There's an interesting discussion over at Michael Shear's "Race to Richmond" blog on Leslie Byrne and Virginia's so-called "right-to-work" laws. Byrne calls these laws, which permit a person to work at a unionized company without actually joining the union, "the right-to-be-poor" law. [Note: The Richmond Times-Dispatch points out that "Virginia is the sixth lowest union membership state in the nation, with about 5.3 percent of workers in unions."]Democratic Lt. Governor candidate Byrne also launched a salvo against her opponent, Bill Bolling, for "remain[ing] silent on my call to stop using Virginia tax dollars to ship good-paying jobs overseas" and for oppose[ing her] plan to allow small businesses to buy into the state employees' health insurance pool, which cuts the cost of insuring their workers."
These statements quickly brought in the Republican Attorney General nominee, Bob McDonnell, with an attempt to tie his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds, to Byrnes' comments. The Deeds campaign responded that he "always has, always will" support Virginia's "right-to-work" laws. In other words, we've got a diversity of views on this issue on the Democratic ticket.
So what do we have here? Very simple -- a difference of opinion on an important issue regarding unions. Personally, I see no problem with that. This is, after all, a political campaign, so why not have a debate on issues like this one? Do Virginia's 60-year-old "right-to-work" laws actually, well, work? Should they be changed in any way for the 21st century? Are these laws "institutionalized mooching," as Byrne calls them, or are they an important way for Virginia to attract business? I don't have the answers to these questions myself, not being a labor expert by any stretch of the imagination (some people would argue that I'm not an expert on anything, and I would tend to agree!), but would be interested to hear what others think.