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

[Conspiracy Guy]

It’s the law in Alabama and right to work works fine.

[PhiloBedo]

You are correct.

[BipolarBob]

Pretty soon the “right to posts” that question judges decisions will be banned. Our rights are diminishing (as the people cheer).

[cripplecreek]

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

One thing that is seldom discussed here is the fact that larger companies prefer to deal with the union over the individual. A factory with 1000 employees doesn't want a team of HR people constantly dealing with every individual issue that every employee has when they can negotiate with a single union rep.

The reasons are very much the same as companies using temp services. In the long run its cheaper to pay the temp service $15 an hour for a $7.50 per hour employee that can eliminated at a moment's notice without repercussion.

[xzins]

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

That makes sense to me, but it will require companies to have different levels of pay. Oh...gosh....they might even be able to pay on merit those who aren't in the union.

If I were those workers I would BEG to not be represented by the union.

[cuban leaf]

Yes, and I am NO fan of unions, but I do not believe a law that requires them to represent people who have not paid for said representation is patently unfair. I don’t know about whether it’s constitutional, however.

[VeniVidiVici]

Yes, and I am NO fan of unions, but I do not believe a law that requires them to represent people who have not paid for said representation is patently unfair.

Just so I'm clear; if I'm a teacher and can choose NOT to join the union, are you saying I should be made to pay union dues just because the union is still representing all teachers as a whole when it comes to negotiating wages?

[ICE-FLYER]

Everything is a right if it is from a liberal, but your real rights, the OBVIOUS ones are NULL when it conflicts with their liberal progressive world view of GOVERNMENT ONLY “rights.”

[cuban leaf]

Just so I’m clear; if I’m a teacher and can choose NOT to join the union, are you saying I should be made to pay union dues just because the union is still representing all teachers as a whole when it comes to negotiating wages?

---

No. I’m only talking about individual actions. e.g. if you are accused by the district of fondling girls or anything else, if you are not a dues paying union member, the union should not be required to come to your defense.

On a side note, I don’t think the results of collective bargaining should apply to non-union members either. ‘Course, it would mean that union member teachers would probably get paid more, causing non-union members to consider becoming members, or incentivizing the district to save money by hiring non-union members.

[jaydubya2]

I agree that it is unfair if non-members are being represented without paying fees, but my understanding is that the union can negotiate the collection of fees from non-union members to pay for their collective bargaining expenses.

[cuban leaf]

I agree that it is unfair if non-members are being represented without paying fees, but my understanding is that the union can negotiate the collection of fees from non-union members to pay for their collective bargaining expenses.

---

Well then, never mind. ;-)

[bubbacluck]

I did that a while back. It was the Beck decision. You pay agency fees to cover collective bargaining work.

[jaydubya2]

Well then, never mind. ;-)

But then again, I may be wrong... :0

[1010RD]

These lawsuits are an important part of America’s realpolitik. We need to discuss, openly and publicly, the concepts found in our Constitution. The voters are simply too ignorant as to the words and meaning of this most important contract.

Do you have the right to free association? Free thought? What about the Commerce Clause? If we revisted that we might find Wickard v. Filburn a beneficial tool. If an individual farmer feeding his self-grown food to his own family can affect interstate commerce, how much more do state, county and local laws limiting or directing commerce affect interstate commerce?

This is worth exploring.

[longtermmemmory]

notice the judge did not state no membership required. The judge said you have to pay money.

IOW someone might have paid the judge.

[max americana]

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

well congrats on having another thread where Freepers don;t even look at the date and still post LOL

[AmericanExceptionalist]

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 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.

If right-to-work laws are "unconstitutional," as this judge has claimed, there must be a great many states in violation of the US Constitution. Currently, some 24 states--almost half--plus the territory of Guam have right-to-work laws in place. (For the record, those 24 states include my home state of Tennessee.)

[wita]

how much more do state, county and local laws limiting or directing commerce affect interstate commerce?

Surely a rhetorical question regarding one of the most BOZO decisions in legal history IMHO.

This is worth exploring?

This, along with every other unconstitutional “law” foisted upon “the people” by folks in robes, needs to be dumped by a Congress inspired to do their JOB.

[Mr. Lucky]

The same plaintiff lost his case in federal court. This case was based, in large part, on the claim that a provision of the State Constitution was violated (a claim which required a stretch of the imagination, in my opinion). The judge wasn’t all that confidant in his opinion, however, because he stayed his own decision pending appeal.

[1010RD]

Nope, I think we embrace it. Turn the fire hose on them for a change. Use that case to beat up every anti-commerce, crony capitalist law across the local, county and state landscape of America.

You put together a top notch legal team focusing only on Commerce Clause. Fund them and let them light the fire. Then once we retake the WH, put them in charge of litigating these one at a time. Smash them and hard.

Once people get a taste of liberty, they’re not likely to just let it go, especially if it costs them money.