• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana judge finds state "right to work" law unconstitutional

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,738
Reaction score
6,290
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A small victory for unions

Indiana judge finds right-to-work law unconstitutional | Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

The long, hard battle over the state’s right-to-work law appears headed to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Lake Superior Court Judge John *Sedia ruled Thursday the law violates a provision in the state constitution barring the *delivery of services “without just compensation.” Sedia, who was *appointed by then-Gov. Mitch Daniels in 2012, ruled the law incorrectly forces unions to represent workers who don’t pay union dues.

The Indiana attorney gen*eral’s office said it will seek to appeal the case di*rectly to the state Supreme Court.

Republican lawmakers said Monday they are confident the Supreme Court will overturn the ruling.

Rep. Jerry Torr, R-Carmel, a leading advocate for passing right-to-work in 2012, thinks the Supreme Court will side with the state legislature. Unions deliberately filed the lawsuit in labor-friendly Lake *County, he said, to find a favorable decision.

“This is not unex*pected in Lake *County,” he said. “I’m sure they went *forum shopping when they filed the suit. I am confident that this *decision won’t stand.”

Torr said Republican lawmakers think the constitutional provision cited in the decision applies only to individuals rendering services, not to unions. He said unions raised the same concern during the legislative process, and lawmakers discounted it.

“I remember when the labor unions first raised that argument in one of the committees and for a second, I thought, ‘Oh ... that’s a great argument,’ ” Torr said. “Then I thought it through, and it’s just nonsense.”

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

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Wasting members' money on a lawsuit that will meet a very bad end is hardly a victory in any sense of the word.
 

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
59,129
Reaction score
18,748
Location
IL—16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Lawsuits or recalls are only good when run by the Koch bros or the NRA or illegal State actions.
Wasting members' money on a lawsuit that will meet a very bad end is hardly a victory in any sense of the word.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
91,313
Reaction score
54,800
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It will never fly, simply because a union offers a service does not compel anyone to buy it.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Lawsuits or recalls are only good when run by the Koch bros or the NRA or illegal State actions.

No I generally oppose politically motivated lawsuits and recall elections.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It will never fly, simply because a union offers a service does not compel anyone to buy it.

True. However, since the Union is the one that "owns" the job, by agreement with the Company (aka their Contract), if that person is not a member of the Union, why should the Union be force to accept their presence? By the Contract, the Company agrees that certain work is Union Work or that it's Non-Union Work. It's that simple. If you want the Union job, you play by the Union's rules. This really is Kindergarten stuff here folks.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
the Indiana supreme court is conservative and will uphold the anti-worker law.

Allowing workers the freedom to choose not to be in an union and pay them part of their wages is anti-worker? Might as well change that lean to socialist......
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
84,199
Reaction score
75,117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Allowing workers the freedom to choose not to be in an union and pay them part of their wages is anti-worker? Might as well change that lean to socialist......

they should get union representation and union negotiated benefits, but should not have to pay dues?

also, please point out the portion of my post in which i advocate removing the ownership of businesses from private entities and giving it to the workers.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
they should get union representation and union negotiated benefits, but should not have to pay dues?

also, please point out the portion of my post in which i advocate removing the ownership of businesses from private entities and giving it to the workers.

No you want to remove the ability of owners to be able to make decisions and let the Unions decide. And why shouldn't they be able to benefit, it isn't like there aren't people who don't even work who benefit off the backs of those who do?
 

Dapper Andy

Banned
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
913
Reaction score
310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No you want to remove the ability of owners to be able to make decisions and let the Unions decide. And why shouldn't they be able to benefit, it isn't like there aren't people who don't even work who benefit off the backs of those who do?

In fairness, what he wants is for unions to continue to bankroll his political party.

I don't get the impression he cares much how they get the money to do that.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
84,199
Reaction score
75,117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No you want to remove the ability of owners to be able to make decisions and let the Unions decide. And why shouldn't they be able to benefit, it isn't like there aren't people who don't even work who benefit off the backs of those who do?

in a dynamic in which unions have become anemic due to globalism, i don't support more legal nickle and diming to remove what little power they have left. we're at a point in labor where unions are becoming more and more necessary. a LOT of people now have no control over their hours and schedules, and basically have to be on call at all times like they were a ****ing doctor. retail and food service are ripe for unionization.

the point is that under the law as i understand it, the union has to represent every eligible employee. it's not fair for workers to get that benefit without paying for it. the result is that many just won't join the union, and it will collapse due to spending time representing non-union workers. that is why anti-labor wants "right to work."

## vote Fisher

;)
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
in a dynamic in which unions have become anemic due to globalism, i don't support more legal nickle and diming to remove what little power they have left. we're at a point in labor where unions are becoming more and more necessary. a LOT of people now have no control over their hours and schedules, and basically have to be on call at all times like they were a ****ing doctor. retail and food service are ripe for unionization.

the point is that under the law as i understand it, the union has to represent every eligible employee. it's not fair for workers to get that benefit without paying for it. the result is that many just won't join the union, and it will collapse due to spending time representing non-union workers. that is why anti-labor wants "right to work."

## vote Fisher

;)

The money unions spend on themselves and politicians far exceed whatever additional cost they may incur whatever non-union worker they benefit. Unions are losing ground because they vacillate between ineffectiveness and wrong-headedness. Instead of negotiating for more wages that their members largely piss away, they need to be negotiating for stock-options and better mutual funds. Instead they give up those things to get more wages so they can get more dues to piss away.

Ironically enough, my brother says it is mostly the blacks where he works who demand a disproportionate amount of new jobs under threat of NAACP boycott who refuse to join the union but demand all the benefits of it. The progressive sense of entitlement is undoing the progressive cause :lamo
 

randel

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
5,758
Reaction score
2,094
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
in a dynamic in which unions have become anemic due to globalism, i don't support more legal nickle and diming to remove what little power they have left. we're at a point in labor where unions are becoming more and more necessary. a LOT of people now have no control over their hours and schedules, and basically have to be on call at all times like they were a ****ing doctor. retail and food service are ripe for unionization.

the point is that under the law as i understand it, the union has to represent every eligible employee. it's not fair for workers to get that benefit without paying for it. the result is that many just won't join the union, and it will collapse due to spending time representing non-union workers. that is why anti-labor wants "right to work."

## vote Fisher

;)
that is exactly why the right wants so called 'right to work'...they want to force unions to have to spend resources representing those who pay no dues...hoping most won't join, but still force the expenditure of resources by the union ....people already have a 'right to work'..no one forces anyone to work in a union shop, don't like it, you are free to find another job.....those that apply at a unionized shop do so for the wages and benefits that the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union provide, and they should be obligated to pay dues to cover the costs of negotiating and enforcing that agreement, that contract, and for the representation they receive. no free riders.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
91,313
Reaction score
54,800
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
True. However, since the Union is the one that "owns" the job, by agreement with the Company (aka their Contract), if that person is not a member of the Union, why should the Union be force to accept their presence? By the Contract, the Company agrees that certain work is Union Work or that it's Non-Union Work. It's that simple. If you want the Union job, you play by the Union's rules. This really is Kindergarten stuff here folks.

That is not what right to work means, that is a closed shop or union shop.

Unions: Right-to-Work States vs. Non Right-to-Work States | SBA.gov
 
Top Bottom