Spanberger's Big Win - No on Right to Work repeal
Rolling Stones - You Can't Always Get What You Want
Congressman Bob Goodlatte taught me over thirty years ago:
In politics, timing is everything.
Seventy-five years ago UCLA Bruins football head coach Red Sanders taught us all:
Winning isn’t everything; it’s the ONLY thing.
This week, former Congresswoman and current Democratic nominee for governor, Abigail Spanberger announced her opposition to repealing Virginia’s Right to Work statute during a TV interview which is posted below.
In doing so, Spanberger adroitly took a major general election issue off the campaign table - and early.
Until now, her opponent, Republican nominee Lt. Governor Winsome Earle-Sears has spent a lot of her campaign attacking Spanberger on what she assumed Spanberger’s position was going to be on Virginia’s Right to Work.
Enter ESPN’s Lee Corso:
The timing of this move by Spanberger is impressive for the only two reasons that matter in politics.
Money and votes.
Now, Earle-Sears will have a harder time raising money on this issue while Spanberger can go after more votes in the business community.
Not only were Virginia business leaders (Democrats and Republicans) lining up their resources for campaigns to educate the voters on what a repeal of Right to Work would mean, they were also organizing their local spheres of influence which means votes.
Taking Right to Work out of the general election in early May is a smart move and big deal in an off year cycle.
It also seems to have been begrudgingly accepted by Labor and Democratic officials as there has been virtually no push back thus far.
That probably means Spanberger worked to sideline any blowback by supporting many other things that Labor does want like increasing the Minimum Wage and more collective bargaining. #SpoonfulOfSugar
That’s just smart politics as well as a sign of a well organized and disciplined operation. Kudos to Spanberger and her team.
Other the other hand, it should serve as a lesson in timing as the Earle-Sears campaign jumped the gun.
(No, I’m not inserting the famous AR-15 picture from 2021 - but thanks for playing along on the board game at home.)
Very few Virginians are paying close attention to the governor’s race this year and forwarding this critical issue so early gave Spanberger the time to deflate it.
And she did.
If your opponent is hitting you with a club, take the club out of their hands.
That’s Politics 101.
Right to Work is potentially a dangerous issue for Democrats because it is counter narrative to one of their key issues - Choice.
It’s hard to argue on one hand that you support a woman’s right to choose on abortion but not an employee’s right to choose on employment. More on the Choice dilemma later in the cycle.
Like many consequential issues, the decision on Right to Work comes down to Force or Freedom.
Forcing someone to join a union would be tough sell and, frankly, an unnecessary fight when so much of the economy is transforming right in front of us. Again, more on that later…
Spanberger scored a big political win this week signaling to the business community that Virginia Democrats will remain the relatively moderate governing party of the last generation.
For the last quarter century that winning suburban formula has been competent core services with fiscal balance and YES - being pro-business.
This week’s win is in sharp contrast to the Republicans’ disastrous handling of the nomination of their Lt. Governor candidate, John Reid. OY.
There is time for the Republican ticket to unify and develop a message beyond their impressive and diverse biographies. But they need to get moving and fast.
For now, it looks like Right To Work will not be a major or effective talking point this fall or a fundraising vehicle this summer.
Watch the exclusive interview conducted by WRIC’s Tyler Englander here:
In the interview, Spanberger said that she does not support “full repeal” of Right to Work and that the statute is old which suggests that some amendments might be in order.
Most legislation introduced in the General Assembly seeks to amend existing law.
Right to Work is a statute that is basically an up or down vote.
Either you support an employee being forced to join a union as a condition of employment or you DO NOT.
As a member of Congress, Spanberger voted to repeal all Right to Work laws at the state level under what is known as the PRO Act - Protecting the Right to Organize Act.
Needless to say, that vote has been almost the singular conversation among business leaders in the lead up to this year’s election.
Repealing Right To Work would have been tantamount to unilateral disarmament in the constant battle to attract and retain capital and labor here in the Commonwealth.
Spanberger’s decision is a big loss of our competitor states but a big win for her campaign for governor.
It also shows that Spanberger is willing to make difficult decisions that will upset parts of the Democratic base.
Here’s a breakdown conflict of voting for the PRO Act, but supporting Right To Work at the state level:
The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act at the federal level and "right-to-work" laws at the state level represent conflicting approaches to labor policy, particularly regarding unionization and collective bargaining. Supporting both simultaneously creates a tension in political or ideological stance, as they embody opposing priorities.
Key Features of the PRO Act (Federal Level)
The PRO Act, formally the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act, is federal legislation aimed at strengthening workers’ rights to unionize and bargain collectively. Introduced in Congress multiple times (e.g., 2019, 2021, 2023), it seeks to amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and other labor laws. Key provisions include:
Union Empowerment:
Overrides state “right-to-work” laws by allowing unions to negotiate “fair share” agreements, requiring non-union workers in unionized workplaces to pay fees for representation costs.
Protects workers from employer retaliation (e.g., firing for unionizing) by imposing fines and providing compensation.
Bans “captive audience” meetings where employers discourage unionization and allows secondary strikes.
Uses the ABC test to classify workers, reducing misclassification as independent contractors to ensure NLRA protections.
Election Reforms:
Ensures fair union elections by preventing employer interference and allowing remote voting.
Facilitates initial collective bargaining agreements through arbitration if negotiations stall.
Broader Impact:
Aims to reduce economic inequality by boosting union power, supported by 59% of voters in a 2021 Vox/Data for Progress poll.
Backed by labor groups (AFL-CIO, SEIU) and President Biden, but opposed by business groups (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Restaurant Association) for increasing costs and reducing employer flexibility.
The PRO Act’s override of state right-to-work laws is a central point of conflict, as it imposes federal authority over state labor policies, prioritizing union strength.
Key Features of Right-to-Work Laws (State Level)
Right-to-work laws, enacted in 27 U.S. states (e.g., Texas, Florida, Indiana), prohibit unions from requiring non-union workers in unionized workplaces to pay fees for representation, addressing the “free-rider” issue where non-members benefit from union contracts without contributing. Key aspects include:
Worker Choice:
Ensures workers cannot be compelled to join a union or pay dues as a condition of employment, emphasizing individual freedom.
Federal law (NLRA) already prohibits forced union membership, but right-to-work laws extend this to dues.
Economic Argument:
Proponents claim these laws attract businesses by lowering labor costs, citing a 13.3% business growth in right-to-work states vs. 4.1% in non-right-to-work states (2000–2015).
Critics, including labor unions, argue they weaken unions, lowering wages (non-union workers earn 85% of unionized workers’ pay, per BLS) and eroding benefits.
State Autonomy:
Reflects state-level control over labor policy, resisting federal overreach. Opponents of the PRO Act argue it violates states’ rights.
Differences in Voting for Each
Voting for the PRO Act at the federal level and supporting right-to-work laws at the state level involve distinct policy goals and constituencies:
Policy Objective:
PRO Act: Strengthens unions by overriding state right-to-work laws, ensuring unions can collect fees from all workers they represent. It aims to bolster collective bargaining to address wage inequality and workplace protections.
Right-to-Work: Protects individual workers’ freedom to opt out of union dues, prioritizing personal choice and business-friendly environments. It weakens union financial power, potentially reducing their bargaining leverage.
Scope and Authority:
PRO Act: Federal law with nationwide application, preempting state laws like right-to-work under the Supremacy Clause. It centralizes labor policy to create uniform protections.
Right-to-Work: State-level laws reflecting local economic and political priorities, emphasizing state sovereignty. Supporting them resists federal mandates.
Constituency:
PRO Act: Appeals to labor unions, progressive Democrats, and workers seeking stronger workplace rights.
Right-to-Work: Favored by business groups, conservative Republicans, and workers valuing individual choice. Figures like Sen. Rand Paul champion it as protecting worker freedom.
Economic Impact:
PRO Act: May increase wages and benefits but raises business costs, potentially costing $57 billion for worker reclassification and $33.3 billion for franchise joint-employer rules.
Right-to-Work: Linked to lower wages but higher business growth and job creation in some studies.
Supporting Both
Supporting the PRO Act federally while backing right-to-work laws at the state level is inconsistent because the PRO Act explicitly nullifies right-to-work laws, undermining their core purpose.
Ideological Tension:
PRO Act Support: Signals alignment with pro-union, progressive values, prioritizing collective bargaining and federal standardization. It assumes unions drive economic equity, as 71% of Americans supported unions in a 2022 Gallup poll.
Right-to-Work Support: Reflects conservative, individualist values, emphasizing worker autonomy and state rights. It aligns with business interests and skepticism of union power, as 70% of voters in a survey worried the PRO Act would force dues.
Combining these suggests either pragmatic compromise or ideological incoherence. A politician might claim to support workers’ rights (PRO Act) while appeasing local business interests or conservative voters (right-to-work), but the PRO Act’s preemption renders right-to-work laws moot.
Political Strategy:
In states with strong right-to-work traditions (e.g., Arizona, Texas), supporting the PRO Act could alienate voters.
A politician might back right-to-work locally to maintain state-level support while endorsing the PRO Act federally to align with national party priorities (e.g., Democrats under Biden).
Practical Outcome:
If the PRO Act passes, state right-to-work laws become unenforceable, as federal law supersedes.
The PRO Act’s “fair share” agreements would require non-union workers to pay fees, directly contradicting right-to-work’s opt-out provision.
Catholic Social Teaching Context:
Since we are in a discussion of American Catholic politics this week, it’s worth noting that Catholic social teaching (per Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno) supports workers’ rights to organize but also subsidiarity, which favors local decision-making. A Catholic might lean toward the PRO Act for union support but hesitate if they see it as federal overreach, aligning with right-to-work’s state-level autonomy. However, the PRO Act’s preemption challenges this balance, creating a dilemma for Catholics balancing solidarity and subsidiarity.
Critical Reflection
Supporting both the PRO Act and right-to-work laws is logically inconsistent due to their direct opposition. The PRO Act’s override of right-to-work laws means a federal vote for it nullifies state-level support for right-to-work, making the latter stance symbolic at best. This contradiction might reflect political expediency—appealing to diverse constituencies (unions vs. businesses)—but risks distrust.
Pro-Union Critique: Labor groups argue right-to-work laws, rooted in anti-union history, harm workers by weakening unions, which reduce inequality. The PRO Act’s reforms are seen as essential, with 48% of non-union workers wanting union representation.
Pro-Business Critique: Business groups and conservatives warn the PRO Act raises costs, reduces flexibility, and infringes on states’ rights, citing economic growth in right-to-work states. They frame right-to-work as protecting worker freedom, supported by the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling against forced union fees.
Feasibility: The PRO Act has repeatedly stalled in the Senate due to filibuster rules, needing 60 votes (e.g., 2021 vote was 225–206 in the House, with only 5 Republicans). Right-to-work laws, entrenched in 27 states, face no immediate federal threat without PRO Act passage, making state-level support more impactful currently.
Conclusion
Voting for the PRO Act federally supports union power, overrides state right-to-work laws, and centralizes labor policy to enhance collective bargaining.
Supporting right-to-work laws at the state level champions individual worker choice, state autonomy, and business interests but is undermined by the PRO Act’s preemption.
Holding both positions is contradictory, as the PRO Act nullifies right-to-work laws, suggesting either strategic posturing or a lack of coherence.