Bacon's Rebellion

Signs of Life in the LG Race

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

It was only a matter of time before Bill Bolling, Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor, began attacking his Democratic adversary Leslie Byrne for her “liberal extremism.” My only question: What took him so long?

Bolling is running a sound clip on his website from an Aug. 8 meeting between Byrne and the United Mine Workers of America in Castlewood. Someone posed the question: “If you had a chance to do away with the right to work law through legislation would you vote for it?”

Byrne replied: “Absolutely. I call it the right to be poor law.”

For decades, it was political suicide in Virginia to oppose the Right to Work law, which allows employees in a unionized workforce the right to opt out of joining the union. Given the steady erosion of manufacturing employment in Virginia, however, the issue doesn’t resonate like it used to. Labor unions are increasingly irrelevant in Virginia’s service-based knowledge economy. Right to Work still may matter to the few remaining labor unions in Virginia and their die-hard liberal allies like Byrne, but most people see unions as a hindrance to flattening hierarchies, on pushing decision making down to the guys on the factory floor, and dissolving distinctions between “management” and “labor.”

The question is, will Bolling’s attack mean anything to anyone either? Or is the obsession with Right to Work, on both sides of the issue, an artifact of Virginia’s industrial past?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

  1. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    Interesting comment, but how about a nod, since I got there first?

    And your facts are somewhat inaccurate. You say that a Right to Work law “allows employees in a unionized workforce the right to opt out of joining the union,” but forced union membership has been unlawful since Taft-Hartley was passed in ’47. A Right to Work law guarantees that no employee can be compelled to join OR PAY DUES (the only thing that really matters to union officials) to a union as a condition of employment.

    You also state that “Labor unions are increasingly irrelevant in Virginia’s service-based knowledge economy”; however, the two areas where union membership is increasing is in the service sector (witness SEIU’s growth and importance) and among government employees — both growth industries in the Commonwealth.

    As for whether the “obsession with Right to Work, on both sides of the issue, an artifact of Virginia’s industrial past,” you might want to check in with Doug Wilder, who nearly self-destructed in ’89 with his “camel’s nose under the tent” comment, and might have, if Marshall Coleman had managed to stay on message on the issue.

    Right to Work is a question as to whether the government grants a certain class of organizations the special privilege of compelling their own financial support, in addition to the monopoly bargaining privilege granted under federal law (National Labor Relations Act and Railway Labor Act). Right to Work is a question of adding insult to injury. It’s about government funding — indirectly — the far Left.

    In an era when so-called campaign finance “reformers” are gutting the First Amendment’s guarantee of voluntary political speech, I think most Virginians remain content that the Commonwealth refuses to authorize involuntary political speech.

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Thanks for setting me straight on the precise definition of Right to Work. I agree with you totally that Right to Work is indispensable; it is outrageous that anyone could be forced to pay dues to a union he/she doesn’t want to represent them. It’s even worse when unions funnel a hefty percentage of their dues into political activity that many of its “members” oppose.

    My question wasn’t whether Right to Work is a good thing or bad thing — it’s a cornerstone policy that helps make Virginia a better place to live and work — but whether anyone cares anymore. Obviously, you do. But do most voters care enough to respond favorably to Bolling’s criticism of Byrne?

  3. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    Glad we agree. “Outrageous,” yes. Commonplace? Unfortunately, also yes. Fox News ran a story just the other day on the outrage in Washington State, where the fraudulently-installed Governor is forcing thousands — perhaps a majority — of state employees to pay union dues or a portion thereof. Maine’s Governor just did the same thing. Gray Davis spent most of his tenure forcing California state employees to pay dues, and I represent a class of 37,000 of them, forced to pay, collectively, more than a million dollars a month to an SEIU affiliate.

    Do Virginia’s voters care? Remember that Virginia’s bar on public employee monopoly bargaining was introduced by Dale City Democrat David Brickley, who was the local lawyer for the NEA.

    Do Virginia’s voters care? Obviously, I do. But I think that they do, too. And complacency in the face of union bosses unremitting efforts to increase their power and funding notwithstanding their decreasing popularity makes them no less dangerous than they were when they were more popular. Talk to Doug Stafford at the NRTW Committee, quoted in the Bolling release. Union efforts to corral more workers into forced dues schemes are on-going in several Right to Work states. It would be a mistake to think that they wouldn’t try in Virginia, if given a chance.

  4. Ben Kyber Avatar
    Ben Kyber

    The National Right To Work Committee and James Young represent the polar opposite of labor representation. They are so “pro-business” they are stiflingly anti-labor. If Unions are solely about collecting dues, then the NRTW committee is solely about protecting big business from any type of labor movement.

    I’m a Union member, but I support RTW, its ridiculous to force union membership on anyone. Groups like the NRTW committee take it a step further. Its obvious from James Young’s comments that he isn’t just about “right to work,” but opposes union’s existence as an entity in general. I don’t believe most of the general public agrees with that view.

    To answer Jim’s question, no. I don’t think most people will respond to Bolling’s criticism of Leslie Byrne. Few people are as passionately anti-union as James Young. I’m pretty sure that few people care THAT MUCH.

  5. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    Blue, I have a well-established public record in various federal court reporters and in testimony before a few Congressional Committees, and the National Right to Work Committee — with which I am not affiliated; my employer is the charitable legal aid organization the National Right to Work Foundation — has a well-established record regarding only one issue: the guarantee that every American have the freedom to beome a union member, and to refrain from completely from supporting a labor union. It might do you some good to check my record out before you misrepresent it, since I have never done anything to “oppose[] union’s [sic] existence as an entity in general,” unless, of course, you believe that opposing a union’s effort to extract support from unwilling employees is “opposition to unions’ existence in general.” If you do, then I would suggest that your visualization of the marketplace of ideas is akin to a marketplace in the former Soviet Union, and speaks volumes about your faith in unions’ ability to compete in it. I agree that the public doesn’t support opposition to unions’ existence in general; neither do I.

    However, like the Committee, I champion free choice, including the choice remain union free. It is a poverty that you fail or refuse to see and/or understand the distinction between that position and being “anti-union.”

    You really ought to get off the union boss Kool Aid and check the facts for yourself. That you nevertheless “support RTW” suggests that there may be hope for you yet.

  6. Scott Avatar
    Scott

    http://votesilver.com/

  7. GOPHokie Avatar
    GOPHokie

    I thought the RTW law also allowed striking employees to be fired. I know teachers in Va cant strike so I didnt know if that was a different law or not? Perhaps one of you can help.

  8. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    GOP Hokie: Federal law allows any striking worker to be permanently replaced. This is not a firing, since the employee has a preference for employment once the strike ends.

    As to teachers, monopoly bargaining privileges are not granted to unions in public employment. Hence, any strike by teachers is illegal, and they would be subject to discharge. It is a different law.

  9. Seth Cohen Avatar
    Seth Cohen

    I really don’t think it will matter. I have only once met people who told me that they vote on whether someone supports RTW, and that was at a bar in Springfield, VA, right by the NRTW building. What does it really change about this race? The unions were never going to support Bolling and the RTW folks were never going to support Byrne.

    I imagine after I post this that the RTW folks or the union people will spend their time writing about how important the issue is and that if they don’t get their way on it Western civilization is finished. And if I worked for either side I might feel the need to do that too, but since I don’t I am not going to stick around and read a bunch of postings about an issue most people don’t care about anymore.

    Have a good weekend.

  10. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Will Bolliing’s attack mean anything to anyone? In respect to the Right to Work law and blue-collar workers, I believe so… but there’s more.

    Back in 2003 campaign, I was endorsed by the AFL-CIO, even though, I continued to support the ‘Right-to-Work’ Law. The issue is a no-brainer as far as the local and state union reps were concerned. Advocating the repeal of the ‘Right-to-Work Law” is a wasted effort with Byrne’s campaign, because the state’s AFL-CIO organization politically surrendered the issue years ago. It’s not going to fly in Virginia.

    It’s noteworthy, that Leslie Byrne received a ‘free pass’ with Union endorsed support during the primary season.

    Where does Democratic candidate Byrne stand on ‘collective bargaining’ and ‘living wage adjustments’ with Virginia’s Public Service Workers Union?

    That’s the real question!

    The Danville Register & Bee reported, candidate Leslie Byrne said, “We’ve got to start talking about living wages for our people.”

    http://www.registerbee.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=DRB/MGArticle/DRB_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784349750&path=

    Note: Independent Gubernatorial candidate Russ Potts has received the VA Public Service Worker’s endorsement.

    http://www.vaue160.org/union/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=111

    ~ the blue dog

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It’s no surprise that Byrne described the right-to-work law as “institutionalized mooching.” She’s never run from her record as a pure liberal. Democrats who don’t pay homage to labor in Virginia don’t get nominated for statewide office.

    And it’s no surprise that Bolling attacked Byrne on this issue. I’m sure it’s at the top of a laundry list of easy hits Bolling will roll out during the course of this campaign. Democrats had to see it coming.

    What’s interesting is that no one seemed to ask Kaine-Kilgore or Deeds-McDonnell about where they stand on this issue. I’d sure like to know where they all stand today on right-to-work.

    An Undecided Voter

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    This might have made an impact if Virginia still had a manufacturing base. Most people have no idea that Virginia is a right to work state (or even what this means)!

    What I find interesting is that this blows up at the same time the below article is released. Maybe standing up for the little guy makes political sense?

    ==========================
    Report: Virginia lost 1,800 textile mill jobs in past year

    By STEPHANIE STOUGHTON
    AP Business Writer Aug 12, 2005

    RICHMOND, Va. – Textile mill employment in Virginia has dropped 15 percent in the past year _ the sharpest decline among states with the largest concentrations of jobs in this sector, according to preliminary federal statistics.

    The Labor Department reported Friday that textile mill employment in Virginia decreased by 1,800 jobs to 10,200 in June 2005 from 12,000 in the same month a year earlier.

  13. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Near Springfield there is a giant building with a huge sign on the top “National Right To Work”. It is hard to look at that huge building and sign and think that these people care about the little guy struggling to support his bungalow.

    I’m inclined to believe that if that organization had their way the would do away with unions.

    Management is an organization designed to promote a business. Part of that enterprise is involved in obtaining an adquate work force at minimum cost. This is necessarily a catch 22. If conditions are not good enough they lose the work force. If they are too good they lose the business.

    Labor unions are an organization that is designed to offset the advantages that the organization called management has against an individual. This is also a catch 22 situation. If the union is sufficiently successful at promoting their interests, they can kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

    Clearly, this is a case where a winner take all stragey benefits neither party. Clearly, a worker should not be required to pay dues to an organization whose political views he/she disagrees with. Clearly, NRTW should not be allowed to interfere with someone who chooses to join a union and support its political agenda. it is just as clear that the union should not be allowed to interfere with managements right to support NRTW.

    This has always bothered me. If management is allowed to organize, why should management of labor be any different? At the same time, when a worker accepts employment at a company, he becomes part of the organization and he should expect to support it.

    Unions came into being because history showed us that, left untrammeled, management kept an undue proportion of the organizations benefits to itself. Tyco, and Adelphia suggest that this urge is still in force.

    NRTW came into being because unions became too powerful and avaricious. The current Airline situation is one eample.

    There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

    One reason unions are not as powerful as they once were is that management has made workers owners through the device of 401k plans. Another reason is globalization.

    It seems to me that the situation is more nearly balanced now than ever. Management still has one trump card. Management is free to trade one laborer for another at will, even if that laborer is overseas. Laborers are not infinitely mobile so they have fewer choices among employers at their disposal.

    In a pedestrian oriented community, those choices are even less. Even if you have a perfectly functional balanced community called Big Rock Candy Mountain, someone is going to move to take advantage of the situation and disrupt the balance. Even in such a perfectly balanced community, the worker with access to a car can expand his options to work. I suppose EMR would say that this is a means of disrupting the balance and promotes dysfunction, but on balance, I’d say a pedestrian oriented community is fundamentally anti-labor.

    I admit to being conflicted on this issue, but I think both dogmatic positions are wrong, to some extent, and both positions are being softened by the existence of 401k’s. Even here though, if you look at the disposition of shares, management has the lion.

    Overall, I’m inclined to believe that at present, the law favors management slightly more than it should. On the other hand, if management does not pay it’s employees enough to buy it’s products, they have no one to blame for their demise but themselves.

    If they continue to pay illegal labor substandard wages in order to line their pockets in the short term, then they will ultimately pay the price.

    By then it will be far too late for the rest of us.

  14. Allen from the Union Avatar
    Allen from the Union

    For a history of Right-to-work in Virginia go to the link below. It’s nothing to be proud of.

    http://www.wm.edu/so/tlsc/resources/1999/rtw.htm

  15. subpatre Avatar
    subpatre

    Nice link Allen. Another clear example where union extremists won’t hesitate to cut off the lights and power on Virginians just to get a raise. They’re called public utilities for a reason, they’re franchised by the state. Though I have little love for Gov. Tuck, he was right and the union was wrong.

    Constitution of Virginia, Article I, Section 3.
    Government instituted for common benefit. “That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community…“

    Note that this has nothing to do with Right-to-Work. Tuck left the IBEW membership intact, acting only to prevent loss of life or property, and that is something to be proud of.
    ——————
    It’s true that RTW doesn’t have much traction with voters… ordinarily. In this case, Byrne’s well to the left of most Virginia Democrats. Getting a rise out of Byrne’s great, but it’s better to get a rise out of her loony pro-union supporters.

    The screed referenced by Allen is a good example. Written by the Tidewater Labor Support Committee, they proudly link to the Marxists Internet Archive, Anarchist Library, Socialist Party USA, Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies), Metro DC Committee of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, Labor Party USA, etc. etc.

    Harcore socialists all, relics of ancient history, still waiting to overthrow the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ or similar marxist crap.

    If Bolling can get those groups out, to openly campaign for Byrne, the game’s over. It’s a great economy, and Virginians may not be interested in RTW; but “I trust the people” to spot loony socialist supporters and make good decisions.

  16. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    As usual, the Blue Dog jumps in with an insightful (and perhaps inciteful) comment which recognizes that there are more immediate threats to employee freedom than a direct assault on Virginia’s Right to Work law. Forgive us, Steve, if some of us maintain a particular vigilence, however.

    Ray, and Allen, and the intellectualoid who wrote the article to which Allen linked endorse, of course, caricatures what Right to Work laws do. Subpatre eviscerates him quite effectively, but I must add that the intellectualoid’s suggestion that Right to Work had a racist basis is rather ironic, in fact, in light of the fact that the union-supported Davis-Bacon law requiring payment of “prevailing”/union wages on federal construction projects has a well-documented basis in racist fears that Blacks migrating to urban areas in the Thirties would underbid white construction workers for federal contracts. As does the judicially-implied “duty of fair representation,” which had its roots in the racist discrimination of forcibly-integrated majority-white rail unions after passage of the Railway Labor Act, requiring bargaining unit certification by “craft or class.”

    The comments of all three remind me of union bosses who blame Ronald Reagan’s firing of illegally-striking air traffic controllers for the continuing decline of labor unions throughout the Eighties: it’s projecting blame for your self-inflicted decline on others.

    As for blaming Right to Work laws for the relatively meager power of labor unions, the suggestion seems to be that Right to Work laws make it more difficult for unions to organize. I suppose that such is the case … if a union’s ability to organize is based upon its ability to strong-arm employees who want to have nothing to do with it.

    Finally, Ray, that “huge building” to which you refer is six stories high, smaller than most of the union HQs in D.C., or those in Maryland and along the Dulles corridor. I’m unclear as to why “size matters” for you, unless its the size of the contingent of Americans (75-80%) who support the Right to Work principle, which you work very hard to ignore: that every American should have the right, but no American should be forced, to join or pay dues to a labor union. It is simply nonsense to suggest that “if that organization had their way the would do away with unions,” since nothing in the organizations’ history or legislative agenda supports such a claim. On the other hand, Joe Rauh and a dozen labor unions pursued for 12 years a lawsuit attempting to “do away with” the National Right to Work Foundation. Another fine example of projection.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What are you guys so worried about? That the unions organize the workers at Wal-Mart and get them to pay fair wages and provide health care? That your Chinese made goods (that used to be made here in America) will cost a few extra cents? At some point (when America can’t produce a thing) you will all understand that when it comes to economic policy the Republican Party has been looking down the wrong end of the barrel for way to long.

  18. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    Anon 9:55 — Again, you completely avoid the issue: Should union bosses be given the right to extract money from unwilling employees along with the preexisting special privilege of monopoly bargaining? Unions can and should organize anyone who wants to join them. But that has nothing to do with a Right to Work law, which addresses only whether they should leave be anyone who doesn’t want to join them.

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Oh, I get it. We should ensure that the Democratic leaning billionaires who own Wal-Mart have more profits to bank-roll the candidacy of former Wal-Mart director Hillary Clinton for President than the Democratic leaning labor unions who want to organize Wal-mart workers as well as use some of the collected dues to bank-roll the candidacy of liberal Hillary Clinton. At least in the latter scenario, the workers get a living wage and some health care.

  20. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Your criticisms are well taken. I didn’t mcompare that building with the union halls downtown, but the nrtw building is paricularly monolithic in its setting and the sighn strikes me as particularly big brotherish.

    It is only an impresion gained by looking at the buildings: at best it gives me the feeling that the organization has poor PR sense.

    My point is that both sides: management and labor have a sordid history that we would all be better off without. Somewhere there has to be a happy medium between winner take all, put each other out of business: If management can organize why should labor be any different or have less power?

    I don’t have any ideological dog in the fight, I’m just looking for answers we can live with.

  21. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    OK, Ray, a thoughtful response deserves a thoughtful rejoinder. However, I can’t comment on the building, since I was a sophomore in high school when it was built.

    As for management and labor, I also can’t comment, since the issue is individual employees. I’m not going to defend the history of “management,” as I perceive you defining it, since “management” is almost always complicit in forced-unionism schemes, as that which agrees to such an agreement and which enforces it by firing non-compliant employees.

    The point that you seem to be defending is the notion that a Right to Work law adversely affects a union’s ability to organize and to obtain power. My position is that the ability to organize and/or obtain power which is rooted in compulsion is illegitimate ab initio. Employers have no such power/ability. Unions do, in non-Right to Work states.

    That they are less powerful in Right to Work states is a powerful commentary on the attractiveness of their agenda.

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT