Spanberger’s Right-to-Work Dodge
by James A. Bacon
Abigail Spanberger, the Democrats’ gubernatorial hopeful, has declared that she would not sign a bill to repeal Virginia’s right-to-work law, which guarantees employees’ right to work at a company without paying dues to a union. But she’d be open to modifying it, she said.
Here’s what she told WRIC-TV:
“I think notably it’s important that this last General Assembly, no one even submitted a bill that would repeal the right-to-work. I support labor. I support our strong Virginia economy, but no, I don’t support a full repeal of our current right-to-work statute. Certainly, it’s an old statute. We have seen reforms and adjustments to it over the years, and recognizing that as Virginia and our economy moves forward, reforms may be necessary into the future, but no, not a full repeal.”
Let’s dissect how she threads the needle between the expectations of her union donors and those of many Virginia voters.
Spanberger seeks to downplay the question. No one even submitted a bill to repeal the law in the last session, she says, leading the listener to conclude that this is an abstract and theoretical issue.
Then she says she supports labor… and a strong Virginia economy. This is boilerplate. Name a single politician who doesn’t.
Then we get to the crucial phrase: “I don’t support a full repeal of our current right-to-work statute.”
Note the phrase “full” repeal. That leaves room for a partial repeal, or even a substantial appeal that retains only a shadow of the current law. Indeed, she goes on to give reasons why right-to-work might need to be modified. It’s an old statute. It has seen reforms and adjustments over the years. As the economy moves forward, reforms may be necessary.
WRIC summarized her position this way: “Abigail Spanberger says she won’t sign bill to fully repeal Virginia’s right-to-work law.”
The Richmond Times-Dispatch followed closely: “Spanberger says she would not sign a full repeal of right-to-work law.”
Brandon Jarvis with Virginia Scope came closest to capturing the spirit of her words: “Spanberger splits the middle on right-to-work, opposes full repeal.”
The question these headlines leave readers begging for answers is this: Which parts of the law would she repeal and which would she keep?
Winsome Earle-Sears spokesman Peyton Vogel pushes back hard, according to the RTD. One of Spanberger’s final acts in Congress, he says, was co-sponsoring a bill to repeal right-to-work laws in all 50 states. “Now she’s hiding that record and hoping Virginians won’t notice.”
“While Winsome Earle-Sears is fighting to protect jobs and keep Virginia competitive,” he adds, Spanberger is just not saying the quiet part out loud: If she tried to kill right-to-work in Washington, you can bet she’ll do it in Virginia the first chance she gets.”
Spanberger, whose campaign has received $250,000 from the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), is deeply indebted to organized labor.
Microsoft Co-Pilot summarizes AFSCME’s position as follows:
[AFSCME] strongly opposes right-to-work laws. They argue that these laws allow workers to benefit from union contracts without contributing to the costs of securing those benefits, weakening unions and ultimately harming the middle class. AFSCME contends that right-to-work laws do not improve economic growth or employment rates but instead correlate with lower wages.
AFSCME actively lobbies against these laws, works in coalitions, and educates the public and elected officials about their negative impact. They believe that strong unions lead to greater political participation and a more effective voice for workers and the middle class.
Given the ambiguous nature of her statement and given her support from a labor union adamantly opposed to right-to-work, it is reasonable to ask Spanberger how, specifically, she proposes to “reform” Virginia’s law. Would those “reforms” leave the law intact? Details, please.
Right-to-work is perhaps the most fundamental economic-policy question facing any Virginia candidate for governor. Establishment media (or what’s left of it) needs to pin her down. The business lobby should demand answers. Absent any clarification, voters should assume that she will neuter the law but leave a hollow, brittle husk behind.
