In another blow to organized labor in the traditionally union-heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first new right-to-work state in more than a decade.
On Wednesday, Republican lawmakers cleared the way for the measure, which would makes it a Class A misdemeanor to require somebody to become a union member or pay union dues as a condition of employment.
Over the past year, Republicans have pushed for other anti-union laws in battleground Rust Belt states where many of the
country's manufacturing jobs reside, including Wisconsin and Ohio, but they also have faced backlash from Democrats and
union supporters. Wisconsin last year stripped public-sector unions of collective bargaining rights.
Despite massive protests, Wisconsin's GOP-dominated Assembly passed a law backed by Gov. Scott Walker in March that strips
nearly all collective bargaining rights from organized labor. Walker is now preparing for a recall election after opponents
turned in a million signatures aimed at forcing a vote and ousting him from office. In November, Ohio voters repealed a law
limiting collective bargaining rights that was championed by Gov. John Kasich and fellow Republican lawmakers.
Indiana would mark the first win in 10 years for national right-to-work advocates who turned up their efforts following a
Republican sweep of statehouses in 2010. But few right-work states boast Indiana's union clout, borne of a long manufacturing
legacy.
Indiana's union dominance has waned, however. Only about 10 percent of workers in Indiana are members of a labor union,
down from more than 40 percent in the mid-1960s.
In Oklahoma, the last state to pass right-to-work legislation, in 2001, less than 6 percent of workers are in unions.
Indiana's vote came after weeks of protest by minority Democrats who tried various tactics to stop the bill. They refused
to show up to debate despite the threat of fines that totaled $1,000 per day and introduced dozens of amendments aimed at
delaying a vote. But conceding their tactics could not last forever because they were outnumbered, they finally agreed to
allow the vote to take place.
The House voted 54-44 Wednesday to make Indiana the nation's 23rd right-to-work state. The measure is expected to face
little opposition in Indiana's Republican-controlled Senate and could reach Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels' desk shortly
before the Feb. 5 Super Bowl in Indianapolis. Daniels, a Republican, supports the bill.
Economic development officials say many companies that would otherwise expand or relocate to Indiana bypass the state because it lacks a right-to-work law.
"This announces, especially in the Rust Belt, that we are open for business here," Republican House Speaker Brian
Bosma said.
House Minority Leader Patrick Bauer said the legislative battle was an "unusual fight" from the beginning, but
Democrats waged a noble effort against majority Republicans determined to pass the bill.
"What did they fight for? They fought for less pay, less workplace safety and less health care," said Bauer. "This
is their only job plank: job creation for less pay with the so-called right to work for less bill."
Hundreds of union protesters packed the halls of the Statehouse again Wednesday, chanting "Kill the bill!" and
cheering Democrats who had stalled the measure since the start of the year.
Few Republicans spoke in favor of the measure during the two-and-a-half hours of debate. Instead Democratic opponents and
a handful of Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose the measure, delivered emotional pleas to block it.
Democratic Rep. Linda Lawson called the Republican measure an attack on the union strongholds throughout the state.
"What you are doing is destroying my community!" said Lawson, who represents a northwest Indiana district packed
with heavy manufacturers and a major BP oil refinery.
"What if I came into your community and said 'No more cows' and 'No more pigs?'" she said, referring
to the agriculturally heavy districts represented by many of the Republicans who supported the bill.
Republicans foreshadowed their strong showing Monday when they shot down a series of Democratic amendments to the measure
in strict party-line votes. Democrats boycotted again for an eighth day
Republicans handily outnumber Democrats in the House 60-40, but Democrats have just enough members to deny the Republicans
the 67 votes needed to achieve a quorum and conduct any business. Bosma began fining boycotting Democrats $1,000 a day last
week, but a Marion County judge has temporarily blocked the collection method for those fines.
The measure now moves to the Indiana Senate, which approved its own right-to-work measure earlier in the week. Gov. Mitch
Daniels has campaigned extensively for the bill and said he would sign it into law.
Indiana AFL-CIO President Nancy Guyott said her team is still working on a long-shot bid to kill the measure in the Indiana
Senate.
"We're going to do everything in our power; we're only at the halfway point," Guyott said after the House
vote.
Teamsters President Jim Hoffa, in a statement released shortly after the vote, promised a voter backlash like those seen
in other Midwest states
"I have little doubt in my mind that Gov. Daniels and Indiana's Republican members of the state House and Senate
will see a tremendous backlash from their constituents if right-to-work is passed," Hoffa said. "If there's
one thing that we have seen this past year, it's that working men and women will rise up to challenge any legislation
that threatens the welfare of their families."

















IBJ Conversations
15 Comments
Add Comment
I really don't think this will have that much of an impact on organized labor.
Prove me wrong. Produce a list of labor unions that have disbanded solely because of RTW laws or which have withdrawn from participating in the representation of the labor pool in RTW states.
That is exactly the point. Not everyone needs the union and should therefore not have to join the union or pay their dues. Yet they should still be able to work anywhere that they are qualified to work.
Unions may stink on ice right now, but if we start weakening them, then in 10, 20, 30, maybe 50 years, we will be back to working 80 hour days for subsistence wages. The battles that these unions fought can likely never be won again, especially in today's era where elections are essentially bought and paid for by big-money interests. You might not like unions, but they are the yin to big business' yang: they keep us balanced. Just as you don't want to live someplace where union bosses call all the shots, you don't want to live someplace where Wall Street analysts call all the shots either.
Publicly owned businesses today are maniacally pro-profit, and if many of them had their way, all but a select few of us would be screwed. So, be careful what you wish for, because there's a chance you may be wishing away your grandchild's ability to earn a middle class living.
I'm all for this and I applaud the way you have stuck to this fight and BEAT the Democrats.
I only wish we could vote Mitch Daniels in for another term.
Then Indianapolis would very likely become the Jewel in the crown of all Midwest states.
RTW is a step in the right direction for everyone in this state except for top Union Execs who have been lining their pockets and the Dems pockets for years with hard working peoples money.
Jim Hoffa is the Teamsters Union leader??? Seriously? I didn't know that. Is he related to Jimmy Hoffa? Wasn't Jimmy Hoffa an exemplary Union Leader from a few years back?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=487&invol=735
It's sad that RTW is framed and reported as some type of protection for workers. It's nothing more than an attempt to kill unions so that employers can lower their costs. One may believe that unions should be abolished, but why can't we have an honest discussion about that instead of this canard about protecting workers. Whether or not an individual worker is compelled to pay union dues means nothing to an employer, but sabotaging the ability of the union to exist and function is important to some employers. My understanding is that a union is only formed when a majority of the workers vote to form one, so what is wrong with that? Let the workers choose their fate. If they choose to not have a union or not have compulsory dues, so be it. Why take away the union's right to decide its own rules? How is it different from most anything else in life where a majority rules? How about if we say that a condominium association can't force an owner to pay association dues? How much sense does that make? Why is this any different? You can choose to live in a condo/cooperative housing development or not? Just like you can choose to work in a union workplace or not. But either system will implode if nobody is required to pay for the shared benefits.
I don't see the benefit of a union for the country in general, except for a very few-mostly corrupt- union elites. That 9% of the workforce that is unionized? boo hoo. The rest of us do just fine with no union.
union wages are too high,which,in turn causes higher prices to cover the cost of the ridiculous pay scales union people are paid.
I worked as a NON UNION electrician for 25 years. when the "dust" settled after i retired it turns out I made MORE money,Worked shorter hours,got the same if not better benefits,and had better job security than a union electrician. The only thing a union could have offered me was job arbitration if i was fired.......now who wants to go back and work for a company they were "released" from?? sounds as stupid now as it did then!