“Right to Work” vs. Right to Bodily Autonomy
George Orwell, were he alive today, would wryly smile at the Republican devotion to the “right to work.” One would think, of course—and many do—that “right to work” laws are meant to guard the individual liberty of workers to engage directly with an employer. In reality, “right to work” has been, for decades, an ingenious and integral part of the Republican Party’s strategy to divide and conquer labor and labor’s power to bargain. Meanwhile, corporate management consolidates while it provides insanely large executive salaries and benefit packages. It is really all about power and rhetorical cleverness.
So what do “right to work” laws actually seek to accomplish?
Simply put, “right to work” laws undermine union bargaining by requiring unions to tolerate free-riders, employees who benefit from union contracts but don’t want to contribute to the collective effort to negotiate a union contract by paying union dues. Of course, “right to free-ride” wouldn’t have the deceptive Orwellian doublespeak allure of “right to work.”
Using this deceptive rhetorical tactic, Republicans have sponsored and passed “right to work” rules in twenty-six states (not yet including Washington State and not yet nationally). I was stimulated to write this post after listening to Michael Baumgartner mention his support for “right to work” in the October 8th forum at the Myrtle Woldson Performing Arts Center while his opponent, Carmela Conroy, expressed pride in being a third generation union member.
Here’s what Emry Dinman reported:
The Republican [Baumgartner] agreed “unions are great” but said they should be optional.
“It’s just un-American to force folks to join any organization to get a job,” he said.
That he thinks “unions are great” is a nice—and totally meaningless—and an unsupported flourish. The second sentence is the very definition of the Republican Party’s decades-long effort to trash union power using “right to work” rhetoric. You can bet that Mr. B. would be delighted to enshrine union-undermining “right to work” into federal law if ever offered the chance to vote to do so.
Republican dogma only pretends to support “freedom”—and only when such pretense serves Republican purpose. Consider for a moment the blatant inconsistency of the Republican Party claiming to value supposed individual rights such as the “right to work” while simultaneously celebrating state governments that pass laws curtailing a woman’s right to make her own reproductive healthcare decisions.
In the recent forum Mr. Baumgartner was asked if, in view of his previous opposition to an abortion exception in the case of rape in 2012, if he would vote for a federal law to nationally legalize abortion in that specific case if presented with such a bill in Congress. (See here at about 2:54) He looked quite uncomfortable and a bit sheepish as he ducked the question by insisting, “Well, I won’t vote on any abortion legislation because it is the role of the states.” Based on that answer and his discomfort, if there is anyone who believes Mr. B wouldn’t vote against a bill legalizing abortion in the case of rape, I would like to offer that person a bridge for sale. No one should trust this man in Congress to protect their bodily autonomy. He hides behind “States’ Rights” now—but if he had to vote yea or nay on a federal bill to ban abortion nationwide you know he would vote with his party.
And Baumgartner’s commitment to “freedom” is entirely malleable. It depends on what his party (and the Washington Policy Center) need him to support. “Freedom” is rhetorically fine, if, by invoking it, they can weaken unions or kill a pesky progressive tax (I-2024), but “freedom” is to be denied for a woman’s right to control her own body.
Vote Carmela Conroy for Congressional District 5 U.S. Representative. You cannot trust Baumgartner to protect your freedom.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. In general, disingenuously appealing to individual “freedom” is a tried-and-true Republican tactic to undermine any movement of which Republicans disapprove. Consider wealthy hedge fund manager Brian Heywood’s Initiative 2124. Its intent is to bankrupt the collective funding of long term care insurance. The method? Appeal to individual’s “freedom” to opt out of paying a tiny payroll tax of 0.58%—less than a penny on a dollar. Of course, these same Republicans don’t want you to cop a clue that their real objection is that the highest earners will pay, over time, more dollars into the fund than those high earners are likely to get out of it, that is, this is a tiny progressive tax on earnings. OMG! Consider the injustice of that! High earners might provide a net subsidy to low-wage earners to provide some care in the event of medical or physical catastrophe. Heavens! Not that! That would be, dare I say it, dreaded ______ism! [Sarcasm alert.]