Judge rules against Indiana’s right to work law

WXIN Channel 59 ^ | 9/8/2013 | Kent Erdahl Reporter

[1raider1]

A Lake County judge has ruled Indiana’s so-called “right to work” law unconstitutional.

During a legal challenge launched by Local 150, Judge John Sedia took issue with the part of the law requiring unions to represent workers while making illegal for them to require membership dues.

“The right to work law here is unsafe, unfair and an unnecessary law and now it’s been ruled unconstitutional, so we couldn’t be more pleased,” said Jeff Harris, spokesman for the Indiana AFL/CIO.

“The court in Lake County has said (to the legislature), you’re requiring this statute, you’re requiring citizens and organizations in this state to provide services without compensation and that’s got to be problematic for any legislature or any attorney general,” said Stephanie Jane Hahn, an attorney who specializes in employment law.

Read more: http://fox59.com/2013/09/09/judge-rules-against-indianas-right-to-work-law/#ixzz2eUlyFDOW

[ScottinVA]

Judges... again thwarting the will of the people.

[1raider1]

I messed up. This was actually reported 9/9/2013.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Lake County, I presume, is Gary?

[sigzero]

I am against Unions but if you belong to one you should pay the dues. You should not be REQUIRED to join a Union though. Take that out and pass the law again.

[Mr. K]

That does seems stupid...

How could they force the unions to represent people who were NOT dues-paying mambers?

I may be unclear on all the facts.

[1raider1]

Yes, Gary, Hammond, etc.

[al_c]

The right to work is unconstitutional?! What planet are we on?

[GeronL]

I don’t think the judge has the authority to decide that

[GeronL]

A county judge throws out a state law?

Is that even possible?

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Agreed - what were the legislators thinking? Was this snuck in as a poison pill by the bad guys?

[oldbrowser]

you’re requiring citizens and organizations in this state to provide services without compensation and that’s got to be problematic

An unwanted so called "service".

Like the homeless man that rubs a dirty rag on your windshield at a red light and then wants you to pay him for his "service".

[FreedomPoster]

Typically the issue is the company doesn’t have to act as a dues collector and perform payroll withholding of union dues.

I wonder if that is what is really going on here?

[Red Badger]

A county judge?..............

[cuban leaf]

Judge John Sedia took issue with the part of the law requiring unions to represent workers while making illegal for them to require membership dues.

---

If this is true, this decision is correct, IMO.

[AppyPappy]

All you need is one greedy idiot and a few dollars.

[cripplecreek]

Its a forced "service". In Michigan we have RTW workers suing because the union is charging them even more than members.

Lawsuit Filed Against Teamsters For Extra Fee Imposed On Right-to-Work Employees

[UCANSEE2]

I wonder if that is what is really going on here?

Don't tell anyone, but.... IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY. IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.

[jaydubya2]

Legal experts agree the unions’ victory likely will be short-lived. Joel Schumm, a law pro­fessor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, said the constitutional clause under question historically has applied to individuals.

The Supreme Court, he said, would need to be convinced to extend that right from individuals to unions.

“Unions are not generally thought of as a ‘person,’ nor are they organizations that existed when the Indiana Constitution was ratified in 1851,” he said.

http://www.indystar.com/viewart/20130909/NEWS05/309090068/Indiana-judge-finds-right-work-law-unconstitutional

[Quality_Not_Quantity]

It is not at all uncommon for employees who have opted out of union membership to be required to pay a small (relatively) fee to pay for the benefits the union still provides; namely, collective bargaining for wages.