ILNews

Struggles mount for labor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

(Editor's note: This story has been corrected)

Indiana this year became the 23rd state to enact a right-to-work law in which workers cannot be compelled to pay union dues. Within months, individual workers in union shops opted out, even as court challenges linger.

“Workers are starting to use it, and we are receiving calls about it,” said Anthony Riedel, deputy legal information director for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in Springfield, Va.

labor-15col.jpg Groups marched in the Super Bowl Village in Indianapolis in protest of the 2012 Indiana General Assembly’s right-to-work bill. (IL Photo/ Julie Kirkendoll)

One of those first workers was Robert Symonds, a truck driver who worked at Indianapolis Haulage. Symonds sought the foundation’s assistance in his successful effort to stop paying dues to Teamsters Local 135.

“You shouldn’t have to pay union dues to get or keep a job, which is why Indiana’s new right-to-work law is right for Hoosiers everywhere,” foundation vice president Patrick Semmens said in a July 16 statement issued after the foundation intervened and the local union agreed to stop deducting dues from Symonds’ pay.

Adoption of right to work in Indiana and the recent Supreme Court decision, Knox v. SEIU, 10-1121, limiting unions’ ability to force members to pay for political activity, are the latest in a series of recent blows that observers say could stagger organized labor.

“I think it will strip a lot of the basic ability to organize,” David Gray said of Indiana’s right-to-work law. A director at Lewis & Kappes in Indianapolis, Gray said his firm traditionally has represented employers in labor disputes.

“(The law is) going to fundamentally hurt unions,” he said. “The number of union members, I think, will go down dramatically.”

The full effect of Indiana’s right-to-work law is yet to be seen. Workers cannot opt to stop paying dues until contracts that currently cover them expire. And state agencies are still drawing rules governing how workers may go about removing themselves from union membership.

Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, the Willard and Margaret Carr Professor of Labor and Employment Law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said Knox won’t have much impact on Indiana because it deals with special assessments on a class of workers covered by union security clauses, which are being phased out under right to work.

But, he said, Knox is the latest in a line of labor rulings that endangers the right to organize because it prevents unions from collecting money for political speech. In contrast, he said the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling holds that any restrictions on individual and corporate political spending would violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

“You can argue that this is the biggest power grab by the upper class since the Gilded Age of the 1890s,” Dau-Schmidt said of the disparate rulings in Knox and Citizens United. “It will have an effect on our democracy.”

Right to work rules

The divisive battle in the General Assembly over right to work ended with its passage and Gov. Mitch Daniels’ signature on the bill in February. Months later, how to enforce the law is still being worked out.

“It’s not complete,” Indiana Department of Labor spokesman Bob Dittmer said of the rulemaking process for enforcing the law. He said the Department of Labor will finish promulgating its rules in about the middle of this month, after which the rules will be reviewed by the attorney general and governor. They then will be published and finalized, probably by Oct. 1, he said.

As of late July, Dittmer said the labor department received no formal right-to-work complaints.

“We did hold a public hearing and had input from a number of different elements,” he said, noting representatives from labor, business and legal interests were among those who overflowed a state office meeting room on July 10. Comments on proposed rules were taken through July 16.

Under the statute, a right-to-work complaint may be filed with the Department of Labor, the attorney general’s office or a local prosecutor. Right-to-work actions also may be filed in court. Dittmer said that complaints filed in other state offices will be handled by the Department of Labor.

Under emergency rules that were passed when the right-to-work law was enacted, workers may not exercise the ability to forgo union representation or stop paying dues until a contract expires. The law does not cover public employees or those subject to the Railway Labor Act.

According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, 333,000 Hoosiers – about 12.4 percent of the workforce – were represented by unions in 2011. That’s a slight increase over the past two years, but about half the percentage of those represented by unions in 1989.

Who pays dues?

Under the right-to-work law, no one may be compelled to be a member of a union or pay dues for political activity or for general membership representation.

That’s a violation of the state constitution, argues Jim Robinson, director for United Steelworkers Region 7, which represents members in Indiana and Illinois. The steelworkers union is plaintiff in a lawsuit in Lake Superior Court that alleges right to work violates a section of the state constitution that says “No person’s particular services shall be demanded, without just compensation.”

Robinson and others said the argument is that unions still are legally required to provide services to workers they represent, whether or not those workers are dues-paying members.

“The right to freeload has been around since the ’50s” as a matter of federal labor law, Robinson said. “But the Indiana constitutional issue is unique to Indiana, and we think it’s a good case.”

Robinson said the state has filed a motion to dismiss in the case, United Steelworkers, et al. v. Mitch Daniels, et al., 45D01-1203-PL-19, and a ruling is expected at any time.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation also intervened in that case, filing an amicus brief on behalf of two steelworkers who said forced payment of dues violates their First Amendment right of freedom of speech. The foundation says claims in the Lake County case are spurious.

Another case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in Hammond – James L. Sweeney, et al. v. Mitch Daniels, et al., 2:12-CV-81– is awaiting ruling on the state’s motion to dismiss. That right-to-work challenge involves the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150.

Ann DeLaney, former Indiana Democratic Party chair and co-founder of the law firm DeLaney & DeLaney LLC, said right to work means “there’s going to be fewer members who want to contribute.”

“It’s human nature – if you can get a free ride, you’re going to take it,” she said.

She sees a pattern in recent Supreme Court decisions and the push for right to work. “They want to restrict the power of the union to get their message out,” she said.

Nancy Guyott, president of Indiana’s AFL-CIO chapter that represents about 800 union locals, said the Knox case represents a double-standard for unions compared with unlimited corporate political spending allowed in Citizens United.

“The court went out of its way to make statements that were not at issue” in Knox, said Guyott, who is an attorney but does not practice currently. “Those statements encouraged limitations on the right of workers to collectively speak in politics.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT