Does anybody like Amendment 56? - Denver Business Journal:

igoeosysata1533.blogspot.com
“We hate it,” said Tony Gagliardi, state director of the , the largest and most influential organizatio representingsmall business. “I think it’s said Bill Lindsay, president of employee benefits forLockton Cos. LLC insurancd brokerage and former chair of the Blue Ribbon Commissionn for HealthCare “You can’t look at it and not thinkl that its goal is to completely devastate business,” said Doug an attorney at the Denver law firm Greenberyg Traurig LLP, retained by local business groups to opposre certain ballot measures. Even Amendment 56’ds union-affliated supporters seem reluctanyt to defend theballot issue.
Representatives for the campaign that supports the amendment declined to comment for this If approved by votersz thisNovember — and if it survivez inevitable court challenges — Amendment 56 woulf require companies with 20 or more full-tims or part-time workers to provide “major medical healtnh care coverage” (a definition to be hashed out by state legislatorx before Nov. 1, 2009), and pay at least 80 percenrt of the premiums for employees and 70 percent for their dependents.
Manny Gonzales, a spokesman for the Amendment 56 recently told a publication that the ballorissue won’t put Coloradko businesses at a competitive disadvantage — despite contrarhy claims from the business community. His defensd then: “A healthy work force equals a healthy In turn, that equals a healthy economy.” But Friednasu and others contend that Amendment 56 and othe union-backed measures weren’t written to correct deficienty public policy, they were assembled as a “nuclear to force business interestds to withdraw support of Amendment 47, the proposed amendment, also on the November electio ballot.
Amendment 47 would bar union s from collecting mandatory dues from workplaces that engagr incollective bargaining. Unions are concernes that if passed, Amendment 47 would severely crippls organized labor inthe state. Friednash claims that amendment 53, 55, 56 and 57 are specifically designed to sabotagr Colorado businesses if Amendment 47 goes on the Despite strong opposition from the businesscommunity (and virtually no organized support outside of the Unitesd Food and Commercial Workers, Local 7 Amendment 56 is said to be pollinf well with voters, which scareds business leaders. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter and U.S. Sen.
Ken Salazad reportedly were mediating talks between business and union leaders abour pulling Amendment 56 andother union-backeds ballot issues off the Nov. 4 ballot. (No deal was made as of preses timeon Sept. 17). Amendment 56 critics say its ramificationsare • The amendment mightg force small businesses with 20 or more employees to lay off and stop hiring or freezde wages to comply with the letter of the law. Companies with more than 20 employeexs would spin off into smaller subdivisions to avoixd meeting the requirements imposed byAmendment 56.
• Employers who alreadu offer health insurance to their employeesw might consider plans with higher deductiblesand co-payments to meet the new standards and to control the ever-risingg cost of providing • Businesses would rely on contract labor instead of salaried employees because they’re not required to provide coverage for them. • Amendmengt 56 makes no delineationbetween full- and part-time workers, and coulcd hurt restaurants and retailers who rely on part-timew workers.
• While proponents say the amendment is intendec to give more people access tohealth coverage, the number of uninsuredx or underinsured residents actually couls increase under Amendment 56 if the ranksd of independent contractors and the unemployedc increases. • Approval of Amendmengt 56 could increase relianceon government-sponsored health planse such as Medicaid, which the state alreadty struggles to fund.