ILNews

Senate passes 'right-to-work' bill by narrow vote

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Senate voted 28-22 in favor of House Bill 1001, which would make it illegal to require employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Having already passed the House by a vote of 54-44, the bill now awaits Gov. Mitch Daniels’ signature.

Supporters of the bill have claimed that states with “right-to-work” laws are more likely to attract new businesses than those without such laws. Opponents of the bill claim right to work laws undermine unions and weaken their bargaining power. In a company where a union labor agreement exists, unions must represent worker interests regardless of whether those workers pay union dues.

With Daniel’s signature, Indiana will become the 23rd state with a right to work law.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • foolish change in law
    I've been a republican my whole life but to me this is despicable. Its a race to the bottom with the third world when it comes to trying to fetch manufacturing back by lowering wages. Only fools think that is going to really work. You can see that in the southern states they can't hold on to jobs any better than we can up here.

    Much praise to Pat Bauer and the democrats and, most of all, to the the nine BOLD AND WISE republicans who voted and fought against this.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT