IBJNews

Judge dismisses Indiana right-to-work law challenge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

    2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

    3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

    4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

    5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

    ADVERTISEMENT