In January, I wrote an article imploring Virginia Democrats to chart an economic middle path and resist the urge to pander to the fringes. After all, it was true then and is still true today that Virginia needs a steady hand — especially when the federal government is plagued by seemingly nonstop chaos. In many respects, Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) and the General Assembly have failed that test — imposing new nonsensical restrictions on so-called “assault firearms” and dragging Virginians through a futile months-long gerrymandering war. Until recently, Spanberger’s term was marked by rampant partisanship, not the pragmatism she promised during the campaign.
Despite these pitfalls, it appears that Spanberger, in the closing stages of her inaugural legislative session, has finally rediscovered a backbone. After a back-and-forth with the General Assembly, Spanberger issued a volley of vetoes, shooting down some of the more aspirational elements of the Democrats’ agenda. Among the vetoed proposals was a bill to mandate that all localities allow for public-sector collective bargaining — a mandate that would displace nearly 50 years of Virginia law and spark a budgetary train wreck. Republicans and Democrats alike should be thankful that this disastrous legislation has been killed off before it blows up Virginia’s economy.
To understand the nature of the proposal, it is first important to understand how public sector unions are governed in the Commonwealth — it currently follows a somewhat balkanized model. In 1977, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that localities do not have the authority to recognize unions as exclusive bargaining representatives — localities, after all, enjoy only the authorities delegated to them by the General Assembly. This holding effectively barred public-sector collective bargaining statewide. Although there is no law prohibiting union membership for public employees per se, these unions do not enjoy the same coercive power that many blue-state public-sector unions hold when they occupy a monopoly over labor contract negotiations. Under the Court’s decision, localities constitutionally could not agree to formal contracts with unions. In 2021, Virginia Democrats changed the law to allow localities to affirmatively opt in and recognize public sector unions if their elected representatives decided to do so, but thus far, most localities have declined to stray from the 1977 framework.
It is fairly easy to understand their hesitation — public-sector collective bargaining gives rise to an almost textbook example of the principal-agent problem. Rather than serve the public interest, public sector unions are the perfect tool for politicians to funnel money into their allies’ pockets. Simply put, public sector unions are a complete catastrophe for taxpayers and local governments. While private sector unions have a vested interest in the success of the industry and are thus limited in the benefits they can obtain for their members, public sector unions are fundamentally different. They turn traditional collective bargaining on its head. Business executives who negotiate with their workers are constrained by market pressures — they cannot offer their employees unlimited benefits or the business goes bankrupt. Private sector unions therefore cannot strip-mine the company for benefits, or else the very jobs that they seek to protect become nonexistent. The government, on the other hand, does not suffer from this problem. Governments have the ability to compel revenue through taxation, and the politicians negotiating the contracts are bargaining with the public’s money, not their own. The agents whom taxpayers elect to negotiate with unions have little incentive to minimize costs.
To the contrary, many politicians actually have an incentive to inflate government employees’ salaries in order to obtain endorsements and campaign funding from public sector unions. It is a wild conflict of interest. It leaves taxpayers with the insane scenario where taxpayer money flows from citizens to public employees, then to public sector unions via dues, and finally to politicians in the form of campaign advertising. One could be forgiven for surmising that this is some sort of elaborate money laundering scheme, but in many blue states — somehow, all of this is legal. The entire system creates a perverse incentive structure where politicians and a few lucky government employees are enriched, while taxpayers are shafted. In Virginia, this would mean incurring millions in extra costs every year with no tangible increase in the quality public services. No one should want this in Virginia.
Spanberger, presumably seeing the writing on the wall, proposed several amendments to the legislation that would soften the blow for localities. Hilariously, one of these amendments would delay implementation of the proposal until 2030 — the moment Spanberger leaves office. Spanberger, understandably so, does not want to be in charge when local budgets across the Commonwealth are completely wiped out. Faced with these amendments, the General Assembly refused to moderate the proposal at all, forcing Spanberger to kill the bill.
Spanberger’s veto, therefore, makes perfect sense. She campaigned on affordability and pragmatism, not dispersed costs and concentrated benefits for special interests. Localities across the Commonwealth are breathing a desperate sigh of relief because the governor finally decided to stand up for taxpayers. While this decision will anger some interest groups and lobbying firms, it will universally benefit all taxpaying Virginians. Standing up to the special interests takes a spine, and Spanberger just proved to Virginia that she still has one. I reserve the right to lambaste the governor in the future when we inevitably disagree again, but I will give credit where credit is due — this veto was the right call.
Joshua Hawkins is a senior associate opinion editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
CLIPPINGER: Embrace rigor in the humanities
By Grace Clippinger | 5 days agoFacing this barrage of issues, how might we remind ourselves of the humanities’ potential for not just compassion and cultivation of the senses, but academic rigor?
EDITORIAL: Welcome to a U.Va. reshaped by the past year
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoTo understand the intersections between University president, Board member, student and governor is to equip yourself with the ability to lead informed and successful advocacy — advocacy that is sustained with true curiosity for this University’s future.
KING: The Luddites are nowhere near
By Michael King | June 11, 2026The solution is two-fold — executives must recognize and understand the fear felt by new college graduates, and new college graduates must do their part to make AI a useful tool in the workplace.
