Virginia Election 2009: Will right to work dominate the discussion?
By JR Hoeft | Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 | PoliticsAn interesting theme is beginning to emerge in the early stage of the 2009 campaign: Virginia as a “right to work” state.
Right to work began to be discussed at the national level with “card check” – where union members would no longer have the option to vote by secret ballot. Then we began seeing stories about how Democratic candidates have visited and supported union picket lines. Finally, there’s this from Tim Craig of the Washington Post on last week’s JJ Dinner:
9) What does the term “Virginia Democrat” mean in 2009? If someone was dropped by parachute into the convention hall, they might have at times thought they were at a Democratic dinner in heavily unionized Michigan, not Virginia, a right-to-work state.
Deeds and Moran took shots at corporations and their chief executives. Their message ran somewhat counter to the state party’s reputation for being pro-business and socially moderate. Of the three, McAuliffe, who has vowed to grow the state’s economy, might be the one who emerges as the safe choice for the influential business community.
Will a person’s right to work be the big – and surprise – issue of 2009?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
8 Responses to "Virginia Election 2009: Will right to work dominate the discussion?"
I disagree. Criegh Deeds is definitely a conservative democrat. Moran is has been labeled as “progressive” by dems so, that would likely be accurate.
Keep in mind, McAulliffe in his former DNC position was part of the political machine. Read:In bed with the unions. I don’t care what he says, don’t count on Terry to approve of Right To Work in his heart of hearts.
Deeds says bad things about chief execs and corporations in an economy dominated with news of bailouts and million dollar building redecorations? So? I’m hard core free-market and I criticize them too. That doesn’t mean you’re a threat to business. It means you watch tv, read newspapers/magazines, read blogs, and or listen to talk radio.
No, I don’t predict that “right to work” will be an issue unless Terry actually gets big union bucks to try to bring unions into the heart of the Old Dominion.
Further, what politician doesn’t claim to want to grow the economy?
Yes, it’ll be a big issue. Unfortunately, it won’t be a good one for my candidate.
The Ds have had a good run the last 4 years but its going bye bye in Nov. They are already ripping each other up. McDonnell is the strongest candidate the GOP has had since 1993 when George Allen won.
First, I doubt very much that any politician in Virginia is going to repeal the Right to Work statute in this state. Even the most ardent union supporters realize that. And, Jim, you were on the conference call when Terry McAuliffe pretty much dismissed such a notion.
As for Employee Free Choice, I would urge readers, regardless of their political views, to read more than just the Chamber of Commerce or the AFL-CIO propaganda. Wikipedia, in this case, has a fairly even handed explanation of the the bill. You might still oppose it, but you should read more than just one side’s biased view.
It’s easy to throw around stereotypes, greedy bosses, union thugs, etc. The truth is workers who want to organize have been intimdated and fired from their jobs. I personally know people who have been thrown out of Wal-Mart and Wegmans for wearing union t-shirts – and not from the Food and Commercial Workers, but shirts from unions having nothing to do with the union attempting to organize. These were customers who were simply wearing shirts from the steel workers, or firefighters or other unions not involved in organizing efforts. And all they were doing was shopping. It would be the equivelent of throwing me out for wearing a t-shirt for a candidate while shopping.
The balance has shifted so far in the direction of employers that pro-business centrists who normally don’t side with unions are considering supporting this measure simply to bring back some balance between workers and employers.
Believe me, this isn’t Harlan County, with union muscle fighting company Pinkertons. Those days are long gone.
Why do government workers have unions?
AIAW suggests that “you should read more than just one side’s biased view,” and then gives “one side’s biased view.” The fact is, given the way the law of certification is currently structured (and would remain structured, notwithstanding EFCA), employees stuck with unions certified through card check would be stuck with them for at least a year (certification bar rule), or up to three years (contract bar rule) with little or no recourse other than the onerous (majority of bargaining unit employees, NOT just voting employees) “deauthorization” process, under which they could, at least in non-Right to Work states, get out of the obligation to pay union dues. And that’s to say nothing of cards procured through fraud (“It’s just to get more information on the union”), actions which — if done by an employer — would be called coercive by union partisans, and threats.
Then there’s the problem of government-imposed contracts with the mandatory arbitration provisions.
EFCA is a solution in search of a problem. For the “problem” of declining union membership is one that would best be solved by unions which were not stuck in the trap of government-mandated coercion.
James claimed that I gave a biased view in using a link to Wikepedia. I’m not sure that is biased – after all, I didn’t throw in a link to an AFL-CIO site. But, here is a good article, which explores both sides.
The truth is ,according to a Peter D. Hart and Associates poll, 60 million workers said they would join a union if they could. There has been an increase in harrassment, threats, and retaliation when workers try to organize unions. The laws currently favor employers. But the pendulum might have swung too far. A lot of people supporting Employee Free Choice are normally pro-business centrists. But they see a need for parity .
Let’s face it, CEOs and other executives usually have contracts, which their lawyers go over with fine tooth combs. That’s why, no matter how badly they mess up (and some of them have messed up royally, lately) they managed to exit with golden parachutes. If you or I performed with as little success as they have, we’d have been fired and probably denied unemployment insurance for misdeeds of a comparable nature.
Some people simply believe it’s time to level the playing field. Another truth is that workers who live in states with stronger union presence earn better salaries, have better health insurance and pension benefits, and better quality of life.
Yeah, AIAW, and Peter D. Hart and Associates is an “unbiased view”! Who commissioned the poll to which you refer? What questions were asked? What answers do you expect from a Democrat pollster? Ones that favor Democrats, perhaps?
And no, the laws don’t “currently favor employers.” To what laws do you refer? The laws prohibiting punitive remedies before the NLRB? EFCA would change that, to be sure, imposing penalties only upon employers — not unions — for violating employee rights. And yes, unions frequently violate employee rights. I could give you a list of citations of cases in which I was personally involved regarding union violations of employee rights, but would that really make a difference to you? The fraudulently misnomered “Employee Free Choice Act” would make union certification easier, to be sure; would it make DEcertification easier? Of course not! Unions would still be able to interpose “blocking” charges, making frequently specious claims of employer wrongdoing, to delay such votes. The laws currently circumscribe employee freedom. EFCA would FURTHER circumscribe employee freedom, especially the freedom to get rid of an unwanted union.
The problem is that unions see declining membership, and blame employers. They would be better advised to look internally and recognize that their self-interested, frequently ossified structures and far-Left political advocacy have created EMPLOYEE dissatisfaction with union representation. And quite naturally, Democrats hear their “master’s voice” to respond with more infringements on liberty.
And BTW, the statistics you cite on forced-unionism states don’t mention the higher cost of living from higher taxes, bigger government, lower job creation, etc., and the concomitant reduction in the standard of living. When corrected for those factors, Right to Work states stack up quite nicely, thank you.
Leave your response