A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Committee advances bill to eliminate Colorado���'s second union election, 3-2

March 24, 2026 | 2026 Legislature CO, Colorado


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Committee advances bill to eliminate Colorado���'s second union election, 3-2
The Business, Labor and Technology Committee advanced House Bill 1005, known as the Worker Protection Act, to the Appropriations Committee on a 3–2 vote after a day of split testimony from workers, union representatives and business groups.

Sponsor Senator Judah told the committee the bill would "restore a basic freedom of workers to join together and form a union without being threatened, fired, or blocked by a second election." She framed the change as a response to an affordability crisis and workplace-safety concerns raised by workers across industries.

Sponsor Senator Danielson said the second-election requirement was an "antiquated law" enacted more than eight decades ago that imposes an extra barrier for employees seeking union representation. Danielson said the bill would allow newly recognized unions and employers to negotiate union-security clauses as part of initial collective bargaining rather than forcing a separate statewide second vote.

Supporters included union leaders and rank-and-file employees who described stalled bargaining, lost ballots and alleged employer intimidation during protracted second-election processes. Dennis Dougherty, executive director of the Colorado AFL-CIO, urged lawmakers to back the measure and cited a Colorado Fiscal Institute figure he described as an estimate that the change could put about $5,700,000,000 annually into workers' pockets. "This isn't just for union members," Dougherty said, arguing broader economic benefits. Clinic and hospitality workers described delayed contracts and difficulty sustaining organizing when employers mount anti-union campaigns.

Business and employer groups pushed back, saying the existing Labor Peace Act balances employees' right to organize with the choice of employees not to financially support a union. Megan Dollar of the Colorado Chamber of Commerce told the committee the change is a "major shift" and said coalition polling the chamber shared showed opposition to removing the second election. Leslie Oliver of the Denver Metro Chamber summarized the opposition's position succinctly: "Your pay, your choice."

Industry groups representing construction, retail, chambers of commerce and economic-development organizations warned that removing the second election would remove a safeguard that requires a supermajority for mandatory payroll deductions and could affect Colorado's competitiveness. Jack Tate of Associated Builders and Contractors said the 75% second-election threshold was designed to "ensure that decision is not just momentary, but one that's durable." Opponents also raised concerns about portions of the bill they viewed as raising federal preemption or constitutional questions.

Several union-affiliated witnesses recounted workplace examples they said justified change. Brennan Degenhardt, a server at Alamo Drafthouse, testified that in a second election held Jan. 9, 2026, many employees did not receive mail ballots, an outcome he said prevented a fair result and delayed bargaining. Matt Schechter, general counsel for UFCW Local 7, cited a long history at a Greeley plant to argue the second-election requirement is an anachronism.

Committee discussion included questions about whether the bill would require union membership or automatically impose deductions; sponsors and witnesses repeatedly said it would not mandate membership and that union-security terms would remain negotiable during collective bargaining. Senators pressed witnesses for details on dues rates and implementation; witnesses replied that dues vary by union and contract and that the bill would not itself set a dues percentage.

Senator Danielson moved to refer the bill to Appropriations. The committee recorded a 3–2 vote: Senators Judah and Danielson and the chair voted yes; Senators Catlin and Liston voted no. The motion passed and the bill now goes to the Appropriations Committee.

No amendments were offered during the committee meeting and no final date for further hearings was announced.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee