Article XVII, Section 17-1(1)(b), of the Weld County Home Rule Charter
provides for the submittal to the qualified electors proposed Weld County Home Rule Charter
("Charter") amendments by Resolution of the Board, and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2022, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed S.B. 22-230
("SB 230"), thereby granting employees in Colorado counties, including home rule counties, the
right to self -organize; the right to form, join, or assist an employee organization; and the right to
engage in collective bargaining with their respective boards of county commissioners, and
WHEREAS, such rights granted to county employees shall become effective July 1, 2023,
and
WHEREAS, Section 2 of SB 230 includes the following C.R.S. §8-3.3-105(2):
8-3.3-105. Counties - rights. (2) NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE 3.3 OR IN A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT MAY RESTRICT, DUPLICATE, OR
USURP ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF ANY COUNTY BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION, A
HOME RULE COUNTY CHARTER, OR ANY OTHER STATE LAW.
WHEREAS, a county home rule charter grants responsibility and/or authority to its
board of county commissioners to create and enforce a personnel system free of the
requirement to engage in collective bargaining with county employees, and
WHEREAS, if Weld County is required to engage in collective bargaining with Weld
County employees, the estimated additional annual cost to the County would be $42,943,426.00
to $60,120,796.00, as shown in a document entitled, "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BILL'S
FISCAL IMPACT TO WELD COUNTY," written by Donald Warden, Weld County Director of
Finance and Administration, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and
WHEREAS, Subsection 3-8(4)(f) of the Weld County Home Rule Charter ("the Charter")
establishes the following duty of the Board of County Commissioners:
Section 3-8. Powers and Duties.
(4) Without limiting the generality of the foregoing or diminishing the total
authority and responsibility of the Board as herein provided, the powers
and duties of the Board shall include duties and powers to:
(f) Develop, or cause to be developed, a system of employment policies, rules,
job classification and compensation plans in accordance with generally
4848179 Pages : 1 of 11 G c: Pio(AL%-), CAU3B), FU.Pigit/D‘4,
08/12/2022 01:23 PM R Fee:$0.00 $0.00 HR(33/MR), c-rL3(80 2022-2315
Carly f ppes, Clerk and Recorder, Weld County , co iffv$./22 BO0013
lIII !4U 1R' u ��14�h'G� :ii' 'Gh+ �X' i ti�I 111 II
SUBMIT PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO QUALIFIED ELECTORS AT GENERAL
ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022
PAGE 2
accepted principles and promulgate such policies, rules and plans, under
the authority of, and in compliance with, the provisions of pertinent
Colorado and Federal statutes and this Charter, and
WHEREAS, Charter Subsections 4-2(B)(1) and (2), task the Weld County Department of
Human Resources with assisting the Board to develop the system of employment policies, rules,
job classification and compensation plans, as follows:
Section 4-2. Department of Finance and Administration.
(B) The Division of Human Resources shall:
(1) Assist the Board in the preparation of a system of employment
policies, rules, job classification and compensation plans in
accordance with generally accepted Personnel principles.
(2) Such system shall include at least the following:
(a) Employment and promotion in the County government shall
be made upon the basis of quality, education, training, and
experience necessary to carry out the duties and
responsibilities of the work to be performed.
(b) Classification and compensation according to duties and
responsibilities pursuant to adoption of a classification and
pay plan which shall from time to time be reviewed and
amended by the Board as necessary.
(c) Standards of employment based on conduct and
performance of work and the procedures for creating and
abolishing positions.
(d) Dismissal, disciplinary and employee grievance procedures.
(e) An appointing or employing authority may not employ or
request the employment of any person who is related to him
as spouse, parent, child, brother, sister or in-law.
(f)
(g)
No employee shall, during working hours, engage in any
political activity.
The official hours of all Weld County Departments shall be
as established by the Board in the Personnel Policies rules
and regulations.
(h) The Personnel system shall comply with the provisions of
pertinent Colorado and Federal statutes.
4848179 Pages: 2 of 11
08/12/2022 01:23 PM R Fee:$0.00
Carly Koppes, Clerk and Recorder, Weld County , CO
2022-2315
BC0013
II
SUBMIT PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO QUALIFIED ELECTORS AT GENERAL
ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022
PAGE 3
Thus, nothing in Charter Subsection 4-2(B)(2) either authorizes or creates a
responsibility for the Board to include in the system of employment policies, rules,
job classification and compensation plans a requirement of collective bargaining
between the Board and County employees, and
WHEREAS, in March 1990, by an 82% to 18% margin, Weld County voters rejected a
proposed amendment of Charter Section 4-2 that would have required collective bargaining
between the Board and the Communication Workers of America on behalf of all County
employees, and
WHEREAS, because of the potential enormous cost to Weld County taxpayers if State
law requires the Board to engage in collective bargaining with Weld County employees, and to
clearly state that the Board is not authorized to create, and has no responsibility to include, a
requirement of collective bargaining between the Board and County employees in the County's in
the system of employment policies, rules, job classification and compensation plans, the Board
wishes to amend the Charter to include a new Subsection 4-2(B)(2)(i), to read as follows:
Section 4-2. Department of Finance and Administration.
(B) The Division of Human Resources shall:
(2) Such system shall include at least the following:
(i)
The Personnel Policies, rules, regulations, job classification
and compensation plans shall govern the employment
relationship between the County and County employees. It
is against public policy for the County to collectively bargain
with County employees. The Board of County
Commissioners shall not enter into any collective bargaining
agreement with County employees. The County is under no
obligation to recognize or negotiate with, for the purpose of
collective bargaining, any collective bargaining unit of
County employees, their exclusive representative(s), or any
employee organization(s) chosen to represent them.
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the Greeley Tribune on July 29, 2022, the Board
held a public hearing on August 10, 2022, for the purpose of considering this Resolution and to
give the public an opportunity to speak on the subject of referring such amendment to the
November 8, 2022, General Election ballot for Weld County, and
WHEREAS, upon consideration, the Board now desires to refer Weld County Ballot
Question 1A, set forth in the attached Exhibit "B," to the qualified electors of Weld County at the
November 8, 2022, General Election.
4848179 Pages: 3 of 11
08/12/2022 01:23 PM R Fee:$0.00
Carly Koppel, Clerk and Recorder, Weld County , CO
W10,101
2022-2315
BC0013
SUBMIT PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO QUALIFIED ELECTORS AT GENERAL
ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022
PAGE 4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the proposed amendment to the Weld County Home Rule Charter, which
is set forth above, be referred to the ballot for the November 8, 2022, General Election, and that
the REFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1A regarding such amendment be presented in the form
shown in the attached Exhibit "B."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Clerk to the Board is directed publish
notice of the General Election, along with the full text of the REFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1A,
within 30 days of this Resolution in the legal newspaper for Weld County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that each elector voting at the General
Election and desirous of voting for or against said proposed amendment shall cast his or her ballot
as provided by law, either "Yes" or "No" on REFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1A as shown in
Exhibit "B."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the proposition shown as REFERRED
BALLOT QUESTION 1A in Exhibit "B" shall be deemed "passed" and effective on November 8,
2022, upon the affirmative vote of more than fifty percent (50%) of the qualified electors of Weld
County who vote on such proposition at the General Election on November 8, 2022.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 10th day of August, A.D., 2022.
BOA F D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WE CO Y, COLORADO
ATTEST: d.dt,LA)
G. JC�Cto•�
Slott K. James, Chair
Weld County Clerk to he Board
County Attorney
Date of signature: '/IO/22
4848179 Pages: 4 of 11
08/12/2022 01:23 PM R Fee:$0.00
Carly Koppea, clerk and Reoorder, Weld County , cc
VIII 1��1��4l.h�ICt��l'l�I��tl�+�II#�IhJlrti�Yk�h 1I III
2022-2315
BC0013
EXHIBIT "A"
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BILL'S FISCAL IMPACT TO WELD COUNTY
The fiscal impact of the proposed collective bargaining bill on Weld County has been calculated
based upon findings of third party published studies. The associated costs of unionization for an
organization from the studies have been extrapolated by applying the costs or percentage of costs
to Weld County's budget, costs of salary and benefits, and staffing numbers.
The Weld County financial and demographic data used is as follows:
• Full time equivalent employees (FTE) 1,823
• Total budget $379,739,671.00
• Total salary and wages $126,910,189.00
• Total benefit costs $44,863,515.00
• Total salary and benefits $171,773,704.00
A summary of the costs is provided below with the detailed findings supporting the costs in the
narrative below:
Unionization campaign costs to an organization can cost an organization $400,000.00
to $2,000,000.00. To be conservative the estimated cost to Weld County could be
$400,000.00.
Research indicates that the cost of running a unionized operation is 25% to 35%
greater than for a non -unionized one. Using this generalized estimated added cost for
Weld County it would add $42,943,426.00 to $60,120,796.00, if just salary and benefits
were considered.
If workers covered by a union contract in California earn an average of 12.9 percent
more than non-union workers with similar demographic characteristics and working in
similar industries, it could result in added salary costs of $16,371,414.00 and added
benefit costs of $5,787,393.00 for a total of $22,158,807.00 annually to Weld County.
Total additional annual operating expenses for an organization with a union presence
range from $900,000.00 (for a company with 100 employees) to more than $4,000,000.00
(for a company with as many as 2,000 employees.) The average cost for an employer
Weld County's size would be $2,000.00 per employee times 1,823 employees or
$3,646,000.00.
Loss of productivity/output of union versus non-union employers equals 2.4%. A 2.4%
loss in productivity for a workforce with $171,773,704.00 in salary and benefits alone
equals $4,122,569.00 annually in costs for the taxpayers of Weld County or a decrease in
equivalent services.
Cost of union dues to county employees annually run between 1.5 to 4.0 percent of
earnings. The range would be $1,903,653.00 to $5,076,407.00. With half of the union dues
going to the union's international organization it would mean the local Weld County
employees would send roughly $950,000.00 to $2,500,000.00 of their earnings out of state
to the union's international headquarters each year.
Intangible costs: Besides the hard cost above there are numerous intangible costs to the
organization, which will impact services to the citizens of Weld County.
4848179 Pages: 5 of 11
08/12/2022 01:23 PM R Fee:$0.00
Carly Koppel, Clerk and Recorder, Weld County , CO
VIII��k�l I�'rlf. 1 Pill.9 III II
1
2022-2315
BC0013
CONCLUSION:
If the proposed collective bargaining bill becomes law, Weld County could expect a one-time
expense of approximately $400,000.00 to deal with the unionization campaign. Ongoing annual
costs could range from a high of $42,943,426.00 to $60,120,796.00, if the generalized 25%-35%
added cost from unionization is used. If more itemized costs from above are used, the ongoing
annual costs are approximately $30 million ($29,927,376.00), plus, the intangible costs cited
below.
As a rule of thumb, Weld County is typically 5% of the total number for Colorado counites when
talking about population, allocation of costs, etc. Using the 5% rule of thumb for Weld County's
costs for collective bargaining it could mean it could cost a total of over $500 million to $600 million
annually for all counties in Colorado. This bill could very likely become the costliest unfunded
mandated bill to counties in the history of Colorado.
The bottom line is the bill will adversely impact the citizens and taxpayers of Weld County paying
more for county services or having to experience a reduction in county services. While Weld
County employees would send roughly $950,000.00 to $2,500,000.00 of their earnings out of
state to the union's international headquarters each year.
Unionization campaign costs to an organization:
In a study done by Projections, Inc., entitled The Cost of Unionization Labor, consultant Jim Gray
found that organizations facing union organizing can expect to spend from $400,000.00 to well
over $2 million on a single unionization campaign. Gray's analysis includes vital investments like
legal counsel to keep the organization from running contrary to the law, costs like travel expenses,
and spending time and resources to educate employees on sides of the unionization question.
Add to that the lost productivity, the stress, and impact on citizens and customers served by the
organization, the total cost is hard to quantify but can add up to thousands and even millions of
dollars depending on the size of the organization.
https://proiectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/
Research indicates that the cost of running a unionized operation is 25% to 35% greater
than for a non -unionized one:
This figure does not reflect any negotiated changes in unionized employee wages or benefits. As
an illustration, consider what was found at a recent Adams, Nash, Haskell & Sheridan national
seminar when they reviewed the administrative budgets of a major manufacturing company. This
well-known company operates 30 manufacturing plants; half are union free and half are unionized
all or in part. The administrative budgets of the unionized plants were 30% higher due to:
• Larger human resources staffs to deal with grievances, job descriptions, rate negotiations,
time, and motion measurements, and "overcompliance" with government regulations.
("Bird dogs" overseeing workplace statute compliance are less prevalent in union -free
facilities.)
Increased involvement with regulatory agencies, especially those associated with hours
and wages, OSHA and the EEOC.
Expensive indirect costs in the form of outside services, such as the frequent need for a
specialized labor attorney to deal with contract negotiations, handle grievances and
arbitrations, and review compliance with a collective bargaining agreement.
4848179 Pages: 6 of 11
08/12/2022 01:23 PM R Fee:$0.00
Carly Koppel, Clerk and Recorder, Wald County , Co
lIII FAR "III
2
2022-2315
BC0013
Other costs of unions may include:
Added administrative staff for calculating, deducting, and documenting employee
union dues.
Payment for employees who are called in to cover for other employees in steward or
representative positions when they are attending to union business.
Contracting with consultants to develop an action plan for a possible work stoppage
or strike.
Wages for short-term replacements if a strike occurs, which can be significantly higher
than striking employees' wages, especially if replacements are required for
highly -trained positions.
• Employees also incur costs when a union wins a NLRB election.
• The average annual cost of union dues is $400.00, or about two hours of pay per
month.
There is a disinclination of unions toward the contingent worker. Unions want full-time
dues payers.
The employee puts it all on the line during a labor dispute. It is the union employee
who is not receiving a paycheck or benefits during a strike.
https://an h. com/the-cost-of-
unions/#:—:text=Research%20indicates%20that%20the%20cost,unionized%20emplovee%20wa
qes%20or%20benefits.
Workers covered by a union contract in California earn an average of 12.9 percent more
than non-union workers:
A study done by the UC Berkley Labor Center in 2018 (Union Effect in California #1 Wages,
Benefits, and Use of Public Safety Net Programs) found that workers covered by a union contract
in California earn an average of 12.9 percent more than non-union workers with similar
demographic characteristics and working in similar industries.
https://laborcenter. berkelev.edu/pdf/2018/Union-Effect-in-California-1. pdf
Total additional annual operating expenses for an organization:
Jim Gray, cited above, estimates that the total additional annual operating expenses for an
organization with a union presence range from $900,000.00 (for a company with 100 employees)
to more than $4,000,000.00 (for a company with as many as 2,000 employees.) These estimates
do not include wages and benefits, but do include items such as:
• additional training on managing in a union environment
• additional Human Resources training and administrative support
• ongoing legal fees
• cost of arbitrations
• handling of grievances
• time spent in negotiations with each contract renewal
• lost productivity due to union work rules
• strike contingency planning to reassure customer
• security in the event of unrest
https://proiectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/
4848179 Pages: 7 of 11
08/12/2022 01:23 PM R F..:$0.00
Carly Koppel, Clerk and Recorder, Weld County , CO
VIII I�.rl�'�L�y�E�9'k;N+�'I'I hFi�rtlC�4rIL�l��h��� 1111
3
2022-2315
BC0013
Loss of productivity/output:
Extending the research out to 10 years post -unionization, the Employment Policy Foundation
(EPF) stated that a unionized company's output per employee is 2.4 percent less than a union -free
competitor if that unionized company experiences just a .25 percent reduction in productivity. The
EPF concluded that, unless the unionized company could sell their product at a higher price or
other cost savings could be attained, the unionized company is likely to see 14 percent less in
profits per labor hour than their non-union competitor.
In his book, "Union Proof — Creating Your Successful Union Free Strategy," author Peter J.
Bergeron noted that the cost of operating a unionized organization is estimated to be 25 to 35
percent higher than a union -free organization. Bergeron goes on to point out that unionized
organizations lead to more extensive human resources staff, increased legal counsel, increased
involvement with regulatory agencies, loss of flexibility, and increased labor costs due to rules on
overtime, grievances, and arbitration processing and many other requirements.
A 2021 study released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) supports these claims.
Researchers found that, as of March 2021, union -free employees were paid an average of $25.43
per hour, while union employers in the same sector were obligated to $30.24 per hour.
Additionally, unionized workers received $20.49 per hour in benefits, whereas union -
free employers were able to keep benefits costs to $10.03 per hour per covered employee. Union
dues are not accounted for in this study, but does any of that matter if the company — or entire
industry — collapses under the strain? The differences in the cost of unionization to a company
are significant when annualized.
https://proiectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/
Cost of union dues to county employees:
Unions like to say, "it doesn't cost to belong to a union - it pays". Nationally the average union
dues percentage in 2021 ranges from 1.5 to 4.0 percent of gross wages, depending on the union
local and any assessment the local union charges. Unions talk about the cost and benefit of union
membership in the same breath. The dues are said to benefit employees, but up to half of the
dues go the union international organization.
What is the cost of unionization? For union members, it's typically around two -and -a -half hours of
pay each month. But, for a company, the cost of unionization is more in line with a 30% increase
in operating expenses. And the cost of a union to a community — in lost jobs, loss of
competitiveness and productivity, strikes, and consumer confidence — can be staggering.
How are union dues calculated? The amount of union dues employees pay varies because each
union sets the amount. Some unions charge a percent of pay, while others have a flat amount.
The Teamsters Union dues rate is 2.5 times the hourly wage for one hour, plus two dollars for the
strike fund if you make $11 per hour or more. If making less, it's 2.0 times, plus the strike fund.
The UAW has a more complicated setup because, tellingly, they are trying to build an $850 million
(yes, almost a billion dollars!) strike and defense fund. Until that goal is reached, UAW members
are paying dues of 2.5 hours of straight time pay. After that amount is reached, dues are two
hours of straight time pay.
4848179 Pages: 8 of 11
08/12/2022 01:23 PM R Fee:$0.00
Carly Kopp., Clerk and R.00rdar, Weld County , CO
VIII EirdRAII JAI TALIAirhL hNIN r'�� k#1 �h 1I II
4
2022-2315
BC0013
SEIU Local 2015 for California Long Term Caregivers has a regular member dues rate of
three (3) percent of gross wages with a minimum of $15.50 and a maximum of $45 and includes
the strike fund. So, the average union dues percentage in 2021 ranges from 1.5-4.0 percent of
gross wages, depending on the union local and any assessments the local union charges.
https://proiectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-
2/#:—:text=Over%20the%20course%20of%20decades,on%20a%20single%20unionization%20c
ampaiqn.
Intangible Cost:
In addition to obvious increased costs, there are those that affect morale, creativity, and resiliency.
Ultimately, an organization's profit margin can decline. Productivity appears to be lower in
unionized environments, possibly due to:
Employee anger or frustration when the collective bargaining process for an initial contract
lasts more than a year or does not result in the changes promised by a union during the
organizing campaign. (About 75% of initial contracts are still being negotiated a year after
the NLRB representation election, according to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service [1996], and 50% of initial contract negotiations never achieve an executed
agreement.)
Union strategies and rules that impair the employee -employer relationship by playing on
employee emotion and interfering with direct employee -supervisor communication, which
cast the employer in the role of "enemy" and result in employee mistrust of all
management.
Diminished employee participation in workplace decision making via power sharing
programs when such programs had been in place prior to an election.
Employees having to cope with the divisiveness, name-calling and, sometimes, terrorizing
behavior of union coworkers when they disagree in word or deed.
Less flexibility -both internally and externally -to move quickly or creatively in response to
change due to union rules and related contract language that results in rigid operating
guidelines.
Increased difficulty recruiting and retaining the most creative and effective employees.
Union -imposed strictures often limit rewarding an employee based on performance or
productivity and union grievance procedures tend to protect low -performing and negative
employees.
Decreased client or vendor satisfaction may occur if unionization affects service or product
cost or quality.
Another common objection to collective bargaining with public -employee unions was that
it would mean taking some of the decision -making authority over government functions
away from the people's elected representatives and transferring it to union officials, with
whom the public had vested no such authority. In this view, democracy would be
compromised when elected officials began sharing with union leaders the power to
determine government employees' wages, benefits, and working conditions. Furthermore,
collectively bargained work rules could alter what public servants did day to day in ways
not condoned by either elected officials or the voting public.
https://anh.com/the-cost-of-unions/
4848179 Pages: 9 of 11
08/12/2022 01:23 PM R Fee:$0.00 5
Carly Koppel', Clark and Recorder, Wald County , Co
VIII II��IL'NIL41G i'� .11E MAMMA 11111
2022-2315
BC0013
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BILL'S FISCAL IMPACT
COUNTY OF WELD
Full -Time Equivalents
Total County Budget
Total Salary and Wages
Total Benefit Costs
Total Salary and Benefits
Unionization Added Costs 25% to
35%
Union Earnings 12.9% Higher
Added Annual Operating Costs
Loss of Productivity/Output
Cost of Union Dues
1.5% of earnings
4.0% of earnings
1823
$ 379,739,671.00
$ 126, 910,189.00
$ 44,863,515.00
$ 171,773,704.00
25% $ 42,943,426.00
35% $ 60,120,796.00
4848179 Pages: 10 of 11 6
08/12/2022 01:23 PM R Fee:$0.00
Carly Koppel, Clerk and Reoorder, Wald County , CO
1111 IC��i ��11�11iIK� 11111
$ 22,158,808.00
$ 3,646,000.00
$ 4,122,569.00
$ 1, 903, 653.00
$ 5,076,408.00
2022-2315
BC0013
EXHIBIT "B"
BALLOT QUESTION REFERRED TO NOVEMBER 8, 2022, ELECTION BY
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY:
WELD COUNTY
REFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1A
Shall Section 4-2(B)(2)(i) be added to the Weld County Home Rule Charter to prohibit collective
bargaining between Weld County and its employees, thus reading as follows?
Section 4-2. Department of Finance and Administration.
(B) The Division of Human Resources shall:
(2) Such system shall include at least the following:
(i) The Personnel Policies, rules, regulations, job classification and compensation plans
shall govern the employment relationship between the County and County employees.
It is against public policy for the County to collectively bargain with County employees.
The Board of County Commissioners shall not enter into any collective bargaining
agreement with County employees. The County is under no obligation to recognize or
negotiate with, for the purpose of collective bargaining, any collective bargaining
unit(s) of County employees, their exclusive representative(s), or any employee
organization(s) chosen to represent them.
Yes No
4848179 Pages: 11 of 11
08/12/2022 01:23 PM R Fee:$0.00
Carly Koopea, Clerk and Recorder, Weld County , CO
I rdrime viNc 11R iviIitiii ki is 7
2022-2315
BC0013
8/9/22, 11:05 AM
The Cost of Unionization I Projections, Inc.
peeve
I
R
I
Powered by \/v/
Allow IRI to deliver you the latest
developments!
Never miss an update; opt out any time.
Don't Allow Allow
THE COST OF UNIONIZATION
What is tie cost of unionization? For union mem oers, its typically around two-anc -a-half r
each month. But, for a company, the cost of unionization is more in line with a 30% increasE
ooeratinc expenses. And the cost of a union to a community - in Lostjogs, loss of competit
anc
productivity, strikes. and consumer confidence
In this post -pandemic ti
mne, it's easy to get ca
unionization, With a new pro -union administra
excitement at the oolitica su
a
can be staggering.
Hey there! I'd love to send you our
latest report on maintaining direct
relationships with employees...
F tl
e�,.
a .
port they're currently receiving, unions are dearly
https://projectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/ 2022-2315 2/13
8/9/22, 11:05 AM The Cost of Unionization I Projections, Inc.
upswing. Despit
unionization.
I
R
I
Allow IRI to deliver you the latest
developments!
Never miss an update; opt out any time.
the facts about the
The Bureau of L Powered by VAC Don't Allow Allow l and salary workers \
y
members of unions in 2020 was 10.8 percent (private and pubflc sectors combined), which
percent increase from 2019. The hope is that this makes people believe the trend in the de
union membership was reversing. However, the relative increase in union membership was
due to a decline of 9.6 million fewer employees because of the pandemic. This made the
membership rate higher. The fact is, overall union membership was down by 321,000 merr
comparing 2020 to 2019. There are many reasons for the continued decline in union memt
the financial cost to employees and employers is one of them.
What impact do unions have on employers anc employees? Most research focuses on uni
and benefits, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that union workers continue tc
than non-union workers. But the cost of unionization includes far more than wages, and the
statistics are only a small fraction of the complete picture of the cost of unionization. As un
workforce Grows, understanding the real and full cost of Labor unions on business, employ
families, and the community is vital for a complete picture of the cost of unionization.
The Cost of A Union Organizing Drive
Laoor consultant Jim Gray specializes in helping business leaders with human resources a
transitioning issues. Over the course of decades in working with companies facing union of
drives, Gray found that companies could expect to spend anywhere from $400,000 to wel
2,000,000 on a single unionization campaign. Gray's analysis includes vital investments lit
counsel to keep the company from running contrary to the law, costs like travel expenses,
spending time and resources to educate employees on both sides of the unionization qua
to that the Lost productivity, the stress, and a loss of consumer and vendor confidence, anc
total cost that is often hard to quantify but can add up to thousands - even millions. And 01
the larger the company, the more a single unionization campaign costs.
Today, we're in the path of a perfect storm h ' _ ' �4- �r 2 ei "1 if a union is tit
path to a brighter future. The COVI D-1 and( Hey there! I'd love to send you our Snare- c 1 the
g 9p
latest report on maintaining direct
companies have had to make to stay afloat hi relationships with employees...
S.
Privacy - Terms
https://projectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/ 3/13
8/9/22, 11:05 AM
The Cost of Unionization I Projections, Inc.
permanently. Is$
uncertainty, anc
I
R
I
Powered by Vvs/
Allow IRI to deliver you the latest
developments!
Never miss an update; opt out any time.
Don't Allow [ Allow
ng the pandemic crE
o unions.
•
prod
UNIONIZATION
EXPLAIN
INSTANT STREAMING 1
Add to that Corporate Social Responsibility, wealth inequality, the push to pass the PRO Ac
technology that supportec remote work actually making it easier for unions to organize en
from traditional and non-traditional bargaining units, and the cost of unionization becomes
relevant every day.
The Amazon union vote in Bessemer. Alabama, got a lot of national attention. Teacher strik
protests regarding returning to face-to-face classrooms, work stoppages, and walkouts ov
perceived lac< of corporate responsi3ility for worker safety and a seeming Lack of concern
contingent or cig workforce have each peen at the center of a rallying cry by unions. ThesE
have provided a platform for greater visibility for unions.
Unions have long stated that "it doesn't cost to belong to a union - it pays! ! But the cost of
be enormous. During the 2020 pandemic, after two years of increases in the number of we
stoppages, we saw fewer major work stoppages in 2020. Experts are predicting an increase
stoppages in the second half of 2021 as people return to work.
Unions' strategy for seeking out new members is to target em oloyees at crowing, profitabl
companies. Fewer companies fit that Profile in 2020 and early 2021, having had to make cu
competitive. But sucden change can cause fear in ornnLr ,00c ni it thorn squarely in the
unions. When unions cannot seem to make h Hey there! I'd love to send you our
latest report on maintaining direct
working to maintain profitability by engaging
relationships with employees...
campaign is a strategic and concentrated effc.
\. V. V % ' Vn 1 I I `ice V %...' % "oaf 1 1 I p.m" ',JAI II I. No/
?S, thP"d'
)ai
1 \�
Doi,
Privacy - Terms
https://projectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/
4/13
8/9/22, 11:05 AM The Cost of Unionization I Projections, Inc.
the union's reprE
the company b(
How Muc
for Employees
I
R
I
Allow IRI to deliver you the latest
developments!
Never miss an update; opt out any time.
Powered by Vol
Don't Allow
Allow
t. _
len the cost of unior
t of Unioniza
Unions still like to organize on a platform of "The Benefits Of Being A Union Worker" that
workers receive higher wages and more benefits than non-union workers. But the real que
why should employers pay more per hour to cover the cost of union dues? The Olice Of L
Management analyzed union financial data for the period 2000-2019. In 2019, Sin billion w
collected in dues, and only S3.75 billion went to representational activity. The average unio
$2.5 million in dues in 2019, and about 36 percent went to representational activity And wit
members, unions must increase the dues for existing members. meaning workers see an it
the cost of unionization as well.
How are union dues calculated? The amount of union dues employees pay varies becausE
union sets the amount Some unions charge a percent of pay, white others have a flat amot
Teamsters Union dues rate is 2.5 times the hourly wage for one hour plus two dollars for tie'
fund if you make Sit per hour or more. If making less, its 2.0 times plus the strike fund.
The UAW has a more complicated setup because, tellingly, they are trying to build an SE35(
(yes, almost a billion dollars!) strike and defense fund. Until that goal is reached, UAW men
paying dues of 2.5 hours of straight time pay. After that amount is reached, dues are two he
straight time pay.
SEIU Local 2015 for California Long Term Caregivers has a regular member dues rate of 3 r
gross wages with a minimum of $15.5o and a maximum of $45 and includes the strike func
average union dues percentage in 2021 ranges from 1.5-4.o percent of gross wages, deper
union local and any assessments the local union charges.
Hey there! I'd love to send you our
latest report on maintaining direct
relationships with employees...
1
Privacy - Terms
https://projectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/
5/13
8/9/22, 11:05 AM
The Cost of Unionization I Projections, Inc.
I
R
I
Allow IRI to deliver you the latest
developments!
Never miss an update; opt out any time.
Powered by \/W;.
Don't Allow
Allow
What Do Union Dues Pay For?
Unions talk about the cost and oenefits of union membership in the same breath. The duet
benefit employees, out uo to half of the cues (called per capita) go to the International. In E
for their dues money, union memoers get:
• Representation in collective bargaining
• Representation during labor grievances
• Established rules on wages and benefits
• Established rules on issues like promotions and raises
• Lobbying at the national level for laws that benefit organized labor
• Established rules on job security, seniority, and tenure
• Established rules on hours, scheduling
what's important for employers to communicnfc is ±o of ti• oco con/ices. Employe
their 1Loxi of lity to have Personal needs met, sc Hey there! I'd love to send you our
latest report on maintaining direct
em oloyees Lose their voice and aoility to spec
relationships with employees...
worker can be forced to stri Ke - often when t► .
J
stress L'Honi2
b
ie rsc.
Privacy - Terms
https://projectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/ 6/13
8/9/22, 11:05 AM The Cost of Unionization I Projections, Inc.
develop betweE
devastate any o
The Cost
I
R
I
Allow IRI to deliver you the latest
developments!
Never miss an update; opt out any time.
Powered by Vv✓
Don't Allow
Allow
's. them" mentality. v
Why do so many orcanizations, such as Amazon, Wal-Mart, FecEx, Citigroup, Associated E
Contractors, even the US Chamber of Commerce, take such a strong stance against unioni
his landmark text, "Unions Are Not Inevitable!" author Lloyd M. Field explained, referencing
studies conducted in the five years following unionization. Field found that newly organize
company's operating costs increased by more than 25 percent of their gross payroll and bE
costs. In his book, Field provides an example of a company with a total payroll of Si8 millic
whom unionization would then result in $4.5 million in additional annual operating costs.
Some years aco, researchers John Dinardo and David S Lee conducted a study on "Econor
Of New Unionization On Private Sector Employers," in which they estimated the impact of t.
on business survival, employment, output, productivity, and wages. They concluded that it
wages and benefits have an insignificant impact on the market value of an organization. In
since we have had reason to question the truth of this conclusion. Why did unionization pli
significant rote in the automobile industry crisis? How did unions figure into the Hostess cri
off over 18,000 workers? It's clear that the cost of unionization on a company can be devas.
ability to survive in di cult. times.
Hey there! I'd love to send you our
latest report on maintaining direct
relationships with employees...
Privacy - Terms
https://projectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/ 7/13
8/9/22, 11:05 AM The Cost of Unionization I Projections, Inc.
Do union:
remain a
The additional d
unions because
I
R
I
Powered by \ASAP
Allow IRI to deliver you the latest
developments!
Never miss an update; opt out any time.
Don't Allow r Allow
LI IC 1.1I Ilk./I IJ WCI C II II LCILII IS L.VJLJ I,_J)/ .l.JJ lJlJ.L.JkJLJ. I I I
y of a comp.
ew York, sued const
10Wouit said the compan'
forced to pay up to s7o an hour for someone to pick up coffee. The union's own financial st
were being oassed along to employers. Unnecessary high costs like this were a product of
union work rules requiring more workers than necessary and New York's prevailing wage l�
While this is just one example, New York's construction unions are not the only unions that
problem because their retirement funds are in crisis. Unions need new members and your
workers to support retiring workers. In this case, in a completely legal scheme, New York's
construction unions were setting wage rates based not on costs or market rates but on the
need to fill their coffers.
Gray estimates that the total additional annual operating expenses for an organization with
presence range from Sgoo,000 (for a company with 100 employees) to more than S4,000,(
company with as many as 2000 employees.) These estimates do not include wages and b
do include items such as:
• additional training on managing in a union environment
• additional Human Resources training and administrative support
• ongoing legal fees
• cost of arbitrations
• handling of grievances
• time spent in negotiations with each contract rcneWal
• lost productivity due to union work rules
• strike contingency planning to reassure c:►astomPrs
Hey there! I'd love to send you our
• security in the event of unrest latest report on maintaining direct
relationships with employees...
• lost sales margin against non-union corr
Privacy - Terms
https://projectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/ 8/13
8/9/22, 11:05 AM
The Cost of Unionization I Projections, Inc.
Extending the rE
stated that a un
competitor if thi
concluded that
savings could b%.
I
R
I
Allow IRI to deliver you the latest
developments!
Never miss an update; opt out any time.
Powered by WO
Don't Allow
%.a a.'b%41t 1,16:0" 16 rTv t tt V If frL V t.a ys e
hour than their non-union competitor,
I
y
�b..-1
Allow
1, I \\/ L 1/
nent Policy Foundati
Bless than a union-frE
Sduction in productk
It at a higher price or
g
varcent less in profits
In his book.. "Union Proof - Creating Your Successful Union Free Strategy" author Peter J. B
noted that the cost of operating a unionized organization is estimated to be 25 to 35 percer
than a union -free organization. Bergeron goes on to point out that unionized organizations
more extensive human resources staff, increased legal counsel, increased involvement wit
regulatory agencies, loss of flexibility, and increased labor costs due to rules on overtime,
and arbitration processing and many other requirements.
The Impact Of Unionization on Corporate Valuation
David Lee conducted a second study, this time teaming up with another Professor of Econ
Public Affairs at Princeton University, Alexandre Mas: this second study used a similar meth
Lee's earlier study with DiNardo anc found that unionization reduced an organization's mar
by approximately S4o,500 per worker eligible to vote in a unionizing campaign.
A more recent project by Keegan Woods and Kelvin Jui Keng Tan at the University of Quee
Looked at union influence from a different perspective. Does the influence of unions in the
arena in the United States have a negative impact on corporate value? If so, do corporatior
more than they would otherwise to try and offset union influence? The conclusion was tha
unions do have a negative effect on firm value through the political channel (Lobbyinc paid
union dues), forcing corporations to make more political contributions to stop the potential
This is particularly relevant today as the oro-union Biden administration and House of Repr
push for laws like the PRO Act, making it easier for employees, gig workers, and supervisor
unions.
With extensive operational costs and
doterfi ' `
their strategies to avoid unionization. An intec
communication with employees.
__,�
__..,-...I .r.1
I /\
.. /.I
• itions must be
Hey there! I'd love to send you our
latest report on maintaining direct
relationships with employees...
avrcr'nv e sti
I
• Privacy - Terms
https://projectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/ 9/13
8/9/22, 11:05 AM
The Cost of Unionization I Projections, Inc.
As noted by Ber
targets."
If your employe
I
R
I
Allow IRI to deliver you the latest
developments!
Never miss an update; opt out any time.
Powered by NA /...)
Don't Allow
,
he unions` most accE
you are the one to c
information -- otherwise, the union wiRC do it tor you, and not in a beneticiat way. Employers
provide useful information. In short, employees need to see current, relevant factual inforri
neec to know aoout the things that can affect them, and they neec to know that upper ma
is aware of the challenges they face on a daily basis."
The Li orary of Economics anc Li ocrty points out that economists studying unions analyze
cartels that restrict Laoor suoaty to force wages aoove the competitive levels. Think of aoa
programs for the trades. They Limit the suooty of laoor. Once a union wins an election, they
monopoly power to represent all employees. Unions get their monopolistic power from gc
Policy and laws that protect them from things like antitrust Laws anc force employers to m(
property avaita ale for union use, When ematoycrs face increased costs anc are forced to r
wages, they inevitaaty hire fewer wor<ers.
The True Cost of Unionization
Given atl the factors working in favor of unions, now is the time for companies to emarace
Proactive Era anc take measures to make sure employees understand the value of their sic
their voice.
Hey there! I'd love to send you our
latest report on maintaining direct
relationships with employees...
1.
Privacy - Terms
https://projectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/
10/13
8/9/22, 11:05 AM
The Cost of Unionization I Projections, Inc.
How do err
union work
A 2021 study ret
found that, as of
I
R
I
Allow IRI to deliver you the latest
developments!
Never miss an update; opt out any time.
Powered by \/WU
Don't Allow
•
Allow
union employerJ III LI IC JOI I IC
JC<.LVI WGI C UlJtI9.. C1LCU LV .p jtJ.CLf pest
tre for a union
these claims. Reset
age of $25.43 per ho
I iuur. Additionally, unioni.
workers received s2o.49 per hour in benefits, whereas union -free employers were aole to
benefits costs to $1.0.03 per hour per covered employee. Union dues are not accounted foi
study, but coes any of that matter if the company - or entire industry - collapses under the
The differences in the cost of unionization to a company are significant when annualized,
Union organizers and supporters may quote nu m pears like those and Point to the fact that r
workers have median weekly earnings that are 84 Percent of the earnings for union worker
cherry -pick facts, Leavinc out a Large piece of the total picture.
If you don't talk to employees about the true cost of unionization, they will only hear the ur
interpretation of statistics.
Back Pefore 2000, most companies livec in the Reactive Era, only talking apout unions - al
in remaining union -free - when there was an active organizing campaign. But constant fire
was exhausting, and we all realized we needed to Get out in front of union activity. As we v
diligently to understand what employees were thinking, the last two decades have been
characterized as the Engagement Era. Positive employee relations was really coming into i
the cost of preventing unionization shiftec to investments in avenues for campaign readinE
feedback, in
out, and so many employee surveys.
Then, we ushered in 2020, a
°ancemic, corporate social responsibility, and the beginning c
in labor and employee relations.
As Leacors today, we're exoocted to step up anc stay one step ahoac of the challenges fac
today This shift has ushered us into a new era of la Dor and em Ployee relations - the Proac
What does it mean for you anc the future of
free employer must take preventive action nc
Hey there! I'd love to send you our
latest report on maintaining direct
relationships with employees...
S
re,
.t) Et,.
i Privacy - Terms
https://projectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/ 11/13
8/9/22, 11:05 AM The Cost of Unionization I Projections, Inc.
employees to LE
I
and in out as we developments!
Employers shot.
I
R
Allow IRI to deliver you the latest
Never miss an update; opt out any time.
Powered by WO
Don't Allow
Allow
ieir out
out, but for th
I employees of the r
cost of unionization. I he marketplace is chau.engrng and competitive: make sure you and \
employees understand the cost of unionization in order to stay ahead.
ig Print titrJa_
PDF Email
About the Author Walter Orechwa
Walter is IRI's Director of Digital Solutions and tie founder of
UnionProof & A Better Leader. As the creator of Union Proof
Certification, Walter provides expert advice, highly effective employee
communication resources anc ongoing learning opportunities for
Human Resources and Laaor Relations professionals,
foLLow me on: f
•
in
Hey there! I'd love to send you our
latest report on maintaining direct
relationships with employees...
i
https://projectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/ 12/13
8/9/22, 11:08 AM
What is the Cost of Unions? - Adams, Nash, Haskell and Sheridan
Adams Nash Haskell & Sheridan
St' eng f tl &Fionat = in the of of Kplac:e
What is the Cost of Unions?
Employer costs per hour worked for workers in private industry, by union or nonunion status,
December 2018
$50.00
520.00
$10.00
Tangible Cost.
$23,$5
Total Private
47.29
$6.27
$17145
U n io n
32.81
r
$4,04
$0.06
$O.O4
Nonunion
Legally required benefits
■ Retirement and savings
• Long-term disability insurance
■ Short-term disability insurance
■ Health insurance
• Life insurance
a Supplemental pay
• Paid leave
• Wages and salaries
cotnce: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Research indicates that the cost of running a unionized operation is 25% to 35% greater than for a non -
unionized one, and this figure does not reflect any negotiated changes in unionized employee wages or
benefits. As an illustration consider what we found at a recent Adams, Nash, Haskell & Sheridan national
seminar when we reviewed the administrative budgets of a major manufacturing company. This well-
known company operates 30 manufacturing plants; half are union free and half are unionized all or in part.
The administrative budgets of the unionized plants were 30% higher due to:
• Larger human resources staffs to deal with grievances, job descriptions, rate negotiations, time and
motion measurements, and "overcompliance" with government regulations. ("Bird dogs"
overseeing workplace statute compliance are less prevalent in union -free facilities.)
https://anh.com/the-cost-of-unions/#:--:text=Research indicates that the cost,unionized employee wages or benefits 1/5
8/9/22, 11:08 AM What is the Cost of Unions? - Adams, Nash, Haskell and Sheridan
• Increased involvement with regulatory agencies, especially those associated with hours and wages,
OSHA and the EEOC.
• Expensive indirect costs in the form of outside services, such as the frequent need for a specialized
labor attorney to deal with contract negotiations, handle grievances and arbitrations, and review
compliance with a collective bargaining agreement.
• Other costs of unions may include:
• Added administrative staff for calculating, deducting and documenting employee union dues.
• Payment for employees who are called in to cover for other employees in steward or representative
positions when they are attending to union business.
• Contracting with consultants to develop an action plan for a possible work stoppage or strike.
• Wages for short-term replacements if a strike occurs, which can be significantly higher than striking
e mployees wages, especially if replacements are required for highly trained positions.
• Employees also incur costs when a union wins a NLRB election.
• The average annual cost of union dues is $400, or about two hours of pay per month.
• There is a disinclination of unions toward the contingent worker. Unions want full-time dues payers.
• The employee puts it all on the line during a labor dispute. It is the union employee who is not
receiving a paycheck or benefits during a strike.
Intangible Cost.
In addition to obvious increased costs, there are those that affect morale, creativity and resiliency.
Ultimately, an organization's profit margin can decline. Productivity appears to be lower in unionized
environments, possibly due to:
• Employee anger or frustration when the collective bargaining process for an initial contract lasts
more than a year or does not result in the changes promised by a union during the organizing
campaign. (About 75% of initial contracts are still being negotiated a year after the NLRB
representation election according to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service [1996], and 50%
of initial contract negotiations never achieve an executed agreement.)
• Union strategies and rules that impair the employee -employer relationship by playing on employee
e motion and interfering with direct employee -supervisor communication, which cast the employer
in the role of "enemy" and result in employee mistrust of all management.
• Diminished employee participation in workplace decision making via power sharing programs when
such programs had been in place prior to an election.
• Employees having to cope with the divisiveness, name-calling and, sometimes, terrorizing behavior
of union coworkers when they disagree in word or deed.
• Less flexibility -both internally and externally -to move quickly or creatively in response to change due
to union rules and related contract language that results in rigid operating guidelines.
• Increased difficulty recruiting and retaining the most creative and effective employees. Union -
imposed strictures often limit rewarding an employee based on performance or productivity and
u nion grievance procedures tend to protect low -performing and negative employees.
• Decreased client or vendor satisfaction may occur if unionization affects service or product cost or
quality.
https://anh.com/the-cost-of-unions/#:—:text=Research indicates that the cost,unionized employee wages or benefits 2/5
UC BERKELEY
LABOR
CENTER
Research Brief
UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
May 2018
The Union Effect in California #1:
Wages, Benefits, and Use of Public Safety
Net Programs
By Ken Jacobs and Sarah Thomason
This brief is the first in a three-part series on The Union Effect in California.
Unions have historically played a role in improving wages and benefits by enabling workers
to join together to negotiate with employers. Recent research finds a persistent positive
effect of unions on members' wages and household income (Farber et al. 2018). On their
own, individual workers have little bargaining power with employers. When bargaining
together, workers have raised not only their own wages, they have also helped to set
higher standards that improve wages for union and non-union workers alike (Bivens et al.
2017). Income inequality in the United States has risen as the share of workers covered by a
union contract has declined (Farber et al. 2018).
In this report we analyze the difference in the wages, benefits, and use of public safety net
programs of workers covered by union contracts in California compared to non-union
workers with similar demographic characteristics and working in similar industries. We find:
16.9 percent of the workforce is covered by a union contract in California,
compared to 12.1 percent nationally. This includes 58.9 percent of public
sector workers and 9.2 percent of private sector workers. (52.5 percent of union
workers in California are in the public sector.)
o Workers covered by a union contract in California earn an average of 12.9
percent more than non-union workers with similar demographic characteristics
and working in similar industries.
t
Overall, we estimate that unions increase workers' earnings in California by
$18.5 billion annually through collective bargaining.
Unions increase the likelihood that a worker will receive employer -sponsored
health insurance by 37.2 percent, compared to non-union workers with similar
demographic characteristics and working in similar industries. We estimate that
670,000 more Californians have health insurance through their employer as a result
of collective bargaining in California.
0 Unions increase the likelihood a worker will be offered a retirement plan on the
job by 51.5 percent, compared to non-union workers with similar demographic
characteristics and working in similar industries. We estimate 830,000 more
Californians are offered retirement plans due to collective bargaining in California.
Unions decrease by 37.1 percent the likelihood of a worker living in a low-income
family, compared to non-union workers with similar demographic characteristics
and working in similar industries.
0 Unions decrease by 30.6 percent the likelihood that a worker is in a family where at
least one member is enrolled in a public safety net program, compared to non-union
workers with similar demographic characteristics and working in similar industries.
Unions decrease by 30.9 percent the likelihood that a worker is in a family with
at least one member enrolled in Medi-Cal, compared to non-union workers with
similar demographic characteristics and working in similar industries.
By organizing and bargaining collectively, union workers are able to significantly improve
their wages, benefits, and working conditions. For many Californians, unions are an important
pathway to the middle class.
In what follows, we detail the findings of our analysis of Current Population Survey data for
California.
Finding 1: Unions Raise Workers' Wages
Union workers have higher average earnings than non-union workers. Part of this difference
is due to union coverage, and part to the fact that the two groups of workers are different in
terms of their age, experience, educational attainment, and the industries in which they work
(see Appendix 1). In order to estimate the wage difference attributable to union coverage, we
use a regression model to control for industry and worker demographic characteristics (see
Appendix 2 for a detailed description of data sources and methods).
We estimate that workers covered by a union contract in California earn 12.9 percent more
on average than non-union workers with similar demographic characteristics and working in
similar industries (see Table 2).
Using the same regression model, we calculate how much union workers would earn if they
were not covered by a union contract. We estimate that union workers earn on average an
additional $5,800 more per year as a result of union coverage. This translates into an additional
$18.5 billion in earnings for workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement in California
The Union Effect in California #1: Wages, Benefits, and Use of Public Safety Net Programs
each year. (See Appendix 2 for a detailed description of methods.) Table 1 shows the increase in
wages as a result of union collective bargaining in six California regions.'
Our estimate of the union wage premium understates the full impact unions have on wages
in California. Research has shown that unions also lift wages for non-union workers by setting
wage standards across industries and sectors, and by advocating for policies such as the
minimum wage. The state and multiple California cities and counties raised the minimum wage
in recent years, thereby increasing earnings for many non-union workers and reducing the
difference between union and non-union worker wages (Bivens et al. 2017; Walters and Mishel
2003).
Table 1: Additional annual worker earnings as a result of union coverage, California
and regions (2017 dollars)
Additional annual Total additional annual
earnings per worker earnings in California
California
$5,800
Bay Area
Sacramento Area
San Joaquin Valley
Los Angeles
Other Southern California
Rest of California
$5,300
$5,400
$7,000
$5,900
$5,500
$6,500
$18,500,000,000
$3,600,000,000
$1,200,000,000
$2,400,000,000
$4,600,000,000
$4,600,000,000
$2,000,000,000
Source: Authors' analysis of 2073-2077 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement and 2077
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Wages adjusted for inflation to 2077 dollars using the California CPI -W.
Note: See Appendix 2 for a description of methods
Finding 2: Unions Increase Access to Employment -
Based Health Coverage
Union workers are more likely to receive employment -based health insurance than their non-
union counterparts. Figure 1 shows that in California, 77.1 percent of union members reported
participating in an employment -based health plan between 2013 and 2017 compared to 49.4
percent of those not in a union. Again controlling for differences in industry anwd worker
characteristics, we estimate that workers covered by a union contract are 37.2 percent more
likely to have health coverage through an employment -based plan than their non-union
counterparts, as shown in Table 2. We estimate that 670,000 more Californians have health
insurance as a result of collective bargaining in California (see Appendix 2 for a detailed
description of our methods). California's union workers also pay a lower share of premiums on
average than their non-union counterparts and have plans with lower deductibles (Whitmore
and Gabel 2017).
The Union Effect in California #1: Wages, Benefits, and Use of Public Safety Net Programs
The differences in availability of health care plans on the job combined with higher wages
translates into lower usage of California's public health care programs. We estimate that 31.6
percent of non-union workers in California are enrolled or have a family member enrolled
in Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program, compared to 19.5 percent of union families. As
shown in Table 2, we find that union workers are 30.9 percent less likely to be in a family where
at least one member is enrolled in Medi-Cal, compared to non-union workers with similar
demographic characteristics and working in similar industries.
Figure 1: Benefits, low-income status, and use of public safety net programs by
union coverage, California
Percent with health insurance through work*
Percent with retirement plan
or pension offered at work*
Percent in a low-income family
Percent in a family with a member enrolled in
at least one safety net program**
Percent in a family with
a member enrolled in Medi-Cal**
49.4
39.7
11.2
24.3
17.5
27.8
19.5
31.6
77.1
74.6
N on-union
U nion
* Authors' analysis of 2073-2077 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement
* * Authors' analysis of 2074-2075 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement and
administrative data
Finding 3: Unions Increase Access to Retirement
Benefits
Union workers are more likely than non-union workers to be offered retirement benefits
by their employer. In California, 74.6 percent of workers covered by a collective bargaining
agreement reported being offered a retirement plan through their job compared to 39.7
percent of non-union workers (see Figure 1). Comparing similar workers in similar industries,
we find that union workers are 51.5 percent more likely to have a retirement plan through their
job than their non-union counterparts, as shown in Table 2. We estimate that 830,000 more
workers in California are offered a retirement plan or pension by their employer as a result of a
collective bargaining agreement. (See Appendix 2 for a detailed description of the methods.)
The Union Effect in California #1: Wages, Benefits, and Use of Public Safety Net Programs
Available data in California does not let us distinguish between defined benefit and defined
contribution plans. Nationally, union workers are almost 50 percent more likely to have any
kind of retirement plan at work and almost five times as likely to have a defined benefit pension
than their non-union counterparts (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017).2
Defined benefit pensions provide guaranteed lifelong retirement income to retirees and
are managed by professionals. Defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, are individual
investment accounts in which workers bear all investment risk as well as the risk of outliving
their savings.
Finding 4: Unions Increase Family Income and
Decrease Reliance on Public Safety Net Programs
Union members are less likely to earn low wages and live in low-income families (defined as
family incomes less than 200 percent of the federal poverty line, or FPL). In California, 24.3
percent of non-union workers are in low-income families compared to 11.2 percent of union
workers. Controlling for industry and worker characteristics, we estimate that workers covered
by a union contract are 37.1 percent less likely to have family incomes under 200 percent FPL
than their non-union counterparts, as shown in Table 2.
With higher incomes and greater access to benefits, union families are less likely to need to rely
on public safety net and health insurance programs to meet their basic needs. In this report
we analyze the three largest programs providing income assistance: Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and Temporary Aid to Needy
Families (TANF) cash assistance. We estimate that 27.8 percent of non-union workers are in a
family relying on one or more of these programs, compared to 17.5 percent of workers covered
by a union contract. Comparing similar workers in similar industries, we estimate that union
workers are 30.6 percent less likely to be in a family that relies on a public safety net program
than their non-union counterparts, as shown in Table 2 (page 6).
The Union Effect in California #1: Wages, Benefits, and Use of Public Safety Net Programs 5
Table 2: Regression -adjusted union premiums, California
Regression -adjusted
union premium
Wages (percent change)
Hourly wage*
12.9
Benefits (percent change in likelihood)
Health insurance through work**
Retirement plan or pension offered at work**
37.2
51.5
Use of public safety net programs (percent change in likelihood)
Workers with a family member enrolled in at least one safety
net program***
Workers with a family member enrolled in Medi-Cal*** -30.9
-30.6
Low-income status (percent change in likelihood)
Worker's family is low-income** -37.1
* Authors' analysis of 2073-2017 Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Groups
** Authors' analysis of 2013-2017 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement
*** Authors' analysis of 2014-2015 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement and
administrative data. Safety net programs include the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).
Note: See Appendix 2 for details on regression methods.
The Union Effect in California #1: Wages, Benefits, and Use of Public Safety Net Programs
Appendix 1: Percent of California workers covered by a union contract
Percent of all
workers covered
by a union
contract
Percent of public
sector workers
covered by a
union contract
Percent of private
sector workers
covered by a
union contract
All workers
17.3
58.5
9.7
Gender
Female
Male
18.2
57.7
8.8
16.6
59.6
10.5
Age
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
8.0
14.5
19.2
29.5
55.7
21.0
22.0
63.0
62.4
60.6
6.2
8.8
10.5
11.5
11.5
Race/ethnicity*
White
Black
Latino/a
Asian
Other
19.5
25.6
15.3
14.2
16.6
61.8
58.0
56.9
52.0
55.9
10.0
13.8
9.7
8.3
7.8
Nativity
U.S. Born
19.8 60.3 10.7
Foreign -born
Education
High school diploma or less
Some college
Bachelor's or more
12.4 52.0 8.1
13A
18.9
19.7
51.6 9.9
58.7 11.4
60.9 8.0
Note: Percents are row percents
Source: Authors' analysis of 2073-2077 Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Groups
* Latinos of all races are included in the Latino/a category and all other race/ethnicity categories exclude Latino/a
workers.
The Union Effect in California #1: Wages, Benefits, and Use of Public Safety Net Programs
7
Appendix 2: Data and Methods
Data
This report uses the Current Population Survey (CPS) for California. Specifically, we use the
Economic Policy Institute CPS Outgoing Rotation Group (ORG) files (2013-2017) for our hourly
wage estimates and the IPUMS CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) (2013-
2017) for estimates of health and retirement benefits and low-income status. We use the
National Bureau of Economic Research CPS ASEC (2014-2015) for estimates of public safety net
program and Medi-Cal enrollment. In all of our analyses, the sample is restricted to employed
wage and salary workers age 18 to 64 who live in California. For wage estimates, we further
restrict our sample to exclude observations with imputed wages. We define union workers as
those who are either members of a union or covered by a union contract.
Wage estimates
We estimate the adjusted union wage premium using ordinary least squares regression of log
wages on union status and include controls for age, age squared, two -digit industry, education,
race/ethnicity, gender, marital status, nativity, year, and region within California. We then
exponentiate the coefficient on union status and subtract one to convert from log points to a
percent estimate. Wage premium estimates are based on analysis of pooled 2013-2017 data.
To estimate the additional dollars paid to workers as the result of a union contract, we first use
our regression equation to estimate the hourly wages of individual union workers under the
counterfactual scenario that they were not covered by a union contract. We then construct
annual earnings estimates for union workers based on (1) their actual hourly wage and (2) their
predicted hourly wage in the counterfactual scenario where they were not in a union. For both
measures, we multiply the hourly wage by the worker's usual weekly hours and by the average
weeks worked per year for union workers in California, as estimated using the CPS ASEC for
2013-2017 (48.5 weeks). Next, we subtract the predicted annual earnings of union workers
under the counterfactual scenario from their actual annual earnings to get the additional
dollars earned as a result of having a union contract. The average difference across all union
workers is then multiplied by the number of union workers in California, estimated by applying
the California union density estimate from the CPS ORG 2013-2017 to the 2017 count of
California workers from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. We use the Quarterly
Census of Employment and Wages because it is a more accurate source for employment
counts than the Current Population Survey; as a result our estimated number of union workers
in California is higher than in Hirsch and McPherson (2018). To arrive at regional estimates, we
replicate this analysis within each region.
Benefits, low-income status, and public safety net program estimates
Adjusted estimates for health and retirement benefits, low-income status, and use of public
safety net programs were estimated using logit regressions and include controls for age, age
The Union Effect in California #1: Wages, Benefits, and Use of Public Safety Net Programs
squared, major industry, education, race/ethnicity, gender, marital status, nativity, and year We
report the percentage difference in the marginal effects for union workers, estimated with and
without the estimated union effect
To estimate the additional number of workers in California who have employer -sponsored
health insurance or are offered a retirement plan by'their employer, we multiply the number of
union workers in California (estimated by applying the California union density estimate from
the CPS ORG 2013-2017 to the 2017 count of California workers from the Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages) by the percentage -point difference between our regression -adjusted
estimates of the proportion of union and non-union workers with the benefit
Benefits and low-income status estimates are based on analysis of pooled 2013-2017 data, and
use of public safety net program estimates are based on analysis of pooled 2014-2015 data
The Union Effect in California #1 Wages, Benefits, and Use of Public Safety Net Programs
9
Endnotes
1 Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San
Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Los Angeles includes Los Angeles County.
Southern California includes Imperial, San Bernardino, San Diego, Orange, and Riverside
Counties. Sacramento Area includes El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, and Yolo Counties. San
Joaquin Valley includes Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and
Tulare Counties. Rest of California includes all other counties in California.
2 These estimates are from the National Compensation Survey, an employer survey that
yields higher coverage rates than the Current Population Survey.
Bibliography
Bivens, Josh, Lora Engdahl, Elise Gould, Teresa Kroeger, Lawrence Mishel McNicholas, Zane
Mokhiber, Heidi Shierholz, Marni von Wilpert, Valerie Wilson, and Ben Zipperer. 2017. "How To-
day's Unions Help Working People: Giving Workers the Power to Improve Their Jobs and Unrig
the Economy." Policy Brief. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/
publication/how-todays-unions-help-working-people-giving-workers-the-power-to-improve-
their-jobs-and-unrig-the-economy/.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2017. "Table 2. Retirement Benefits: Access, Participation, and Take-
u p Rates,1 Civilian Workers,2 March 2017." https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2017/owner-
shi p/civilian/table02a.pdf.
Farber, Henry S., Daniel Herbst, Ilyana Kuziemko, and Suresh Naidu. 2018. "Unions and Inequali-
ty Over the Twentieth Century: New Evidence from Survey Data." Working Paper 24587. Nation-
al Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24587.
Hirsch, Barry T., and David A. MacPherson. 2018. "Union Membership and Coverage Database
from the CPS (Unionstats.Com)." 2018. http://www.unionstats.corn/.
Walters, Matthew, and Lawrence Mishel. 2003. "How Unions Help All Workers." Economic Policy
Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/.
Whitmore, Heidi, and John Gabel. 2017. "California Employer Health Benefits: Prices Up, Cov-
e rage Down." California Health Care Foundation. https://www.chcf.org/publication/califor-
n ia-employer-health-benefits-prices-u p -coverage -down/.
Institute for Research on Labor and Employment
University of California, Berkeley
2521 Channing Way
Berkeley, CA 94720-5555
(510) 642-0323
laborcenter.berkeley.edu
UC BERKELEY
LABOR
CENTER
UC Berkeley Center for Labor
Research and Education
The Center for Labor Research and Education (Labor Center)
is a public service project of the UC Berkeley Institute for
Research on Labor and Employment that links academic
resources with working people. Since 1964, the Labor
Center has produced research, trainings, and curricula that
deepen understanding of employment conditions and
develop diverse new generations of leaders.
Acknowledgements
We thank Sylvia Allegretto, Annette Bernhardt, Dave Graham -Squire, Sara Hinkley, Jenifer MacGillvary,
Carl Nadler, Katie Quan, and Nari Rhee for their invaluable advice and feedback. We also thank Ian Perry
and Gabriel Sanchez for assistance with data analysis.
About the Authors
Ken Jacobs is chair of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. Sarah Thomason is a
research and policy associate at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education.
Suggested Citation
Jacobs, Ken and Sarah Thomason. The Union Effect in California #7: Wages, Benefits, and Use of Public Safety
Net Programs. Center for Labor Research and Education, University of California, Berkeley. May 2018.
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/union-effect-in-california-1/.
The analyses, interpretations, conclusions, and views expressed in this brief are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the UC Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and
Education, the Regents of the University of California, or collaborating organizations or fenders.
Esther Gesick
Subject: FW: Message from the BOCC regarding Charter Amendment
From: Jerry Travis <itravis@weldgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 2:36 PM
To: Steve Moreno <smoreno@weldgov.com>
Subject: RE: Message from the BOCC regarding Charter Amendment
Hi Steve,
Hope all is well with you and yours. I just wanted to state that Weld County is a great place to work. Unions are bad
news and not a good fit for us in my humble opinion.
You sure we cannot defect to Wyoming? •
Have a great day!
Jerry Travis
Weld County Technical Support Analyst
Email: itravis@co.weld.co.us
Phone: 970-400-2561
1401 N 17. Ave, Greeley, CO, 80631
From: BOCC <BOCC@CO.WELD.CO.US>
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 2:16 PM
To: ALLWELD@LISTSERV.CO.WELD.CO.US
Subject: Message from the BOCC regarding Charter Amendment
You don't often get email from bocc@co.weld.co.us. Learn why this is important
On May 27, 2022, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed S.B. 22-230 ("SB 230"), granting employees in Colorado
counties, including home rule counties, the right to self -organize; the right to form, join, or assist an employee
organization; and the right to engage in collective bargaining with their respective boards of county commissioners, such
rights granted to county employees shall become effective July 1, 2023.
SB 230 includes C.R.S. § 8-3.3-105 which allows home rule counties, such as Weld County, to include in their home rule
charter a provision granting the responsibility and/or authority to its board of county commissioners to create and
enforce a personnel system free of the requirement to engage in collective bargaining with county employees.
Currently, in the Weld County home Rule Charter there is provision Section 3-8 (4) where the Board of Weld County
Commissioners have the authority and duty to develop a system of employment policies, rules, job classification, and
compensation plans in accordance with generally accepted principles and promulgate such policies, rules, and plans,
under the authority of and in compliance with the provisions of pertinent Colorado and Federal statutes and the
Charter.
In accordance with the above charter provision, Weld County government has established employment policies and
rules. Weld County's elected leadership, appointed officials, and senior leaders have worked hard for years to fairly
compensate Weld County employees while balancing the interests of the taxpayers in Weld County. Weld County offers
a competitive and well -liked benefits package, including unemployment insurance, healthcare, dental, vision, life
insurance, disability insurance, worker's compensation, and a generous retirement package. On average, Weld County
spends an additional $26,650 annually, or 36% of each employee's salary amount on a benefits package more generous
than many in the private sector. The County provides a safe work environment, thoroughly investigates all disciplinary
accusations, provides a grievance process, and proactively protects employees' rights. And we have done all of that
without a collective bargaining law.
SB22-230 creates a top -down collective bargaining obligation on county governments across Colorado and could
jeopardize our working relationship with our employees. Collective bargaining (a required negotiation process that
happens after a workforce votes to unionize) has the potential to create an adversarial relationship between the county
and its workforce, instead of the cooperative relationship the Weld Board of County Commissioners has always had with
our devoted employees.
In addition, collective bargaining will necessitate additional staff time, legal resources, human resources expertise, loss
in productivity, and dispute resolution costs. Based on national averages the cost of union dues to county employees
annually runs between 1.5 to 4.0 percent of earnings. The range would be $1,900,000 to $5,000,000. With half of the
union dues going to the union's international organization, the local Weld County employees would send roughly
$950,000 to $2,500,000 of their earnings out of state to the union's international headquarters each year.
In 1990 a small group of county employees and the Communications Workers of America union attempted to amend the
Weld County Home Rule Charter to require recognition of unions in Weld County. The Weld County electorate voted
down this union amendment to the Weld County Home Rule Charter 82% to 18%. The County Commissioners are of the
opinion the sentiment of the Weld County voters has not changed since 1990, and the voters and taxpayers do not want
Weld County government to be required to collectively bargain with unions. Fortunately, as a home rule county, the
voters can amend the home rule charter to ensure that the Weld County Commissioners are under no obligation to
recognize or negotiate with, for the purpose of collective bargaining, any collective bargaining unit of County employees.
As a result, upon notice duly published in the Greeley Tribune on July 29, 2022, the Board of Weld County
Commissioners held a public hearing on August 10, 2022, to consider a resolution and give the public an opportunity to
speak about referring an amendment to the Weld County Home Rule Charter on November 8, 2022, General Election
ballot for Weld County.
As a result of unanimously approving the resolution Weld County voters will be asked to approve an amendment to the
home rule charter that amends language in Section 4-2(B)(2)(i) to read:
Section 4-2. Department of Finance and Administration.
(B) The Division of Human Resources shall:
(2) Such system shall include at least the following:
(i) The Personnel Policies, rules, regulations, job classification, and compensation plans shall govern the
employment relationship between the County and County employees. It is against public policy for the County
to collectively bargain with County employees. The Board of County Commissioners shall not enter into any
collective bargaining agreement with County employees. The County is under no obligation to recognize or
negotiate with, for the purpose of collective bargaining, any collective bargaining unit of County employees,
their exclusive representative(s), or any employee organization(s) chosen to represent them.
Weld County government has a proud employment tradition of balancing the needs of county employees and the
taxpayers that pay our salaries for the benefit of all. Weld County employment is a good job, some choose to make it a
career, and the employees who serve Weld County residents are dedicated, public servants. Nowhere was this more on
display than the recent public health emergency posed by COVID-19. Counties were the face of the local pandemic
response, and our Weld County workforce admirably served our citizens during those trying times, working long hours
as we fought to continue providing essential county services during a public health and economic crisis.
2
As a devoted Weld County employee, we hope you share the Commissioners' opinion that county employee/employer
relations are a matter of local control and decisions on employment issues should be up to the board of county
commissioners to balance the needs of county employees and taxpayers. The General Assembly should not be
interfering in local employment matters injecting collective bargaining as an additional bureaucratic layer which is as
unnecessary as it is expensive largely duplicating protections already in place through Weld County employment policies
and rules.
3
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER REFERRING A WELD COUNTY HOME RULE
CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTION TO THE BALLOT FOR
THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022, GENERAL ELECTION
DOCKET NUMBER: 2022-67
HEARING DATE: August 10, 2022
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
NAME AND ADDRESS: Weld County, Colorado
RE: Submitting Amendment to the Weld County Home Rule Charter to the
Electors of the Election of November 8, 2022
PUBLISH DATE: July 29, 2022, in the Greeley Tribune
FILE NO.: BC0013
STAFF: Bruce Barker, County Attorney
On August 10, 2022, at 9 00 am, the Board will convene at 1150 0 Street, Greeley, Colorado, to
consider placing the following proposed ballot question to amend the Weld County Home Rule
Charter on the November 8, 2022, General Election ballot:
PROPOSED BALLOT QUESTION TO BE REFERRED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY TO THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022,
GENERAL ELECTION:
WELD COUNTY
REFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1A
Shall Section 4-2(B)(2)(i) be added to the Weld County Home Rule Charter to prohibit collective
bargaining between Weld County and its employees, thus reading as follows?
Section 4-2. Department of Finance and Administration.
(B) The Division of Human Resources shall:
(2) Such system shall include at least the following:
(i) The Personnel Policies, rules, regulations, job classification and compensation plans
shall govern the employment relationship between the County and County
employees. It is against public policy for the County to collectively bargain with
County employees. The Board of County Commissioners shall not enter into any
collective bargaining agreement with County employees. The County is under no
obligation to recognize or negotiate with, for the purpose of collective bargaining, any
collective bargaining unit of County employees, their exclusive representative(s), or
any employee organization(s) chosen to represent them.
Yes No
2 2-a3i5
At the Board's Hearing on August 10, 2022, members of the Public will have an opportunity to
comment on this proposed ballot question. Alternatively, members of the Public may comment
by E -Mail sent to egesick@weldgov.com, or by letter sent via U. S. Mail to the Board of
County Commissioners of Weld County, P. O. Box 758, 1150 0 Street, Greeley, Colorado
80632.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
DATED. July 27, 2022
PUBLISHED. July 29, 2022, in the Greeley Tribune.
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDERREFERRING A WELD COUNTY
HOME RULE CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTION TO THE BALLOT
FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022, GENERAL ELECTION
Docket Number: 2022-67
Hearing Date: Au ust 30, 2002
lime: 10:00 a.m.
Name and address: EtRedfarateth2,:dradoRegarding:ndmentto theWeld
e Charter to thection of November 8,
2022
Publish Date: July 29, 2022, in the Greeley Tribune
File No.: BC0013
Staff: Bruce Barker, County Attorney
lEbitrieginitteaffiti” 9 00 am, the Board will convene at 1150 0ado, to consider placing the following pro-
bero8 20 2, General E action ballot me Rule
PROPOSED BALLOT QUESTION TO BE REFERRED BY THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMIS IONERS OF WELD COUNTY TO THE BALLOT
FOR THE NOVEMBER & 2022, GENERAL ELECTION:
WELD COUNTY
REFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1A
Figillailidg
(B)(2)(i) be addedjig!'
nty Homeprohibit collectiveeen Weldpployees, thus readitment of Finance a
(8) The Division of Human Resources shall:
(2) Such system shall idclude at least the following9:
(i) T e Perionnol Policies, rules, rogulations, job
classification and compensation plans shall
govern the employment relationship between the
County and County employees. It is g9ainst
public policy for the County to collectively
bargain with Counri emolovees. The Board of
Yes No
At the Board's Hearingg on August 10, 2022, members of the Pub-
lic will have an opportunity to comment on this proposed ballot
question. Alternatively, members of the Public may comment by
email sent to egeslckLaweld ov.eom, or by letter sent via U. 5.
Mail to the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, P.
0. Box 758, 1150 0 Street Greeley, Colorado 80632.
eaard of County Commissioners
Weld County Colorado
Dated: July `/, 2022
Published Greeley Tribune July 29, 2022 - 1909441
Prairie Mountain Media, LLC
PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT
County of Weld
State of Colorado
The undersigned, Agent , being first duly sworn
under oath, states and affirms as follows:
1. He/she Is the legal Advertising Reviewer of
Prairie Mountain Media LLC, publisher of the
Greeley Tribune.
2. The Greeley Tribune is a newspaper
of general circulation that has been published
continuously and without interruption for at least
fifty-two weeks In Weld County and
meets the legal requisites fora legal newspaper
under Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-70-103.
3. The notice that is attached hereto is a true copy,
publishedinthe Greeley Tribune
in Weld County on the following date(s):
Jul 29.2022
afore me thisv2
a ,,
jtc43eddaaynodf sworn t
Notary Public
(SEAL)
SHAYLA NAJERA
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 20174031965
MY COMMISSION EXPIRUS July 31, 2025
Account:
Ad Number:
Fee:
1099690
1909441
$31.50
NOTICE OF BALLOT QUESTION REFERRED TO NOVEMBER 8, 2022, GENERAL
ELECTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY
In accordance with the provisions of Colorado Statute and Article XVII, Section 17-1(1)(b)
of the Weld County Home Rule Charter, notice is hereby given that a ballot question regarding an
amendment to the Weld County Home Rule Charter will be submitted to the qualified electors of
Weld County at the November 8, 2022, General Election, pursuant to a Resolution of the Board
of County Commissioners of Weld County, dated August 10, 2022. The election precinct shall be
the entire County of Weld, Colorado.
WELD COUNTY
REFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1A
Shall Section 4-2(B)(2)(i) be added to the Weld County Home Rule Charter to prohibit
collective bargaining between Weld County and its employees, thus reading as follows?
Section 4-2. Department of Finance and Administration.
(B) The Division of Human Resources shall:
(2) Such system shall include at least the following:
(i) The Personnel Policies, rules, regulations, job classification and compensation plans
shall govern the employment relationship between the County and County employees.
It is against public policy for the County to collectively bargain with County employees.
The Board of County Commissioners shall not enter into any collective bargaining
agreement with County employees. The County is under no obligation to recognize
or negotiate with, for the purpose of collective bargaining, any collective bargaining
unit of County employees, their exclusive representative(s), or any employee
organization(s) chosen to represent them.
Yes No
Each qualified elector voting at the General Election desirous of voting for or against said
amendment shall cast his or her ballot as provided by law, either "Yes" or "No." If passed, the
text of the amendment shall be immediately incorporated into the Weld County Home Rule
Charter.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
DATED: August 24, 2022
PUBLISHED: August 26, 2022
wELD couNn
REFERRED BALLOT QUESTION lA
Shall Section 4-2(B>(z)(i), be added to the Weld County
Home Rule Charter to pprohibit collective bargaining between
Weld County and its empbyees, thus reading as follows?
Prairie Mountain Media, LLC
PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT
County of Weld
State of Colorado
The undersigned, Agent , being first duly sworn
under oath, states and affirms as follows:
1. He/she is the legal Advertising Reviewer of
Prairie Mountain Media LLC, publisher of the
Greeley Tribune.
2. The Greeley Tribune is a newspaper
of general circulation that has been published
continuously and without interruption for at least
fifty-two weeks in Weld County and
meets the legal requisites fora legal newspaper
under Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-70-103.
3. The notice that is attached hereto is a true copy,
published in the Greeley Tribune
in Weld County on the following date(s):
Auq 26, 2022
Signature
Widaaynodf swot to me before me this
Notary Public
(SEAL)
Si,3Y9 AF7A,JE. 5A
NO` A-F:1Y PiUSL as
NOTARY ID 20174031965
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES July 31, 2025
Account:
Ad Number:
Fee:
1099690
1915780
$25.50
Hello