IBJNews

Judge allows union suit against right-to-work law

Associated Press
October 18, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A judge has rejected Indiana's bid to throw out a union challenge to the state's right-to-work law.

The Times of Munster reported Thursday that Lake Circuit Judge George Paras ruled the suit brought by the United Steelworkers can proceed.

At a hearing in Crown Point this month, Deputy Attorney General Kenneth Joel argued the right-to-work law doesn't require the union to do anything and that federal law places the burden on unions to fairly represent all members of a bargaining unit.

The union argues the law signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels in February violates a clause in the Indiana constitution barring demands for services from someone "without just compensation." The law makes it illegal for unions to require dues or other fees as a condition of employment.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Thieves
    The company I work for provided temps for an Illinois company while the union was on strike. When the strike ended some of the temps stayed on and were still employed through us. The union demanded they pay to join, and pay one months dues. After a bunch of them did this, they were let go. The unions are costing our companies and our workers too much money. Everyone, as this is a free country, should have the right to join and the right to pay the union.
  • Once Again...
    Hoosiers supported Right To Work by huge numbers and will elect another republican governor by a substantial majority, yet our taxpayer dollars have to go to defend this BS lawsuit. When will our voices be heard? My nephew is a steelworker and a member of the union. I have known him since the day he was born and can state unequivocally that he doesn't know ANYTHING about this lawsuit. I will have to explain to him why he's paying twice -- once through his union dues and then again through his state income taxes to pay for a lawsuit brought by union bosses he will never know, just to try to validate their existence in the face of declining relevence. Jeez...

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:
 
thisissue1-092914.jpg 092914

Subscribe to IBJ
ADVERTISEMENT