[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

[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.