Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) vetoed legislation allowing public employees to collectively bargain. This legislation — Senate Bill 378 and House Bill 1263 — would have repealed a state ban from the 1940s which prohibits public employees from collective bargaining. The Cavalier Daily spoke with University faculty members and legislators on the implications of the veto.
Collective bargaining is the process through which employees negotiate with their employers, typically organized through unions, to negotiate for better wages and working conditions. Virginia has banned public employees — such as University faculty and staff — from collective bargaining since 1948.
After the General Assembly did not amend the legislation to include the Governor’s proposals, Spanberger vetoed the legislation May 14, drawing criticism from Democratic legislators and labor groups, and praise from Republican legislators.
The Senate and House bills, in their final language, excluded public university faculty and graduate student workers, preserving collective bargaining rights only for certain service employees. The bill was sent to Spanberger’s desk with the exclusion March 31.
On April 13, Spanberger suggested to the House and Senate amendments that could be made to both bills. Neither the Senate nor the House voted on approving or overriding Spanberger’s amendments, passing on the amendments April 22 and 23, and instead returning an unamended bill to her. In a press release April 13 regarding her amendments, Spanberger said these changes will let the Commonwealth “get these new laws right from the beginning.”
“These are policies that matter deeply to me and to working Virginians, and my amendments are about making sure that when these laws take effect, they work — for workers, for businesses and for the localities and the Commonwealth that will implement them,” the press release read. “These programs are tools Virginia’s employers can use to attract and retain talent.”
According to Spanberger’s press release April 13, her amendments would add flexibility in the bargaining’s implementation and clarify approval procedures.
Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-34, was the chief patron of SB 378 and said Spanberger’s proposed amendments were “non-starters” — he said they created “an entirely new bill,” and he could not envision implementing a version of the legislation with her changes. Surovell said that among Spanberger’s amendments was a delay in the implementation of the legislation until 2030.
According to Surovell, the proposed amendments would have given the Governor’s office more power in carrying out the legislation. He said that while the amendments gave the legislation more flexibility in its execution, the power could lead to the legislation being undone by future governors.
“The problem with [Spanberger’s proposed amendments] is if we were to get an anti-employee … governor, in three years or 10 years, they could completely undo the legislation,” Surovell said. “We thought it was important to get as [many] of the details locked down in code as possible, so future governors couldn't undo the legislation administratively.”
Surovell said he and the chief patron of HB 1263, Delegate Kathy Tran, D-18, accepted the Governor’s amendments to the bill during the legislative session, but the amendments added after the session were unfair to the people of the Commonwealth.
“The heavy lifting of writing legislation typically occurs during session when matters can be debated in public, people can have an opportunity for feedback, … [and] amendments can be made,” Surovell said. “Governors’ amendments that completely rewrite bills minimize the work of the legislature in a way that's not really fair to the public.”
Kevin Duong, member of United Campus Workers of Virginia and associate professor of politics, said the veto was “typical of Democrats.” He said he was excited by promises of legislative change Spanberger made on the campaign trail, and added that Spanberger’s veto could weaken citizens’ confidence in politics and policy.
According to Duong, collective bargaining would allow for democratic workplaces, which could help employees of the University come together to negotiate for assurances for freedom of speech, protections against harassment and wages that match the cost of living in Charlottesville.
“A lot of the benefits of collective bargaining would be really important workplace protection that would actually cost employers and the state nothing, but make the workplaces of all Virginians more democratic,” Duong said. “It's no surprise that wage increases haven't at all kept up with cost of living increases … [most workers] at the University of Virginia can't afford to live in Charlottesville, which I think is a real moral travesty.”
In an interview with The Cavalier Daily in February, Ian Mullins, former member of United Campus Workers of Virginia, president of the University’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors and associate sociology professor, said that collective bargaining is the only way workers can have a say at the University.
Mullins said that at the time of the interview, anyone employed by the University must negotiate as an individual for their contract, meaning each individual has little leverage. According to Mullins, collective bargaining would improve working conditions for both faculty and staff.
“[The collective bargaining ban] allows U.Va. to … completely dictate the terms of everyone's employment conditions … if you're a custodial staff, [it means U.Va. can decide] which buildings you're going to clean and what your workload will be without any real chance for the employee or the worker to push back or negotiate,” Mullins said. “If we were able to [collectively bargain], we could negotiate together rather than as individuals … for all U.Va. employees, not just faculty, but especially the staff.”
In agreement with Mullins, Walt Heinecke, immediate past president of the University’s chapter of the AAUP and associate professor of Education and Human Development, said that the veto was “extremely disappointing” and that he did not expect Spanberger to veto the bill. Heinecke said he believes that collective bargaining would strengthen shared governance at the University, especially in recent cases such as the search for the 10th University president, which included three faculty members in the 26-person committee.
“I think if we had collective bargaining, we could basically bargain for having faculty representation on committees,” Heinecke said. “We could [have bargained] to get Faculty Senate representatives to be close to a majority of [Presidential Search Committee members].”
Further, Heinecke said many shared governance requests by University faculty — including in the recent presidential search and in conversations on working conditions — are “ignored.”
Both Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle, R-26, and House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-45, applauded Spanberger’s veto of the collective bargaining legislation. McDougle said the legislation would not have delivered on promises of affordability for Virginians in a statement May 13.
“After getting slammed by Republicans for the spineless attempt to dodge the fallout and dump the consequences on the next administration, the Governor has finally vetoed the collective bargaining bill,” McDougle’s statement wrote. “This is a massive victory for Virginians. Even Democrats were screaming from the rooftops that this would’ve delivered the single largest tax increase in Virginia history.”
Similarly, Kilgore echoed McDougle’s sentiment that the legislation would have driven up costs for Virginians in a statement May 13.
“I’m thankful Governor Spanberger decided to listen to the bipartisan concerns over this legislation,” Kilgore’s statement wrote. “As our caucus made repeatedly clear, this bill would have driven up local taxes unsustainably. This veto doesn’t make life more affordable for Virginians, but it keeps the situation from getting worse.”
Spanberger was asked about her veto when she spoke May 19 at the Center for American Progress IDEAS Conference. She said that she continues to support public sector collective bargaining, as seen by many pieces of legislation she has signed into law in the past year to strengthen employee rights, and that her amendments were “incredibly vital” to the legislation’s implementation.
“The number of pro-labor, pro-worker, pro-Virginian bills that I have signed into law is substantial [and] consequential, and I am deeply proud of my record,” Spanberger said. “I look forward to having conversations with my counterparts in the legislature about how … we can create an implementable and durable [public sector collective bargaining] program.”
Read More
Jeri Seidman aims to rebuild trust as faculty representative to the Board
By Lucia Gambacini | 17 hours agoIn her role as faculty representative to the Board, Seidman is a non-voting member who provides the faculty perspective to Board members during open and closed sessions of meetings.
UJC details 16 finalized cases, 24 pending cases in Spring 2026 Statistics Report
By Melody Yuan | YesterdayAs of May 18, there are 24 pending cases, which the UJC will process in the fall because, according to the report, the UJC only operates during the regular undergraduate academic session.
Jackson Sleadd to step into Board of Visitors role focused on student connection
By Komal Reddymachu | 3 days agoSleadd said he hopes to convey the student experience to the Board, generally expand student participation in University governance and rebuild the connection between the student body and the Board.
