ILNews

State appeals ruling against right-to-work law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced Wednesday the state has asked the Indiana Supreme Court to reverse a Lake County judge’s order invalidating the right-to-work law that bans compulsory union dues.

Lake Superior Judge John Sedia ruled in September that the 2012 law that a year earlier prompted a lengthy walkout of Democratic lawmakers violated the Indiana Constitution’s ban on demanding services without just compensation.

Zoeller filed the appeal Wednesday on behalf of the Indiana Department of Labor and other state interests. The appeal argues that the law doesn’t demand particular services requiring just compensation and that the law safeguards worker rights, among other claims.

“New laws passed by legislators are presumed to be constitutional, and here the people’s elected representatives in the Indiana General Assembly made a public policy decision that should be respected, even as we respect the important role of organized labor in Indiana’s economy,” Zoeller said in a statement.

“We don’t begrudge the right of plaintiffs to challenge a statute but my office has a duty to defend that statute and argue that the lower court’s ruling should be reversed,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • social justice
    I'm a registered member of the republican party and I fully support the right of organized labor to operate union shop style in our state and I'm totally opposed to the RTW legislation that undermines social justice. As the Pope said over 100 years ago in Rerum Novarum: "... some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen's guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself."
  • Work without just compensation
    The union side argues the law is invalid as a violation of the Indiana Constitution for being "work without just compensation." But then then union argues that the employee should be required to pay out of their compensation union dues which the employee would rather not pay. So . . . which side is taking the compensation away? Sounds to me like forcing someone to pay dues to an organization they'd rather not belong to is the taking of the just compensation. Basically, you can't work here unless you agree to lower compensation by paying our union dues. Unions had a place in the world . . . but times change . . . let's just say "thank you" to the unions, disband and move on.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT