'That Was Certainly a Surprise'

The debate about Right to Work may offer clues about what comes next for independent contractors, too. A Q&A with Jace White.

Late last week, I was out walking my dog and listening to Jace White answer questions on the InfluenceWatch podcast. The more I heard what he had to say, the more I found myself thinking about how a lot of his ideas seemed closely intertwined with the effort to stop freelance busting.

While the work that White does isn’t directly related to independent-contractor policy, it’s definitely in the same neighborhood, and arguably on the same block.

White is director of federal affairs for the National Right to Work Committee, a grassroots political organization with 2.8 million members and supporters who are dedicated to ending forced unionism in America by passing Right to Work laws, which guarantee that no worker can be forced to pay dues to a labor union.

So far, 26 states have passed these laws. The organization’s goal is to pass a federal bill that removes forced dues from federal labor law altogether.

As I listened to White speaking on the InfluenceWatch podcast about what’s going on in Washington, D.C., with Right to Work policymaking, I realized that quite a lot of what he was saying might give us all some clues about whatever is going to come next in terms of independent-contractor policymaking, too.

I asked him about the nomination of Lori Chavez-DeRemer for U.S. Labor Secretary, whether he feels the White House is giving mixed signals on labor policy right now, and more about the general political landscape as it relates to these types of issues.

Here’s our conversation.

Q&A with Jace White

I think there’s sometimes confusion about the meaning of Right to Work. Generally speaking, it only applies to employees, right? Not to independent contractors? The idea is that employees of companies should be able to get a job without simultaneously being forced to join a union, correct?

That’s right. Independent contractors are not subject to compulsory unionization. They can still join and pay dues to a labor organization, but unlike employees, they can’t be required to pay dues or abide by a union-negotiated contract simply because the people around them desire it.

In my opinion, freelance busting is an adjacent issue to Right to Work. They’re affecting different parts of the workforce, but they’re both rooted in the idea that our laws should protect everyone's freedom to choose how we earn a living, especially as some union leaders try to restrict that freedom against us all.

When I listened to you speak on the InfluenceWatch podcast, you seemed to be as surprised as I was that President Trump had followed advice from the head of the Teamsters union and nominated Lori Chavez-DeRemer to be our next U.S. Labor Secretary.

Did I understand you correctly? You fear that Trump may have changed his stance somewhat since his first term when it comes to protecting everyone's freedom to earn a living?

I agree that the Fight for Freelancers is adjacent to the Right to Work fight against forced union dues for traditional employees.

Union bosses hate independent contracting because there is no way for them to capture those workers and turn them into dues payers. It seems to especially upset them when there is a large group of people doing the same kind of work that unionized workers typically do. They’ve gone after independent trucking very aggressively, as just one example. Independent truckers often make a conscious choice to leave traditional employment—to buy their own rig and go into business for themselves—so they can set their own hours and be their own bosses. But trucking employees are often unionized by the Teamsters union, and independent truckers can’t be, so unions push for laws to reclassify them as traditional employees.

It’s pretty craven, but the sole motivation for these kinds of crackdowns is to make more money for the union bosses, not to protect anyone. We see something similar with home healthcare workers. People who spend a lot of their time caring for their sick or disabled loved ones at home can get some money from Medicaid to enable them to do that. There’s an effort by some states to reclassify home care providers as state employees who can then be unionized as “healthcare workers,” so that union bosses can skim some money out of their Medicaid payments.

When you’re fighting against compulsory unionism, and calling out the politicians who support it, you’re helping out freelancers, home-care workers and private sector workers who don’t want to be forced into paying union dues, all at the same time.

That’s why we were alarmed when President Trump nominated a pro-forced unionism congresswoman as U.S. Labor Secretary. That move was out-of-step with the first Trump administration, which was very good on labor policy. Trump implemented a sensible independent contractor standard during his first administration, for example. Now, the main advocate for Trump’s Labor Secretary is the anti-Right to Work, anti-independent contracting boss of the Teamsters union, Sean O’Brien.

That was certainly a surprise, and Ms. Chavez-DeRemer’s support for the PRO Act, which repeals state Right to Work laws and clamps down on freelancing, led us to oppose her.

On the podcast, you also talked about how President Trump nominating Chavez-DeRemer was a move straight out of the Nixon administration. For people who don’t know that history, what did you mean by that?

That was actually my friend Mike Watson, the other guest, speaking.

Oh my gosh, I’m so sorry I confused you.

That’s OK! Mike has written a lot about the fate suffered by Republicans who tried to appease union bosses, including in a recent op-ed, which is worth reading.

Suffice to say, sucking up to union bosses is a bad political strategy.

I watched the full confirmation hearing for Chavez-Deremer, along with clips of the hearing with Deputy Labor Secretary nominee Keith Sonderling. When it came to answering questions about independent-contractor policy, I felt that their responses lacked clarity.

Sonderling has a record of supporting self-employment, but Chavez-DeRemer does not, so it’s hard to get a clear idea of what, exactly, the Trump-Vance administration intends to support.

Are you receiving similar mixed signals about Right to Work policy? Or are you experiencing something different?

Senators Cassidy, Paul, Moody and Tuberville all asked Chavez-DeRemer about Right to Work at the hearing, which is a testament to how important this issue is, and how much outreach our supporters did to those offices in the weeks leading up to the hearing. The Right to Work principle that no one should be forced to pay union dues consistently gets over 80 percent support every time we poll it, so Chavez-DeRemer was forced to say some nice things about state Right to Work laws.

All that tells us is that she understands that Right to Work is good politics, but it’s pretty clear she still has no idea what constitutes good labor policy. Her answers to just about everything were vague and equivocal. Even on matters where there is a clear distinction between the Biden and the Trump approach, like the joint-employer and independent-contractor standards, she’s sending mixed signals and won’t articulate any kind of specific approach.

We think Americans deserve a labor secretary who has a clear-eyed view of what constitutes good, pro-worker-freedom labor policy. Chavez-DeRemer is not that person.

In the U.S. Senate and House, we have seen Republican committee chairmen, along with some other Republican lawmakers, strongly assert since the election that they want to protect our freedom to be independent contractors. That gives me hope that we might pass legislation that Congressman Kevin Kiley, R-California, recently introduced to try and stop this freelance-busting madness at the federal level.

However, getting those bills into law will require President Trump’s signature. Have you sensed any divide between the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House when it comes to policymaking about everyone’s freedom to earn a living?

The House and Senate have their unique qualities, but we’ve been successful in both chambers at building support for Right to Work in the previous Congress. We reached a record total of 32 Senate and 137 House supporters of the National Right to Work Act.

The dynamic is the same no matter which politician you’re dealing with. Everyone understands that the pro-freedom, pro-Right to Work argument is sound and popular, but they’re worried about the opinions of union bosses, who wield a tremendous amount of political clout and campaign spending power thanks to compulsory dues.

Our job is to convince politicians that the vast majority of Americans think that union dues should be voluntary, and that labor policy should promote freedom. Big Labor is a powerful opponent, but we have the winning message, and ultimately we expect to prevail.

For independent contractors trying to understand the political landscape right now, what else do you think is important to know?

Union bosses are a powerful and deep-pocketed political force, but they are vastly outnumbered by the eight in 10 Americans who support Right to Work, and the millions of independent contractors out there who just want to make a living on their own terms.

Just as Right to Work supporters mobilize during elections to hold politicians accountable for supporting forced unionism, it’s important for independent contractors to do the same.

Your readers can check out our work at www.NRTWC.org.