IBJNews

State GOP leaders weigh banning required union dues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Republicans in the Indiana House have filed bills that would prevent workers from being required to pay union dues, an issue considered so divisive that Gov. Mitch Daniels would prefer to avoid it.

The so-called right-to-work legislation could move forward anyway since Republicans have full control of the General Assembly after winning a House majority in last month's election. The bills would prohibit companies from making union dues or membership a requirement of employment.

House Labor Committee Chairman Doug Gutwein, R-Francesville, said he didn't yet know whether the bills would get public hearings and a vote during the legislative session that starts next week.

"I would imagine there will be some (Republican) caucus talk about this before we would get too far with it," Gutwein told The Courier-Journal of Louisville. "Personally I like the idea. It seems to work and seems like it's a plus for those states that have it. But we'll have to see."

But Daniels, also a Republican, has told legislative leaders that it would be better to leave the issue alone, even though he believes the proposal has merit. Daniels noted neither he nor the House Republican caucus campaigned on the proposed change.

"It's a very legitimate issue," Daniels said. "But I think it's too big to do without having discussed it out in the open first. And I'll also say I think it would have the potential — just tactically — to possibly reduce or wreck the chances for education reform and local government reform and criminal justice reform and the things we have a wonderful chance to do."

Democratic lawmakers and labor unions are certain to fight the legislation, which is similar to laws in 22 states.

"All the evidence shows (right-to-work laws) are extremely discriminatory for minorities and women. They drive down wages," said Rep. Dennis Tyler, D-Muncie, who serves on the House Labor Committee. "I think that our caucus will react accordingly and be heavily opposed to it."

Many Republicans remember labor unions' outrage in 1995, when the Legislature tried to change the state's prevailing wage law in a way that threatened to reduce pay for workers in public construction projects.

More than 20,000 union members attended a Statehouse protest, and the issue gave Democrats a boost that helped them win a House majority in the next election.

The AFL-CIO maintains the average worker in a right-to-work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states.

"There are many fewer people with health benefits, many fewer people with pensions, and other problems that would suck money out of our local economy," Indiana AFL-CIO President Susan Guyott said. "It would have a huge impact on our overall economy."

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce supports the proposal, saying it "would remove a significant impediment to investment and job creation" and could help distinguish Indiana from neighboring states, none of which have a similar law.

Daniels said he believes it's a valid idea, even if he doesn't think it's appropriate to pursue it now.

The lack of a right-to-work law "does hold us back economically," he said. "There is no doubt about it. We have an incredible win record in terms of the competitive transactions where businesses are competing states off against each other. But we also know a very large number — perhaps as many as a quarter — of the deals we don't get a shot at are for just for this reason."

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said his caucus has no definitive plans for how to proceed with the issue.

"I think it's one of the handful of issues that have the potential to derail some of the most critical matters" lawmakers are facing, Bosma said. "Having said that, there is no doubt there are some benefits to the proposal economically, and so we'll have to see how the discussion proceeds."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • If unions are so good, why compel membership?
    The simple fact of the matter is that when unions are a good deal, people will join them voluntarily. When they are a bad deal--when the unions take too much for the benefits they provide--they won't get takers.

    The right to work is exactly that: the right to negotiate your own deal with the employer, if you so choose. The ability of unions to utilize the power of the State to MANDATE membership is anti-free market and anti-liberty. It is organized crime, and like all open organized crime, requires the protection of the government.

    Tactically, Daniels may have a point. But strategically and ethically this has to happen at some point.
  • WAKE UP HOOSIERS
    THE FACTORIES ARE FULL OF OUTDATED MACHINERY, THAT IS WHY THEY CLOSE AND SET UP A NEW ONE IN THE THIRD WORLD WHERE THERE ARE NO ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS TO FOLLOW. THIS LAW WILL LOWER THE STANDARD OF LIVING FOR ALL BLUE COLLAR WORKERS, GO MITCH, YOUR ALREADY FILTHY RICH
  • Look At It Now
    Raised in Anderson during its heyday, I saw the UAW ruin my hometown. But -- the UAW not only killed the auto industry. By nurturing mediocrity, belittling higher education as unnessary and maintaining solidarity with its brethren in the teachers union, the UAW helped speed along the demise of the school system. It has been among the worst in the state for years. Indiana as a whole is well behind most of the other forty nine states.

    So maybe Mitch has a point. Maybe we need to tackle education reform first, where the union strangle hold isn't likely to be broken anytime soon. Employers know that to attract the best employees, you have to locate in a place where their children can get a top notch education.

    Still, it's hard not to feel sorry for all of those folks who surrendered their money to the UAW and lost everything anyway.
  • Say what?
    Some people actually choose NOT to be union as you have choosen to be in a union - that would make it "right to work" and "free choice in America". Since Unions use the card check agreement, and mis-represent themselves to the average worker, they do not tell them that there must be a simple majority to vote the union in - meaning not all employees have to agree to it. The union then starts taking out dues/raising dues. Go to the website www.unionfacts.com and read about organized crime and corruption within the unions. Remember - unions are a "for profit" group and the way they make money is through workers paychecks. You must either be a union leader or a lazy worker since you are in favor of them.
  • YES!!!!!!
    YESYESYESYESYES! PLEASE get this acted on ASAP! Indiana is WAY behind the times on this issue - EVERY STATE that has adopted right-to-work has seen an INCREASE in employment. As an aside, I have to wonder about a group of folks who DELIBERATELY voted themselves out of a job (UAW - GM stamping plant)... It's past time for us non-union workers to have to yell "BECK" every time we turn around!
  • "RIGHT TO CHOOSE"
    Really!!! Why should state lawmakers waist our tax dollars fighting for what has proven to be less wages, which means less taxes for Indiana, less economic growth for Indiana and less benefits to the employee. Sounds like where moving backwards, not forward.

    We still live in America, where we have the right to "choose" what is best for our family. What works for me, may not work for you. Dont take my union away, I chose to be union, lets keep it that way.
  • Unions only Good for Union Leaders
    The Union I was forced to join when I came to Indiana raised my dues every year, negotiated a 25% pay cut, a 20% cut in paid vacation, cut two paid holidays, and to add insult to injury negotiated away my company pension plan. They then offered a Union Pension Plan that would have sucked more of my pay check. NO One working for the Union took a pay cut. They still have jobs-I don't because they negotiated a lay-off plan too boot. It's time to let people have the right to work instead of the Unions having the right to usurp wages under the right to hire atmosphere prevelent in Indiana. Please Pass this law!
  • Please pass this law
    How there is a union hall left standing anywhere in this state, I cannot comprehend. Come on, Mitch. You're a lame duck. Come out swinging in favor of this law. Without it, jobs will continue to go to the 22 states that force unions to make their case and stand or fall on their own merits. The destruction of Anderson and Kokomo, the closing of the Chevy plant in Indianapolis, all can be laid at the feet of the UAW.

    If unions are such a great deal, why should employees be forced to support them?

    Make them accountable.

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. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT