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

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT