IBJNews

Judge dismisses Indiana right-to-work law challenge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by union members challenging Indiana's right-to-work law that was enacted last year.

U.S. District Court Judge Philip Simon in Hammond ruled that none of the union's arguments against the law could succeed in federal court, although a challenge could still be made in state courts.

The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 filed the lawsuit last year trying to block the law, which bans contracts between companies and unions that require workers to pay union representation fees. The legislative fight over the Republican-backed law led to boycotts by Democratic lawmakers during the 2011 and 2012 sessions.

The union argued in the lawsuit that the right-to-work law contains multiple violations of both the state and federal constitutions, including a contention that the law interferes with the union's free speech rights by stifling the collection of money that helps pay for its political speech.

Simon's ruling said the belief that the right-to-work law would contribute to a business-friendly environment could provide a legitimate reason for its passage.

"For better or worse, the political branches of government make policy judgments," Simon wrote. "The electorate can ultimately decide whether those judgments are sound, wise and constitute good governance, and then can express their opinions at the polls and by other means. But those are questions beyond the reach of the federal court."

Union spokesman Ed Maher said an appeal of Simon's decision would be considered. The union local based in suburban Chicago has about 4,000 members in northern Indiana.

Another challenge to the law filed by the United Steelworkers is pending in Lake County court in northwestern Indiana. That lawsuit argues the law violates a clause in the Indiana constitution barring demands for services from someone "without just compensation."

"The state constitutional claim is something that we've felt strongly about from the beginning," Maher said. "We're going to take a look into our options in state court as well as the appeals court."

The Indiana attorney general's office argued the federal lawsuit should be dismissed because federal law specifically allows states to enact right-to-work laws and that federal courts have upheld such laws in other states.

Indiana became the 23rd state with a right-to-work law when it was signed by then-Gov. Mitch Daniels last February.

"The federal court's decision supports the legal authority and policy decisions of the people's elected representatives in the Legislature," state Attorney General Greg Zoeller said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Pro union
    I am not a union member, but I know people who are. A union is only as strong as its members. If union members start to back out now, then unions will start losing there influence. Good luck in union futures.
  • Who Really Wins?
    Union Members -- You just paid twice for a case that's a dead-bang loser just so the bosses look like they're doing something on your behalf. The union's legal counsel get paid irrespective of the result. Your taxes paid the lawyers for the AG's office. So your money paid for one side directly, the other indirectly. And this benefitted you how? My nephew is a union steelworker. I should tell him to quit paying his dues, but I know he won't because he knows the repercussions.

    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 IBJ 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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

    2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

    3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

    4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

    5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

    ADVERTISEMENT