The right-to-work principle Larson dedicated his life to advancing remains a simple one:

Union membership and financial support should not be compelled as a condition for workers just to get or keep a job.

The political and legal structures Larson helped build decades ago remain crucial to the ongoing disputes over compulsory union support and state right-to-work laws. At issue is Big Labor’s reliance on government-granted coercive privileges to forcefully expand union ranks.

While the issue is largely unchanged, the politics surrounding it have grown unconventional. As Congress returns from recess, troubling proposals to expand union power have not only found support from the Left but have also gained traction from some on the post-liberal Right.

The two pieces of legislation at the heart of Big Labor’s latest congressional push are the so-called “PRO Act,” a long list of new union boss powers that includes altering Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act to nullify all 26 state right-to-work laws, and the so-called “Faster Labor Contracts Act,” which would allow government bureaucrats to impose forced dues contracts over workers’ and employers’ objections.

Desperation and good intentions make strange bedfellows

As union membership continues a decadeslong decline, nearing historic lows, union officials are spending billions on politics every election cycle. Traditionally, Democrats have been the main recipients of union political funding. However, major unions, notably the Teamsters, have begun to turn toward populist Republicans to advance their legislative agenda. Teamsters head Sean O’Brien has taken up with Republicans such as Sen. Josh Hawley (MO), who, along with union-label Democrats, introduced the Teamsters-endorsed FLCA into the Senate.

It would be a different matter if union officials, seeing the writing on the wall, moved toward Republicans, having realized that to maintain relevance, they needed to reflect the values of their rank and file. The unions’ strategy, however, seems to appeal to populist Republicans by equating what is good for the union brass with what will be good for the rank and file.

Big Labor will cite Gallup’s “union approval” figure to make the case for expanding union officials’ already expansive coercive powers over American workers through measures such as the PRO Act.

However, Gallup’s report neglects to show the response of Americans to an important question Gallup used to ask: “How interested are you in joining a labor union?” The last time Gallup asked that more telling question, nearly 6 in 10 expressed that they are “not interested at all” in joining a union, while only 11% said they are “extremely interested” in joining.

In fact, past Gallup polling showed that even as a majority may “approve” of unions, a far larger majority of the same respondents backed right-to-work laws that ensure union membership and dues payment are voluntary.

Americans may genuinely claim to “approve” of unions, yet their preferred method of associating is voluntary.

The right-to-work movement Larson fostered thrived because it was one premised on the most fundamental of American values: the freedom of voluntary association — the right for workers to choose rather than being coerced into supporting a union.

One of Larson’s first major battles against forced unionism at the committee came in 1965, when he testified before the Senate as Congress seemed poised to repeal Section 14(b). The effort to repeal right-to-work laws ultimately died in the Senate, as committee efforts demonstrating the popularity of right-to-work helped Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) lead the filibuster preserving Section 14(b).

By 1967, Larson recognized the need for a “broad-based litigation program” that could defend workers’ rights in the courts. The following year, he founded the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Modeled after the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the foundation served as a vehicle for victimized workers to have their rights defended in court against the abuses of forced unionism. The foundation assisted many workers, including William F. Buckley Jr., in his dispute with AFTRA, but it was in 1988 that Larson’s litigation strategy paid off with the Supreme Court decision in CWA v. Beck.

The Beck decision, enshrining workers’ right not to be coerced into funding union political activities, formed such a thorn in the side of anti-worker union brass that the foundation continues to litigate cases involving union officials blindsiding workers about their Beck right, in violation of federal law.

While Larson stepped down in 2003, just 15 years later, the foundation secured a long-standing goal: In Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court recognized that all public-sector employees enjoy right-to-work protections under the First Amendment.

SEAN O’BRIEN IS JUST RANDI WEINGARTEN IN A HARD HAT

Larson built a principled movement that was not tethered to one man, and it lives on today through millions of American workers in 26 states safeguarded by right-to-work laws, hard-won Supreme Court precedents, and thwarted Big Labor legislative attempts to repeal right-to-work.

As Congress once again attempts to repeal Section 14(b), it will find, as in 1965, that right-to-work is here to stay.

Mohamad Ali Khadra is the media coordinator at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.