Home

Union suing to block Indiana right-to-work law

February 22, 2012

Keywords

Economic Development, Elected Officials, Government, Government & Economic Development, Labor, Legislation, Mitch Daniels, Unions

Union members are asking a federal judge to block Indiana's new right-to-work law.

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 says a suit being filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Hammond claims the right-to-work law violates the federal and state constitutions. The suit names Gov. Mitch Daniels, Attorney General Greg Zoeller and Labor Commissioner Lori Torres.

The union says in a news release that the law violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by treating similar classes of workers differently and violates Indiana's constitution by requiring the union to provide a service without compensation. The union also says the right-to-work law conflicts with federal law.

Daniels signed the right-to-work legislation into law last month over the objections of Democrats and union members.

IBJ Conversations
18 Comments
Add Comment

another mispelled word what a joke

Big BFebruary 24, 2012 11:46 AM
Please have your neighbor proofread your takes before posting. That is from my common sense tag!

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
they got what they voted for

suzievbFebruary 23, 2012 8:55 PM
Operators Local 150 has a lot of nerve. Their leader is a Republican and most of the union members in that local vote Republican, and supported Mitch Daniels when he ran. They vote against themselves and their fellow union brothers and sisters and they got what they voted for. I agree they should be sued, but not by this local.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
How many?

mihi nomen estFebruary 23, 2012 4:29 PM

How many unions have managed to enslave the minds of today's (or yesterday's) IT workforce?

If I were a group which had a lot of room to grow intellectually, I'd be flocking to IT groups en masse, hoping to brainwash people into believing they could get more (than they're already getting).

How would unions deal with start-ups?

People willing to speculate on the time & effort they contribute with the potential existing for something great in return?

IT people should be more than excited with a possibility of getting the potential return on time/labor investment AND (via unions' leverage) a "deserving" salary on top of that.

Why is it IT people won't seek out unions to get more?

(seriously)

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Spelling?

Mihi Nomen estFebruary 23, 2012 4:02 PM
--> Big BFebruary 23, 2012 1:45 PM
exspensive ... usaully ... or using spell check.

ahem.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Food banks

Mihi Nomen estFebruary 23, 2012 3:53 PM
--> "Your union dues could be better used; for instance, for community food banks"

This brings up one policy/practice which is NOT a good thing for strikes: families go to food banks, as though they are deserving of such things. They can work, they just choose not to. This is wrong on so many levels. Isn't this what unions should be doing? Protecting their members?

The sad part is when food banks are making their shortages known yet we will see members of a striking union taking advantage of those who can't find work.

pinheads.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Pro-Choice - that's right

What a JokeFebruary 23, 2012 2:00 PM
Hey "Big B", not sure, I left my ID tag at home today, I can't remember if it is Blue or Red. Oh wait, I forgot, I stopped wearing it a long time ago when I realized that both "republicans" and "democrats" can be equally idiotic at any given point in time (this also includes tea-party members and any other classification of a collective people). Maybe you should let go of your tag and stop making assumptions based on party lines or political verbiage. Just a thought......

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
"Let em sue"

RGFebruary 23, 2012 1:58 PM
Do these union guys have a CLUE? - the vast majority of Indiana's citizens and taxpayers (those with jobs who actually pay taxes) are fed-up with these clowns... anyway, I guess they have a right to file suit, and the taxpayers should insist that the union picks up the court costs!

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
What a joke - watch your words

Big BFebruary 23, 2012 1:49 PM
Hey "what a joke" Are you Republican - AND utterd Pro choice??????????????

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
with one L Berckwick

Big BFebruary 23, 2012 1:45 PM
Towel is with one l Berckwick, perhaps your non union vison plan is too exspensive or your employer does not offer one. Union vision plans are available usaully at a better premium then most. Consider that or using spell check.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
What a Joke

Pro-ChoiceFebruary 23, 2012 1:32 PM
Violates federal/state law? Equal protection? Services without compensation? Where do they get this spin from? I am not going to argue the validity of unions in today's world, each person has their opinion on that and this law has nothing to do with that argument. Plain and simple, the law says that people now have a choice, their personal right to choose if they want to pay a union and receive services from that union. Those who do not, will choose not to, those that do, will choose to. Every person deserves the right to equal employment. With this new law, people can now apply for work wherever they want, without being "classified" or denied based on a specific status (union or non-union).

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
RTW lawsuit

RosieFebruary 23, 2012 6:18 AM
I can not see how forcing a person to join any organization as a condition of hiring is a good thing. Let the people who want to join the union do so. The rest of the workers should not have to if they do not want to. As far as I'm concerned, the union has outlived it's usefullness and gotten too large to even be effective. The union has gotten powerful and has become a bully, trying to coerce the state into doing things the union way. Let workers decide if the union is something they want to participate in.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
unions unfair

ladyjFebruary 23, 2012 12:58 AM
I see both sides of the issue but I have to agree with the union. Person who pay union dues should get representation to fight for their jobs, but having a non union worker get the same representation is total wrong. If they want the job at a union company fine but if they don't pay dues they should not get representation. This law is the way to break all union which are left.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
That was so then...

SteveFebruary 22, 2012 7:47 PM
Mike L: My father was union too at about the same time as your dad but he wouldn't be today. Today he would recognize that the union is just another layer of graft and skimming and he would have left, just as thousands of others have, and carved out a better life far from the union parasites.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Stick a fork in da union

Robin ZanderFebruary 22, 2012 7:45 PM
If unions offered any value, people would be flocking to join. They aren't. Having moved back to Indiana from South Carolina, I have to laugh at the sophomoric attempt to scare people into supporting their cause. Jobs are leaving the union north...have been for 30 years. The unions simply cannot be this stupid, yet it appears they are. Oh well, some lessons have to be learned the hard way.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
unions-johnnyboy

Mike LFebruary 22, 2012 6:05 PM
easy there johnny, I have to disagree with you on most points, mainly the car comments.The union workers DON'T design the vehicles, DON'T specify the materials to be used in the production, DON'T design the manufacturing processes, and they DON'T determine the technology used in the vehicles or the manufacturing process, they DO manufacture and assemble vehicles in a process determined by engineers and accountants. My father spent 35 years in a union automotive facility, and he drove what he built, with pride. And I continue to drive what that same company builds, and have been very happy with the quality of the vehicles I have owned. So you really need to rethink before you bash entire groups of people, because a vast of the workers do take pride in their jobs and strive to make the best products with the tools that are given them.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
uNIONS

JohnnyboyFebruary 22, 2012 5:05 PM
If unions would spend half as much time concentrating on doing QUALITY work as was the case in the past, rather than doing shoddy work like today they wouldnt need this law. Unfortunately unions have produced low quality sub par products, want proof look at the highway system today its a disgrace. Homes are built not to last a long time heck most begin to crack in the 1st year, automobiles today are built cheaper than ever before and are less reliable. All these are done by unions. Maybe we should base contracts on QUALITY and see how fast Unions change their approach. Until then maybe this law should have been written to where NON UNION companies can compete for contracts now exclusive to unions. Thats what competition is all about. Have a Union company and a non union company compete for road work, and see who does the best job, within budget, and on time. I guarantee you the unions couldnt compete then

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Union hall

Rand FanFebruary 22, 2012 4:55 PM
Come on guys. Give it up. The law exists in over 20 other states and has been upheld in all courts. Your union dues could be better used; for instance, for community food banks, rent assistance and utility bill help for those in need. Instead of always advocating that everyone run to the govt. for help, do so yourselves. The unions have millions at their disposal and should start using it for the public welfare. If the dollars were used this way instead of for the Democratic Party there would be no disagreements about paying union dues.

Reply to Comment Flag Comment
Unions - ugh

BerwickGuyFebruary 22, 2012 3:59 PM
Oh great, more whining and now they want to waste the taxpayers money in court. Sometimes, guys, you just need to throw in the towell.

Losers....

Reply to Comment Flag Comment