Senate Business, Labor, & Technology [Mar 24, 2026]

Will you please call the roll? Senator Catlin.

Judah.

Liston.

Danielson.

Mr. Chair. Here. We have a quorum. We have one item on our agenda today. It is House Bill 1005. Sponsors, will you please tell us about this bill? Senator Danielson.

Thank you Mr. Chair Thank you committee members and for everyone who came here to testify on the worker protection act it is great to have you back in the people's house The worker protection act eliminates a section of Colorado law that was passed more than 81 years ago and it was intended to undermine the voice and power of Colorado workers This antiquated law makes it so that workers who have decided to unionize must go through two elections rather than one. It makes it the only state in the entire country that requires this of workers who wish to unionize. And we all know that when workers go through the process of forming a union, if it's not a smooth one with the employer, which is not uncommon, they throw everything at the wall, so to speak. They will try anything to stop them from unionizing. So the harassment, the intimidation, the bullying, the threats, the retaliation, all of that is stretched over months at a time. In Colorado, the workers who wish to unionize in order to improve their station, they have to endure that twice. And so what that means is in order to prevent the workers from rising up together and forming a union, the company will engage in this kind of harassment, intimidation, retaliation, bullying, threats, et cetera, for another set of months or even in some cases that I've become familiar with into a year of this additional retribution from the company. It makes it very difficult for employees who wish to move forward and unionize to collectively bargain to have a seat at the table to talk about better pay, better benefits, safety on the job, whatever it is, for them to move forward as it's difficult to endure this lengthy process twice. Not only that, the second election requires 75% affirmative vote of those that voted or 50% of those eligible to vote, whichever is greater. So I don't know about any of you, but I have never heard of an elected official that was required to get 75% of the vote to hold their office. So it's not even just about unionizing, but basic democracy. So we have a chance here with House Bill 1005, the Worker Protection Act, to take away that burdensome second election, to make it easier for those employees who wish to form a union to go ahead and do that. and right now we know that when you are in a union you have better wages better benefits more safety on the job a seat at the table and your income rises which contributes to the health of the overall economy So, you know, the opportunity here is to remove a barrier for Colorado workers who wish to engage and form a union. We make it difficult for that on purpose. It was designed to union bust a long time ago. They call it the Labor Peace Act. That is not an accurate description. It is union-busting at its core. And the public is with us now, too. It's the demand of my community to bring this bill forward again. As you know, I carried the bill last year, and this is my last year here, but we need to push this forward to make it clear to the people across the state that there are those of us who are inside the Capitol who are responding to the needs of Colorado workers who are willing to put ourselves on the line again, take this policy up and pass it and put it on the governor's desk. And I urge an aye vote.

Thank you Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dennis Doherty. I'm the Executive Director of the Colorado AFL-CIO. We represent 185 unions and over 130,000 members across the state. I testify in strong support of this bill. I want to raise four points. One, this addresses the affordability crisis in Colorado. We have the greatest inequality in wealth since the Gilded Age. For decades, the second election has depressed union density and rigged the system against workers in favor billionaires, elites and large corporations. At its core, this bill gives workers a fair return on the fruits of their labor. This is in research as well, the union difference. Working class union households hold nearly four times as much median wealth as a typical working class non-union household. This lifts all boats. This isn't just for union members. Colorado Fiscal Institute and Analysis estimated this would accrue $5.7 billion annually in the pockets of Colorado workers, which amounts to about $2,300 per year per worker. This also saved taxpayers money. I don't have to tell you that the budget is in crisis right now. And this saves upwards of $500,000 over the next 10 years by eliminating staff within CDLE that have to do the second election. Third, this does not enforce employees to pay union dues or become union members. All this bill does is allows unions to negotiate with employers over a union security clause. An employer can refuse to agree if they want to, which does happen. And fourth, there is plenty of employee voice and choice in this process. To form a union they can vote no during a contract ratification They can participate in the bargaining process as a negotiating team member They can educate coworkers about the concerns and stop against the union security clause They can also vote no on the contract if it has a union security clause. They could also pursue support to petition to certify the union as well. So you have the chance to address affordability crisis, save taxpayers' money, and put money in the pockets of Colorado workers. We urge a yes vote on this bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee, and thank you for hearing me today. My name is Michelle Mendenhall, and I'm here to express my full support of HB 1005. I am a stagehand at Casa Bonita, and this June will mark my three years of hard work of trying to organize my workplace and strengthen our union. As of now, over 275 Coloradans who work at Casa Bonita have decided to unionize, and this is still not yet a supermajority of my workplace. At this juncture, those 275 Coloradans are struggling and negotiating because we do not yet have a first collective bargaining agreement. Our employer, led by two billionaires and management, has only found reason after reason to stall and delay our bargaining meetings, while committing multiple unfair and cruel labor practices against us workers, like voter intimidation and eroding our unit's work. I'm here to tell you that the road to organizing the labor at your workplace, as well as getting to a first agreement, is not a fast nor an easy one, and it is built on the backs of volunteered hours by the same workers who don't have access to safe and equitable work environments. We should be able to form a union without being threatened, fired, or blocked by a second election that was specifically designed to stop us. It is a heartbreaking shame to know that the road ahead of us has another roadblock, and our effort also weakened because of an outdated labor law. A second election is a hurdle after the finish line we've already crossed. That only favors business owners and others who have divested their interest in seeing the growth and success of the local economy by the working class right here in Colorado. Please support the Worker Protection Act. It will strengthen the labor and movement for those who dared to dream and won their right for a secure union. Power our union, power our people. Thank you.

All good. My name is Brennan Degenhardt. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm here in support of House Bill 1005, the Worker Protection Act. I am a server at the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema, a place where people of all ages and walks of life come together to enjoy food, drinks, film, and the good service that we work hard to provide. In early 2024, we unionized in response to worsening conditions at work and sexual harassment claims against management, and we started bargaining in August 2024. On January 9th, 2026, over a year and a half after we won our first election, we received the results for our second election, which we lost, not because we didn't have the support, but because a significant number of workers never received ballots. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment lobbied hard to conduct the election by mail. The only alternative they offered was an in-person election on one of our slowest days for just a few hours. Because many of us have to work second jobs on these slow days, this was never an accessible option. During the mail process, many workers never received a ballot. I was one that never got my ballot even though my address was correct. I even requested a replacement ballot and never received that one either. We think at least 30 employees never got their ballot, about a quarter of eligible voters. Appealing these results was impossible because there was no way for us to gather any actual proof of whether ballots were received by employees or not, or whether they ever made it back to CDLE. The second election was a barrier to success at the bargaining table, too. Our committee, our other union members, and I are dedicating countless hours toward earning a contract, But without union security, progress is slow and we have not been taken seriously. Let one thing be clear. Colorado's second election requirement is not about giving workers a voice. This requirement exists to create an additional barrier between workers and the power they need to confront the corrupt billionaires who control our livelihoods. Unions are what give workers a voice. Thank you for your support of HB 1005 and vote yes. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jeff Cornett, and I work at Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits in the warehouse, which is the largest liquor and wine distributor in the country. Over the years, as the company has grown, the focus has moved away from employees and toward profit. In 2019, my co-workers and I worked mandatory overtime to support a move into a new facility. During that time, the company told us they were going to take care of us. As we moved into the pandemic in 2020, we became essential workers and supported the company's record profits. Yet in 2021, management informed us that all our salaries would be capped. As we planned to organize, I thought one vote would establish a union. I later learned that the process also required a second state-level election. During this period, the company launched an aggressive anti-union campaign, which included numerous captive audience meetings where employees felt threatened and intimidated. We lost our first election by one vote. The extended election process discouraged employees and combined with turnover and anti-union intimidation tactics made it difficult to sustain consistent support. Through a renewed effort, we campaigned again, and in July 2023, we won our first election, but then had to maintain an organizing posture to ask for a second state vote. That second vote was then delayed because the company submitted an incorrect staff roster. Finally, nearly two and a half years later, on November 17, 2023, we won our second election by 87 percent. If Colorado is supposed to be a great place to live and work, why is it so difficult for workers to form a union here? The requirement for a second election is an anti-union roadblock to organizing. It's time for Colorado to modernize its labor laws so businesses and employees can engage in fair negotiations on a level playing field. I urge you to vote yes on HB 1005. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Megan Dollar. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. We are in opposition to House Bill 26-1005. This position was taken by our Labor and Employment Council, which is made up of experts in this area. At its core, the Labor Peace Act has always been about balance, respecting the choice of employees while still allowing a pathway for unions to collectively bargain and collect dues. That balance has worked in Colorado for decades. And today, employees and employers across the state are asking you to protect that choice. Statewide polling that was done by our coalition last year showed that roughly 70% of Coloradans oppose removing the second election requirement. Our own Colorado Chamber survey that we also did reflected that same sentiment, with more than 81% of respondents statewide not supporting the change, including 86% in the Denver metro area, 81% along the Front Range. These are your constituents. They live and work in your districts, and their voices do deserve to be heard. Because this is not a small change, this is a major shift to a law that has been on the books for decades. We are asking for your no vote today. Thank you very much, and I'm happy to try to answer any questions.

Thank you. Good afternoon, committee members. I'm Leslie Oliver. I'm the Vice President of External Affairs for the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of employers across Metro Denver, I respectfully urge a no vote on House Bill 26-1005. For more than 80 years, Colorado's Labor Peace Act has protected the right to organize while ensuring broad employee consent before anyone's paycheck is tapped for representation fees. This bill is not about the right to form a union that's protected by federal law. It's about one group of employees requiring another group who don't want automatic paycheck deductions to fund a private membership organization they don't want to join. Affordability is already stretched. Reducing take-home pay through automatic deductions makes it harder for workers to afford gas, groceries, rent, not easier. Competitiveness matters, too. Job growth slowed to about 0.4% in 2025 and is projected at about 0.6% in 26. In a flat growth environment, employers need policy stability. National site selector consultants, the people who advise businesses large and small on where to be, tell us that clients heavily weight states with predictable labor rules and that policy uncertainty increases risk. Predictable rules keep Colorado on the short list of states where businesses want to move, grow, and create jobs. Labor organizations are vital partners, and we value their partnership. But the principle must remain simple. Your pay, your choice. The current Labor Peace Act has been the balance supporting employers and our employees and our business competitiveness. It's a compromise we ask you to honor. Disrupting this balance doesn't solve a problem. It removes worker choice. We urge you to vote no on 26-10-05. Thank you.

Thank you Mr Chair and members of the committee My name is Parker White I the director of the Colorado Competitive Council and C3 is here today in opposition to House Bill 26 The bill rewrites Colorado Labor Peace Act and that matters because the Labor Peace Act itself is already a negotiated compromise Weakening that compromise is an unforced error. Colorado is already struggling to compete. Nationally, the state ranks 46th in the nation for employment growth. At the same time, competitor states like Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Arizona are moving aggressively to become more business friendly, drawing jobs and projects away from Colorado, and dollars out of the pockets of everyday Coloradans. From an economic development perspective, labor policy is not theoretical. It is one of the first questions site selectors ask, and their message is clear. Predictability matters. When labor peace becomes more restrictive and uncertain, projects don't just negotiate, they leave. Weakening the Labor Peace Act introduces new uncertainty into a system that businesses already understand. Beyond that, it increases the risk for employers considering Colorado for expansion or relocation. And most importantly, it sends a signal, whether intended or not, that Colorado is becoming a harder place to operate, hire, and grow. That signal matters. Once it's sent, it's very hard to walk back. Our experts on this are clear. This bill will not result in more jobs. It will result in fewer projects, fewer expansions, and ultimately fewer opportunities for workers, the very people this bill is intended to protect. The Labor Peace Act represents a balance, and undoing that will cause long-term damage to Colorado's job market, business climate, and ultimately Colorado's workers. At a time when we should be focused on regaining lost ground, attracting investment, and putting money back in the hands of everyday Coloradans, this bill moves us in the wrong direction.

There we go. Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you very much. My name is Patrick Scully. I'm a labor attorney with Foley Hoag, which is a law firm, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Contractors Association, which actually represents contractors in the construction industry with both unionized and non-union workforces. And the CCA has asked me to speak in opposition to this bill. And frankly, the bill has been misrepresented by its proponents. It's clearly not about the right to organize. That right is governed by federal law. It's about union finances and the very understandable desire that labor has to be paid for its representation. But I think if the past week has shown us anything, it's shown us that labor organizations, like all organizations, are made up of human beings. And human beings are not infallible. They make mistakes, and they sometimes do the wrong thing. Labor law is a federal system, and federal law has provided a limited grant of jurisdiction to the states to deal with the issue of union security and really permitted states only to make it more restrictive than federal law. And Colorado chose a unique path, a legally unique path, certainly, that employees get a second election to determine whether or not they want to be bound by union security and with metrics to ensure that that's a clear mandate. The current law is about choice. It's not a union-busting law. It certainly wasn't at the outset. It preserves employees of this state and their rights. The current version of this bill also includes elements that appear to be window dressing but attempt to regulate collective bargaining by saying that the employer could refuse to bargain or lawfully refuse to agree to union security That again is governed by federal law It unconstitutional insofar as it preempted So that has meaningless effect And I think if the issue is how the division conducts election, that is a problem you can solve. The answer is not to change a long-held compromise that's worked well for the people of Colorado. And we ask that you vote no. Thank you.

to speak uh for or in favor of uh the uh bill uh in front of us here um you just heard about predictability uh and how it's important for business to have um some predictability and i would argue what's more predictable than having a contract with your labor multi-year contracts where you know what your costs are going to be and what your raises look like for years ahead of time and then choice when you're choosing as a worker whether or not to join a unionized workforce you make that choice ahead of your choice to accept the employment. I like to compare it a lot to maybe an HOA. If you're going to go buy a new house, you're going to make that decision whether you're going to live in an HOA before you buy the house, not go buy the house and then say I'm not going to participate in the HOA, even though you bought the house knowing it was part of an HOA. I don't know why Colorado would want to engage itself in the middle of private contracts between employers and their workforce, which is exactly what this bill does. It inserts itself in between the potential of a labor contract between an employer and its workforce. And then the last piece is if this bill passed, it wouldn't automatically give union security to every contract that doesn't have it. It just allows the workers and the union to negotiate with the employer on whether or not to have union security. Union security is not a given just because you don't have this law in place. it's still a negotiated item that must be negotiated between the employer and its workforce. All right. Thank you.

Hello, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for your time today. My name is Justice Wilson. I'm a medical assistant at Kaiser Permanente, a proud member of SEIU Local 105, and a mother of three. I am here today in support of HB 1005. As a health care worker, my job is to take care of people, but before I worked at Kaiser, I couldn't even take care of my own family. the way they deserved. I was working multiple jobs just to scrape by, constantly worried about rent, groceries, and whether I could keep a roof over our heads. I believe one job should be enough, and I know something had to change. When I started working for Kaiser and became a part of a union, everything changed for me and my family. I was finally able to leave those extra jobs behind. I knew how much I'd be making, I could plan, and I could finally breathe. For the first time, I wasn't living month to month wondering if this would be the month we lost our home. This kind of security changed my life. It made me a better mother, a better worker, a better member of my community, and a better friend. That's why I'm here today, and that's why I stand with workers across Colorado who are trying to have the same security and stability for their families and themselves. Every worker deserves to know their home is safe and their next meal will be there. They should not have to prove they want security twice. One vote is enough. One vote is enough for you to hold your seats. One vote is enough for the governor to hold his, and one vote should be enough for workers to form a union. When my children enter this workforce someday, I want them to know that working one job can still mean a stable life. I am no longer asking politely for that future for them. I am demanding it. If one vote is enough for you, it should be enough for Colorado workers. Please support the Worker Protection Act. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Sherry Fry, and I'm a Presbyterian pastor at Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church in North Glen, and I'm here in support of the Worker Protection Act. Colorado is the only state that still requires workers to jump through an extra hoop to secure what they've already voted for. One election should be enough. Requiring a second higher threshold vote doesn't create fairness, it creates barriers, and it tilts the system away from working people. As a pastor, I sit with people who are working incredibly hard and struggling to get by, people who are exhausted and they're worried about safety on the job, people who feel like their voices don't matter. So when systems make it harder, not easier for people to speak up for themselves, it's inefficient and it's also unjust. When workers have a voice, we know that lives improve, families are more stable, and communities are stronger. But when the voice is silenced or discouraged, power shifts in the wrong direction and harm can follow. From a faith perspective, this is about dignity. We believe every person is created in the image of God and that dignity does not end when someone clocks in. It means fair wages and safe conditions and a real voice in the decisions that shape lives. This bill is not radical. It simply says if workers vote to organize, we respect that decision. There is power in knowing that you're not alone, and this bill helps to make that possible. It gives workers a fair shot at standing together and being heard, and we do have a choice. We can keep an outdated system that places extra burdens on working families, or we can remove the barrier and trust people. And I urge you to pass the Worker Protection Act. Thank you for your time and your service.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honorable members of the committee. My name is Kevin Vick, and I'm a high school social studies teacher from Colorado Springs and currently serving as the president of the Colorado Education Association, representing nearly 40,000 educators across the state of Colorado. I here today to speak in support of House Bill 1005 As a union that represents public workers House Bill 1005 doesn directly impact us or our members but the Colorado Education Association strongly believes that all Coloradans deserve the freedom to voice their concerns about workplace safety, advocate for higher wages, and should have the ability to form unions if they so choose. This is an issue CEA has been advocating for public workers and we stand in solidarity with private sector workers as they try to remove outdated and burdensome requirements that limit their access to union representation. CEA knows firsthand that removing barriers to union formation benefits all workers through higher wages and safer workplaces. Data shows that in general, union workers earn 10.2% more than their non-union counterparts in the same industry with comparable education, job titles, and experience. The difference is even more stark in education, where educators in districts with collective bargaining agreements have an average salary that is 33% higher than districts without. That means that educators stay in those districts, which is better for student achievement. That has also a direct and undoubtedly positive impact on Colorado's economy, which benefits workers and companies alike. Colorado stands alone as the only state requiring two elections for union formation. The Colorado Education Association asks you today to support the Worker Protection Act to eliminate the second election, bringing Colorado labor laws in line with the National Labor Relations Act. We're asking that you stand with workers and vote yes on House Bill 1005. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jack Tate, and I serve as President and CEO of Associated Builders and Contractors, Rocky Mountain. We represent hundreds of construction employers and thousands of craft professionals across Colorado. We're here today in opposition to House Bill 1005. At its core, this debate is about balance and, more importantly, about employee choice. Colorado's Labor Peace Act has worked for 80 years because it recognizes two equally important rights, the rights of employees to organize and the right of employees to choose not to associate. That second right is often too overlooked. Under current law, if employees want reunion representation, they can vote for it, full stop. That right is already protected under federal law. And importantly, for workers who actively want to be part of a union, those opportunities exist today. Union contractors across Colorado are hiring. workers can choose to join these firms just as employers themselves can choose to affiliate with a union at any time for their labor solution that pathway is open voluntary and functioning in the construction industry this bill is not about access to union jobs It about whether that choice can be imposed on others But Colorado adds an important safeguard. If you're going to require every employee to financially support or join a union, it requires that higher level of threshold of 75% in a second election. It matters because affiliation should be a choice and not imposed on someone by a narrow majority. Employers can choose to affiliate with associations anytime. That's voluntary. Employees deserve that same freedom. Repealing the Labor Peace Act removes that balance, and it opens the door for a simple majority to impose union obligations, financial, career-wise, or otherwise, on every worker in a workplace. That's not championing worker freedom. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time.

Thank you Mr. Chair, committee members, bill sponsors. My name is Kelly Sloan on behalf of the Westminster Chamber of Commerce, representing local businesses that make up our community with the goal to continuously improve the business climate and build opportunities for growth in Westminster and surrounding areas. We come before you in respectful opposition to House Bill 1005. The Labor Peace Act has provided a balanced solution to issues concerning labor and employment relations in the state for more than 80 years. It represents an effective and reasonable compromise that has protected workers' rights to organize and collectively bargain, while simultaneously presenting Colorado as a favorable and attractive state to start, build, grow, or relocate a business. An important key to maintaining that unique balance has been the second supermajority vote to allow mandatory dues deductions, a crucial element which this bill, as introduced, unfortunately takes away. Removal of this second vote would allow a simple majority of workers to effectively commandeer a portion of the paycheck of all employees. This is not fair for the workers, who should have a greater say in how their hard-earned paychecks are spent, nor is it conducive to a healthy business environment. While we may represent businesses in our community, we also represent by extension the community as a whole, including the employees that keep our local businesses running. And much of our opposition to this bill is based on our desire to protect the rights of the workers to control their own paychecks. Like all the business groups who have been here today, we are always ready to do our part and work collaboratively on solutions that improve our business environment in ways that work for everyone, business owners, employees and customers alike. We have seen many encouraging signs from legislators and the governor's office, but this bill would represent an enormous step in the wrong direction. For these reasons, and for the others you've heard this afternoon, and for the sake of both our local businesses and our workers, we encourage a no vote on HB 205.

with us. We'll go to Jeff Thormansgard. Okay. Thank you. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jeff Thormansgard, and I'm representing the Colorado Springs Chamber, an economic development corporation. I'm here in respectful opposition to House Bill 1005. I want to address something here directly on the onset. There is an underlying narrative in this debate that businesses are constantly looking for a way disadvantaged workers, that we need fewer guardrails because employers can't be trusted. That's simply not the reality we operate in. In Colorado Springs and across the state, employers and employees succeed together. Businesses compete for talent. They invest in their workforce. They provide opportunity, upward mobility, and stability for families. The idea that the system is stacked against workers ignores the fact that Colorado current framework has produced both strong worker protections and a thriving economy And that brings me to the bill. For decades, the Labor Peace Act has worked because it balances interests. Workers already have the right to organize, and that's not the question. But when it comes to requiring mandatory financial support, that decision affects every employee in the workplace. Colorado has said it should meet a higher bar. That's what the second vote does, and it ensures that decision is not just momentary, but one that's durable. Not just a majority, but a clear and sustained consensus. House Bill 1005 removes that safeguard, and in so doing, shifts Colorado away from a model that has served both workers and employers well. one that is worth noting unions themselves have successfully operated within for generations. From a business perspective, that creates uncertainty, it changes the rules, and it sends a signal that the balance we've relied on is no longer valued.

Thank you. Mr. House.

by implementing 1005. Thank you. Thank you. And we do have Ms. Meshke online, who has signed up to testify against. Ma'am, if you'd like to testify at this time, we'll let you go before we open up the panel to questions.

Thank you. Committee members, questions for this panel. Senator Liston.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Liston. That is the correct interpretation. So at that point, all members of the workforce would be then having their dues, having dues discounted from their paycheck. Also, they may be subject to different work rules and work arrangements than the company has had in place for some time. So it would be an unfair change to a large number of employees who may not want to associate with the union. Like, for example, what about the pipe fitter that wants to negotiate his own wages? What about the electrician that wants to multiskill and not live within a certain confinement of work rules, but multiskill and involve technology in their work and have a career path towards being in management at the contractor? What about someone who an employee that just doesn want to have their dues out of their paycheck just to go to political processes they may not agree with It a blunt instrument that would negatively affect a lot of workers who have chosen to go to a non-union business in the first place when, if they wanted to be in the construction industry, and this is what's unique about the construction industry, if a worker wants to be in the trade union, they're hiring. Every construction company is hiring. Non-union union, there's a shortage of construction workers. Our association estimates that approximately 500,000 jobs are open looking to have workforce fill those jobs if human beings have materialized with skills. And so I just want to emphasize, again, the construction industry is a little bit unique. If you want to be in a union, you can go join a union today and be on a job site and working. And it's also many companies choose to affiliate with the union because they're like, well, we don't want to be involved in training and managing employees and doing all that. We just want to sign a deal with the union, and they then provide a workforce for that contractor. So, again, the construction industry is very, very unique in that way, in that companies will sign what's called a pre-hire agreement with unions to provide labor on a job site.

Mr. Chair, sorry, Senator Liston, I can't. It is consequential. It is not like .001%, but every union is different. just as there's many different trades and trade unions in the construction industry. There's lots of other unions too, and they all have their own contracts. Thank you.

Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Carly McClure. I am a crisis clinician at Clinica Family Health and Wellness and a member of SEIU Local 105. My colleagues and I decided to unionize to create a safer working environment and to have our voices be heard by our employer. We were struggling with staffing shortages, which resulted in port client care, as we had to close overnight and some weekends for a period of time. We were experiencing unsafe working conditions for not only ourselves, but for our clients. We lost power in our building for over 20 hours, and there were no safety protocols in place. We had to remain open, and we're having to meet with clients in the dark. All of our badge entry doors were unlocked, giving clients access to the kitchen and other unsafe places. Our employer was also trying to implement 13-hour workdays with a mandatory one-hour unpaid break. Union security gives us protection in the workplace to voice our opinions and the ability to negotiate for safe working conditions and quality benefits We started organizing and in our first election we won 97 union recognition Our second election was a chaotic process. Due to being a 24-hour facility, we had a mail-in election resulting in some workers not receiving ballots. My employer also began holding weekly meetings to spread anti-union rhetoric. Despite ultimately winning the second election by 100%, the six-week process delayed progress when we could have been negotiating better conditions. It wasted our time and wasted state resources. Colorado is the only state in the country that requires workers to jump through two hoops. We do not hold second elections when voting for elected officials, so why are we disempowering workers with a second election? My union gives me the confidence to advocate for both my clients and my own well-being. Knowing we have collective power makes us feel safer and more respected in the workplace. Our community deserves workers who can take sick days, speak up about safety, and negotiate for better wages and benefits. please vote to modernize Colorado labor law by passing the Worker Protection Act. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman, members of this committee. My name is Kay Ott. I am a union barista and a store organizer with Starbucks, and I am here today on behalf of my union siblings in support of the Worker Protection Act. I speak to you not from theory, but from experience. I have organized my workplace and I have walked a picket line alongside thousands of my peers across the country. We were forced to go on strike because our employer refused to pay us enough to pay for rent and groceries. I have faced the consequences of standing up. Since our union won its election, my management has singled me out relentlessly. I was written up for handing a co-worker a union pin, a pin they asked for. Rules that were never enforced were suddenly applied with zero tolerance. I was unfairly stripped of my training duties, losing income I depended on for rent, groceries, and medical bills. And when our strike ended with an unconditional return-to-work agreement, my manager simply refused to schedule me for two full weeks and threatened my health care coverage and my ability to provide for my household. When I was finally put back on the schedule, I was given only hours that conflicted with the second job I had been forced to take because Starbucks has cut my hours so significantly. I was then disciplined for calling out, and when my union representative attended my disciplinary meeting to advocate for me, my manager openly lied and was openly hostile to the process. This is what second elections enable. They ensure that unions are perpetually under-resourced so they aren't strong enough to effectively fight for their members. Second elections reward employers who retaliate, delay, and exhaust workers into giving up. Colorado workers deserve better. Passing the Worker Protection Act would align our state with others that have already recognized what I have lived. Without union security, there's no security at all. I urge you to pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee My name is Ronnie Houston I a 52 teamster If anybody in this room know what collective bargaining and what a union does it me I have lived collective bargaining all my life I know what it is to have a livable wage. I know what it is to have health care for your family. I know what it is to have a pension to enjoy, because I'm enjoying it now. I want to say to this committee, please vote for these mistreated workers in Colorado. They need a voice. Today, give them that voice to organize. Organizing is the lifeblood of the unions. I came out of retirement to organize city and county workers of Denver. Why? Because I believe it from the depths of my heart. When I worked, I had a voice. My brothers and sisters that worked with me, we had a voice to negotiate on our pay, on our health care, on our safety rules. We had that voice collectively. I want you guys to know that those that worked in the industry with me, they knew we were a union company. And they gladly came in. Obviously, I'm an old man. I'm 72 years old. This bill was around before I was born. Thank God I worked for a company that already had union security before they put this bill on the books. I ask you guys to vote in favor of this bill. And if you've got questions for this old man, I'm here to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Matt Schechter. I'm the General Counsel for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7. on behalf of our 23,000 members and their families, I urge you to vote yes on House Bill 1005. You know, I'm joining you today from Greeley, Colorado, from right outside of the JBS strike. And JBS, this plant is the perfect example of why we need this bill. Many of you may not know Colorado labor history, but in 1980, this plant was called Montfort Foods. This plant was owned by the Montforts, and in 1980, this plant was shut down. At that time, it was a union plant, and the workers had union security. The Montforts reopened the plant in 1982 as a non-union plant. 11 years of litigation and five elections later, in 1993, workers finally got what they deserved and had union security at this plant again. None of that would have been necessary without the second election that is at the core of the problem in Colorado's labor laws. Members of the committee, I urge you to vote yes, to get rid of this anachronism that does not belong in our state. It's out of touch with our values. I would also note that this law, although certain areas Suspects are preempted in part. They're not preempted for all workers. And most of this law is already largely preempted by federal law. Most of the Labor Peace Act. What is not preempted is this second election, and it needs to go away. I urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for Mr. Schechter online. Does this bill have any effect at all on whether a worker in a union workplace can negotiate individual terms and conditions of employment? Mr. Schechter.

Seeing no further questions, we'll go ahead and retire this panel. Thank you all for being here today. This will bring us to the amendment phase. and we will give the sponsors a moment to return to the table. Thank you All righty Sponsors, are there any amendments? Committee members, any amendments? Seeing none, closing comments, sponsors.

Senator Danielson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Folks, thanks for your time today and for everyone who came to testify. I wanted to clear a couple things up because there was some misinformation during the hearing on a couple of notes. Let's be very, very clear. What this does is eliminate the second election when workers are deciding whether or not to unionize. Right now, the way that it goes is they have to wait for permission from the second election with this mega supermajority threshold to move forward with the union security clause. So what we're doing is saying that they can go ahead and go into their bargaining units or their bargaining tables with or collective bargaining negotiations when they can review things like benefits pay safety on the job etc but that they can also enter into this negotiation around the union security clause which currently requires that second burdensome election. I want to also remind folks that it doesn't mean that they get it. It just means that they're authorized to go and negotiate it. So there was a recent union effort where they went into the collective bargaining negotiations. They got the pay, the benefit, those things worked out, but they weren't able to negotiate a union security clause. So all this does is allow for this to be part of that conversation. And I also want to remind folks that the union is required to, you know, their duty of fair representation requires them, regardless of the employee's union status, member or non-member, to work on their behalf. And if the workers, union and non-member alike, feel that they're not doing that, they can sue the union. So in order to allow for these folks to go forward and work on collective bargaining that includes better pay, better benefits, safety on the job, and any detail unique to that industry, they need people on the ground doing that. So it's not going to require – I heard one of the witnesses say this is going to be a mandated union membership. membership. Untrue. What it could require if they're able to get a security clause is for fair pay for this representation, not full union fees, not even membership to the union, but to support the effort in order to secure those better paychecks and the better benefits and more safety on the job. And it's a shame that that's been misrepresented by various voices in the last couple of years because it's confusing. And so I wanted to sort of set that straight. I also wanted to just kind of state the obvious. I mean, what we have right now is state government in the way of the workers moving forward how they wish. An arbitrary, burdensome requirement of a second election that is completely unnecessary, except to these companies and these folks who have been on the profiting side of this for years and years. I heard it called a negotiated compromise, the Labor Peace Act. We're going on 84 years ago. It was a blatant effort to shut down union voices in and around the World War II era And they weren quiet about it They said we crafting this so that it reduces the power of the workers and the labor unions specifically It is as I said on the front end, a union-busting effort at its core. This is not a negotiated compromise. Or they said that it's employee choice. Well, as far as I saw, especially today and through the testimony in the last couple of years, employees are coming and asking us to do this. This is not a balanced effort. This is not a compromise. This is something that has worked very, very well for the corporate entities across the state for decades, going on a century. This does not work well for the workers. We are not in a balanced, compromised situation. We are in a situation that heavily favors businesses, and corporate entities that would very much like to shut down union activity. And it is way overdue that we restore the balance in the state and actually give some power to the workers. We've heard today from various workers in various industries the difficulties going through this second election and the benefits that they see that they wish to choose in a unionized workplace. So we come to you today with House Bill 1005, the Worker Protection Act, to remove that burdensome state government barrier to workers all across the state who have already made the decision that they wish to unionize, to move forward, to empower themselves, to move into their own negotiations for their well-being in order to lift themselves up. This is an 80, almost four-year-old law that is not representative of this state or our values. And we need to answer the call of the public and actually take a step forward past this bill and stand up for the hardworking people of the state. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Danielson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1005 to the Committee on Appropriations.

Senator Catlin. No.

Liston. No.

Mr. Chair. Aye. That passes on a vote of 3-2. That is the only agenda item that we have for Business, Labor, and Technology Committee today. Therefore, Business, Labor, and Technology Committee is adjourned.