Big Labor Tries To Eliminate Right-To-Work By Lawsuit

Forbes ^ | August 25, 2016 | George Leef

[reaganaut1]

If the judge is on your side, you can win a case despite pathetic arguments. So if the cost of losing is near zero and the possible gain from winning is huge, why not launch a suit and see what happens?

That’s the thinking behind a case challenging Idaho’s Right to Work (RTW) statute on the grounds that the state is taking property that belongs to labor unions when it allows workers to keep their jobs even if they don’t pay the dues demanded by the union.

The theory of the suit is that Idaho’s law (and, logically, all other state RTW laws) is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment’s provision that private property cannot be taken for public use unless just compensation is paid. As almost everyone knows, that language was included to require the government to justly compensate property owners when their land had to be taken for a public project such as a road or bridge.

But in this day of “living Constitution” jurisprudence, the words of the Constitution mean whatever a judge thinks they should mean, so perhaps the plaintiff union will find friendly judges who agree that when a state allows workers to keep their jobs without paying dues, it has “taken” their “property.”

Still, could any judge take this argument seriously?

[Gay State Conservative]

Still, could any judge take this argument seriously?

Five judges took seriously the argument that ObamaCare was lawfully enacted.Four judges took seriously the claim that only the Army has a right to "keep and bear arms".

[Buckeye McFrog]

Organized Labor pulled out all the stops in last-year’s election for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In an off-year election that typically has low turnout they ran a CASH PRIZE LOTTERY in Philadelphia, giving away $10K in cash to one lucky voter.

Amazingly they claimed they broke no law since no Federal offices were on that ballot.

Lefty Dems now firmly control our Supreme Court. I am sure if anyone tries Right-To-Work here they will invent 1001 reasons why that violates our State Constitution.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The 5th Amendment clearly refers to the government taking property without compensation, not private citizens and organizations. If the unions want to argue that the individuals are “stealing” their services, then they can but the law doesn’t recognize it as theft.

[oldtech]

Pretty sad when a union decides that a man has no right to work unless he belongs to a union.

[arthurus]

Such a suit will go all the way to the USSC and be won there by the unions when the Democrats get their ̀th or when Trump appoints a justice who "grows in office,"

[Timocrat]

It’s long past time that we had the “English Rule”, loser pays, to prevent these ridiculous suits.

[Rusty0604]

Unions have thought that for a long time.

[buckalfa]

A state district judge in WV recently issued an injustion against WV’s new RTW law on the vary basis cited in the article. If you cannot legislate, litigate.

[uncitizen]

RATS view of “rights” is very limited.

[Dr. Sivana]

Pretty sad when a union decides that a man has no right to work unless he belongs to a union.

They might be okay with letting him not join the union, as long as they still get money out of him.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Pretty sad when a union decides that a man has no right to work unless he belongs to a union.

Even sadder when a court decides it.