Judges... again thwarting the will of the people.
I messed up. This was actually reported 9/9/2013.
Lake County, I presume, is Gary?
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.
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.
The right to work is unconstitutional?! What planet are we on?
A county judge throws out a state law?
Is that even possible?
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".
A county judge?..............
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.
It’s the law in Alabama and right to work works fine.
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.
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.”
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.
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.)
So the law says that you are not required to be a part of the Union but the Union is required to represent you? That doesn't sound fair. If you don't want to be part of the Union then you shouldn't have to join. But if the Union negotiates a pay raise for their members then you shouldn't be covered by it.
“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,””
In that case, you are requiring citizens to provide all sort of freebies and pensions to union communists without compensation therefore it should be unconstitutional in that state.
Actually, both should be unconstitutional for all states.
I’m thinking the judge could have easly issued a much smaller in scope injuction. He could have simply ruled against the requirement for the union to represent individuals that were not dues paying members and left the rest of the law in place.
While I can’t recall the legal term, I believe that there is a a principle in jurisprudence that is similar to “do the least harm”. It would seem to me that this judge has seriously violated that principle.