Big Labor New York Senator Has Trouble Explaining Why She Opposes the National Right to Work Act

Bill Text 113th Congress (2013-2014) S.204.PCS – Thomas – Library …

Obeying Big Labor's dictates, New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand opposes the National Right to Work Act. But to justify her stance she is citing a provision that isn't actually part of this legislation.  Image: Norman Jean Roy, © Vogue

The National Right to Work Act, or S.204, was introduced in Congress in late January by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).  This measure would repeal all the current provisions in federal labor statutes that authorize the firing of employees for refusal to join or pay dues to a union they don’t want, and never asked for.  S.204 now has 11 cosponsors.

Given the strength of the moral and economic cases for abolishing union officials’ forced-dues privileges, it’s not surprising that Big Labor politicians have a hard time explaining exactly why those privileges should be perpetuated.  But Sen. Kristen Gillibrand appears to be an extraordinary case.

In February, a National Right to Work Committee member from the Empire State forwarded to Committee headquarters in Springfield, Va., a letter from Ms. Gillibrand in which she claimed the Right to Work Act “loosens penalties for employers who harass or fire employees for their desire to form a union.”

As readers can confirm for themselves by clicking the above link and reading the two-page bill for themselves, this is a wholly inaccurate description of the Right to Work Act.  S.204 would protect the individual employee’s freedom to refuse to join or pay dues to a union.  It would not alter in any way the federal labor law provisions that penalize violations of the right to join and form a union.

In fact, the Right to Work Act strengthens federal protection for the right to join and form unions, because, as the Supreme Court of Maine acknowledged in Pappas v. Stacey, “Freedom to associate means as well freedom not to associate.”

The fact that Ms. Gillibrand and her staff opted to attack an imaginary provision, rather than any actual part of the bill, is a kind of back-handed compliment to the broad appeal of Mr. Paul’s legislation.  Union-label politicians are hard-pressed to say what they don’t like about it.