Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 9/10/2013 2:58:44 AM EDT
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/state-judge-rules-indiana-s-right-to-work-law-unconstitutional/article_100077d0-6ee9-5d33-88bf-0bc261c9ae3e.html

I'm under the impression this is a bad thing, but don't know enough about it.  I do know that I hate unions with a passion.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:02:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By vxtip545:
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/state-judge-rules-indiana-s-right-to-work-law-unconstitutional/article_100077d0-6ee9-5d33-88bf-0bc261c9ae3e.html

I'm under the impression this is a bad thing, but don't know enough about it.  I do know that I hate unions with a passion.
View Quote



It is a bad thing.  According to this judge (who was probably helped by unions to get elected), unions can force you to be a member and pay dues.  It is extortion plain and simple.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:02:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2013 3:03:24 AM EDT by FP2000H]
So, if I'm reading this right it means that someone can be a union member and no dues yet still be entitled to compensation?

Too early to think.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:05:41 AM EDT
Smells like desperation...

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:08:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2013 3:09:24 AM EDT by BTccw]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Gabriel11808:



It is a bad thing.  According to this judge (who was probably helped by unions to get elected), unions can force you to be a member and pay dues.  It is extortion plain and simple.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Gabriel11808:
Originally Posted By vxtip545:
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/state-judge-rules-indiana-s-right-to-work-law-unconstitutional/article_100077d0-6ee9-5d33-88bf-0bc261c9ae3e.html

I'm under the impression this is a bad thing, but don't know enough about it.  I do know that I hate unions with a passion.



It is a bad thing.  According to this judge (who was probably helped by unions to get elected), unions can force you to be a member and pay dues.  It is extortion plain and simple.


The fastest growing unions in this country represent .Gov workers. .Gov worker unions can and do write contracts for compensation packages and benifits that are required by law to be paid for by the tax payers of State,County etc.  Because these contracts are "negoiated" by unions it is a tax increase that I (as a citizen of that State/County/School district) didn't vote for but I'm responsible for.  Get it?
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:09:12 AM EDT
Overturned in 60 days by appellate court.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:09:44 AM EDT
From Article

According to court records, the law makes it a criminal offense for unions to receive compensation for services the federal law requires them to provide to employees even if they aren't dues-paying members.
View Quote


This sentence right here confusses me. Why would the union provide services anyone who isn't a member?
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:12:59 AM EDT
I was always of the opinion that forced unionization was unconstitutional....violated your 1st amendment right to Freedom of Association.

Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:15:27 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BIgDAM:


This sentence right here confusses me. Why would the union provide services anyone who isn't a member?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BIgDAM:
From Article

According to court records, the law makes it a criminal offense for unions to receive compensation for services the federal law requires them to provide to employees even if they aren't dues-paying members.


This sentence right here confusses me. Why would the union provide services anyone who isn't a member?

Some unions collectively bargain on behalf of all workers in a given position at a company/agency, regardless of union/non-union. Those unions are sometimes allowed to collect fees from the non-union workers to cover their share of the costs of the collective bargaining, while the dues for the union members cover their share of the bargaining costs. MD just passed a law allowing that bullshit for teachers' unions.

Kharn

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:22:55 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kharn:

Some unions collectively bargain on behalf of all workers in a given position at a company/agency, regardless of union/non-union. Those unions are sometimes allowed to collect fees from the non-union workers to cover their share of the costs of the collective bargaining, while the dues for the union members cover their share of the bargaining costs. MD just passed a law allowing that bullshit for teachers' unions.

Kharn

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kharn:
Originally Posted By BIgDAM:
From Article

According to court records, the law makes it a criminal offense for unions to receive compensation for services the federal law requires them to provide to employees even if they aren't dues-paying members.


This sentence right here confusses me. Why would the union provide services anyone who isn't a member?

Some unions collectively bargain on behalf of all workers in a given position at a company/agency, regardless of union/non-union. Those unions are sometimes allowed to collect fees from the non-union workers to cover their share of the costs of the collective bargaining, while the dues for the union members cover their share of the bargaining costs. MD just passed a law allowing that bullshit for teachers' unions.

Kharn

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile



When I hired in to my current job I was given the choice to either join the union and pay dues, or do not join the union and pay dues. Its in the contract.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:24:20 AM EDT
FPNI



Our law allows the unions to extort money from people that do not wish to join.




Shameful.



Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:24:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2013 3:25:11 AM EDT by Sirveaux]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kharn:

Some unions collectively bargain on behalf of all workers in a given position at a company/agency, regardless of union/non-union. Those unions are sometimes allowed to collect fees from the non-union workers to cover their share of the costs of the collective bargaining, while the dues for the union members cover their share of the bargaining costs. MD just passed a law allowing that bullshit for teachers' unions.

Kharn

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kharn:
Originally Posted By BIgDAM:
From Article

According to court records, the law makes it a criminal offense for unions to receive compensation for services the federal law requires them to provide to employees even if they aren't dues-paying members.


This sentence right here confusses me. Why would the union provide services anyone who isn't a member?

Some unions collectively bargain on behalf of all workers in a given position at a company/agency, regardless of union/non-union. Those unions are sometimes allowed to collect fees from the non-union workers to cover their share of the costs of the collective bargaining, while the dues for the union members cover their share of the bargaining costs. MD just passed a law allowing that bullshit for teachers' unions.

Kharn

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


Government unions also can't compel membership, AFAIK.

Of course, as noted, they do extort taxpayer money in other ways, but they can't necessarily extort gov worker dues from non-members.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:32:19 AM EDT
Skimmed the article.

If someone can correct me:

Indiana passed a law allowing people to work without joining a union.

?Federal Law says that a Union must negotiate for all workers?

Because the Indiana Constitution doesn't allow someone (presumably the state) to require you to do something without compensation, the right to work law then falls afoul of the Constitution.


Sounds like a mighty slim argument....the if the union is negotiating on behalf of it's members anyway then they would presumably incur no additional expense/work to throw the non members in also.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:35:56 AM EDT
Stupid court decisions like this is a great example of why we can't trust any branch of the government to ever do the right thing.

The Judicial branch is just as full of corruption and populated with idiots the same as the Legislative and Executive branch.

Just think of that idiot Roberts upholding Obamacare because it was a tax even though that point was never argued in court.  

As long as the unions pay out money and as long as judges get "educated" in Left Wing schools don't expect the Judicial branch to save America from corruption and greed.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:39:34 AM EDT
Right to Work tries to protect civil rights relating to freedom of association.  Some people can't stand the idea of people choosing to negotiate and work on their own terms, and more importantly, can't stand letting people go free from coercive taxation for services they don't want be it in a private or public setting.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:47:05 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Flash66:
Stupid court decisions like this is a great example of why we can't trust any branch of the government to ever do the right thing.

The Judicial branch is just as full of corruption and populated with idiots the same as the Legislative and Executive branch.

Just think of that idiot Roberts upholding Obamacare because it was a tax even though that point was never argued in court.  

As long as the unions pay out money and as long as judges get "educated" in Left Wing schools don't expect the Judicial branch to save America from corruption and greed.
View Quote



WINNER!!

Gov, all branches , and ESPECIALLY the FedGov is your enemy and will not do anything that will be helpful for the GP. Special interests only.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 3:47:07 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Electronrider:

When I hired in to my current job I was given the choice to either join the union and pay dues, or do not join the union and pay dues. Its in the contract.
View Quote


I also ran into this in one of my former jobs.  I hired on with "objector" status, but still had to pay 75% of the union dues.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 4:02:26 AM EDT
Sounds like our legislating critters miswrote the law, they have done this in the past and it will be corrected during the next session.

Checks and balances, we haz them
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 4:08:27 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By skebe:
Smells like desperation...

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote

Yep. It will be overturned.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 4:59:05 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hornet22:
Overturned in 60 days by appellate court.
View Quote


God, I hope so!

I am so sick of everything being fucking politicized!

WTF?!? GTFO of our lives you worthless, commie POS's!
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 5:00:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 5:03:47 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
...because that's what the constitution is about, right? Forcing people to join a group and give them money against their will.
View Quote



The judge should be disbarred and imprisioned.

Link Posted: 9/10/2013 5:12:37 AM EDT
Seen a few for/against about this, hard for me to understand.


One person was saying that this essentially would break union contracts with any shop that has a union in place (The employer already signed an agreement saying the union could collect dues from non union employees).
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 5:14:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2013 5:18:43 AM EDT by pdg45acp]
The left leaning judge dismissed 4 other counts brought by the IUOE.

The Indiana Attorney General's Office promised an immediate appeal to the Indiana Supreme court which is much less liberal than the judge.

This is just Indiana unions in their death throes, it will all be over with in a few years.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 5:19:27 AM EDT
My union forces me to pay maintenance dues (not a whole lot less than full membership dues) even if I choose to not be a member.

However, they are required to represent me in negotiations and disciplinary actions (however inept they may be...).

I'd rather be an independent contractor and live or die based on my job performance.

TC
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 5:24:11 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SIRIUS1:



The judge should be disbarred and imprisioned.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SIRIUS1:
Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
...because that's what the constitution is about, right? Forcing people to join a group and give them money against their will.



The judge should be disbarred and imprisioned.


Tarred, feathered, and run out on a rail
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 5:28:59 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pdg45acp:
The left leaning judge dismissed 4 other counts brought by the IUOE.

The Indiana Attorney General's Office promised an immediate appeal to the Indiana Supreme court which is much less liberal than the judge.

This is just Indiana unions in their death throes, it will all be over with in a few years.
View Quote



Yep,  One of the state reps was actually quoted saying that the Unions shopped court venues before filing so they would have a chance.    The Unions are broken here,  it is just cleaning up the few hold outs that are left.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 6:31:55 AM EDT
Some full retard and lack of understanding of what is going on in here.

Based on the wording of the law and the State Constitution of Indiana I could see where they need a State Supreme Court case to set precedent.  The question all revolves around "Just Compensation" and how that will play with other state and federal precedents and laws.  You will have everything from Chicago Teacher's Union v Hudson & Communications Workers of America v Beck, all the way to the Landrum-Griffin Ac will be involved.

Without being as familiar with Indiana Supreme Court precedent, I am siding with the judge.  A small rewrite is in order to prevent future state and federal challenges.

In before someone tells me to go back to DU.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 11:06:36 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NotAFudd:
Some full retard and lack of understanding of what is going on in here.

Based on the wording of the law and the State Constitution of Indiana I could see where they need a State Supreme Court case to set precedent.  The question all revolves around "Just Compensation" and how that will play with other state and federal precedents and laws.  You will have everything from Chicago Teacher's Union v Hudson & Communications Workers of America v Beck, all the way to the Landrum-Griffin Ac will be involved.

Without being as familiar with Indiana Supreme Court precedent, I am siding with the judge.  A small rewrite is in order to prevent future state and federal challenges.

In before someone tells me to go back to DU.
View Quote


But why would a union be forced to repreesent non-members? Surely they do not have to provide legal representation in the event of disciplinary action to employees who do not belong to the union. If this is just about them bargaining for wages and other compensation and there arguement is that by doing so they benifit every employee not just union members so everyone should pay the union, that's some mighty deap bullshit right there.

But like I said I don't fully understand what's going on.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 11:29:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2013 11:30:04 AM EDT by Flash66]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NotAFudd:
Some full retard and lack of understanding of what is going on in here.

Based on the wording of the law and the State Constitution of Indiana I could see where they need a State Supreme Court case to set precedent.  The question all revolves around "Just Compensation" and how that will play with other state and federal precedents and laws.  You will have everything from Chicago Teacher's Union v Hudson & Communications Workers of America v Beck, all the way to the Landrum-Griffin Ac will be involved.

Without being as familiar with Indiana Supreme Court precedent, I am siding with the judge.  A small rewrite is in order to prevent future state and federal challenges.

In before someone tells me to go back to DU.
View Quote


I think that the filthy unions getting their  dues from every worker in a business is not even close to the loss of individual freedom of being forced to join a union against your will.

That is a no brainer to me.

The government should not be in the business of protection of the unions to the extent of requiring that a worker has to join if they don't want to.

If you believe that is the government's job them maybe DU would be a more comfortable place for you to post.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 11:40:03 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Flash66:


I think that the filthy unions getting their  dues from every worker in a business is not even close to the loss of individual freedom of being forced to join a union against your will.

That is a no brainer to me.

The government should not be in the business of protection of the unions to the extent of requiring that a worker has to join if they don't want to.

If you believe that is the government's job them maybe DU would be a more comfortable place for you to post.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Flash66:
Originally Posted By NotAFudd:
Some full retard and lack of understanding of what is going on in here.

Based on the wording of the law and the State Constitution of Indiana I could see where they need a State Supreme Court case to set precedent.  The question all revolves around "Just Compensation" and how that will play with other state and federal precedents and laws.  You will have everything from Chicago Teacher's Union v Hudson & Communications Workers of America v Beck, all the way to the Landrum-Griffin Ac will be involved.

Without being as familiar with Indiana Supreme Court precedent, I am siding with the judge.  A small rewrite is in order to prevent future state and federal challenges.

In before someone tells me to go back to DU.


I think that the filthy unions getting their  dues from every worker in a business is not even close to the loss of individual freedom of being forced to join a union against your will.

That is a no brainer to me.

The government should not be in the business of protection of the unions to the extent of requiring that a worker has to join if they don't want to.

If you believe that is the government's job them maybe DU would be a more comfortable place for you to post.


I have fought off unionization attempts on four occasions, but please point out where in my post I cited support, I was just referencing that the decision was correct in terms of STATE CONSTITUTION FOR INDIANA.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 11:40:38 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sirveaux:


Government unions also can't compel membership, AFAIK.

Of course, as noted, they do extort taxpayer money in other ways, but they can't necessarily extort gov worker dues from non-members.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sirveaux:
Originally Posted By Kharn:
Originally Posted By BIgDAM:
From Article

According to court records, the law makes it a criminal offense for unions to receive compensation for services the federal law requires them to provide to employees even if they aren't dues-paying members.


This sentence right here confusses me. Why would the union provide services anyone who isn't a member?

Some unions collectively bargain on behalf of all workers in a given position at a company/agency, regardless of union/non-union. Those unions are sometimes allowed to collect fees from the non-union workers to cover their share of the costs of the collective bargaining, while the dues for the union members cover their share of the bargaining costs. MD just passed a law allowing that bullshit for teachers' unions.

Kharn

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


Government unions also can't compel membership, AFAIK.

Of course, as noted, they do extort taxpayer money in other ways, but they can't necessarily extort gov worker dues from non-members.


That is correct at the Fed level.  I have not nor will I ever join the fed unions.  

The two that I held covered postions with were more worried about making sure that lifers and slugs could make backroom deals for the cushy assignments and OT work than actually fighting over things that mattered like safety concerns or greivances for management  retaliation. They still had to represent me in any type of labor dispute but their represetation sucked and in most cases didn't help worth a shit.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 11:45:17 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BIgDAM:


But why would a union be forced to repreesent non-members? Surely they do not have to provide legal representation in the event of disciplinary action to employees who do not belong to the union. If this is just about them bargaining for wages and other compensation and there arguement is that by doing so they benifit every employee not just union members so everyone should pay the union, that's some mighty deap bullshit right there.

But like I said I don't fully understand what's going on.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BIgDAM:
Originally Posted By NotAFudd:
Some full retard and lack of understanding of what is going on in here.

Based on the wording of the law and the State Constitution of Indiana I could see where they need a State Supreme Court case to set precedent.  The question all revolves around "Just Compensation" and how that will play with other state and federal precedents and laws.  You will have everything from Chicago Teacher's Union v Hudson & Communications Workers of America v Beck, all the way to the Landrum-Griffin Ac will be involved.

Without being as familiar with Indiana Supreme Court precedent, I am siding with the judge.  A small rewrite is in order to prevent future state and federal challenges.

In before someone tells me to go back to DU.


But why would a union be forced to repreesent non-members? Surely they do not have to provide legal representation in the event of disciplinary action to employees who do not belong to the union. If this is just about them bargaining for wages and other compensation and there arguement is that by doing so they benifit every employee not just union members so everyone should pay the union, that's some mighty deap bullshit right there.

But like I said I don't fully understand what's going on.


Unions represent non-members all of the time, read the cases I cited earlier.  Business/.gov will let them negotiate on everyone in a classes position.  Union can only be compensated for the negotiation portion.  There are some federal rules and guidelines and case law regarding what Unions are doing for members.  It seems in the case for Indiana the Union is negotiating for everyone and not being compensated for that were per the Indiana Constitution.  Indiana Supreme Court will determine.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 11:46:29 AM EDT
Another judge that needs the overturn hammer.... and then the boot off of the bench.  
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 11:55:44 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Electronrider:
When I hired in to my current job I was given the choice to either join the union and pay dues, or do not join the union and pay dues. Its in the contract.
View Quote


Same here. I just got my certified letter from the union last week. I'm not joining, but they will still take from me 87% of the full dues out of my paycheck, including having to pay the initiation fee. It's called their 'fair share' . I wish PA was a right to work state, but that will never happen.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 12:01:07 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Gabriel11808:



It is a bad thing.  According to this judge (who was probably helped by unions to get elected), unions can force you to be a member and pay dues.  It is extortion plain and simple.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Gabriel11808:
Originally Posted By vxtip545:
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/state-judge-rules-indiana-s-right-to-work-law-unconstitutional/article_100077d0-6ee9-5d33-88bf-0bc261c9ae3e.html

I'm under the impression this is a bad thing, but don't know enough about it.  I do know that I hate unions with a passion.



It is a bad thing.  According to this judge (who was probably helped by unions to get elected), unions can force you to be a member and pay dues.  It is extortion plain and simple.

What is weird is that I've never heard of this. I have never seen a union company hire outside of the hall and if they do the first order of business was having a union rep come out and sign you up.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 12:04:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
...because that's what the constitution is about, right? Forcing people to join a group and give them money against their will.
View Quote

I'm amused that you can admit the government got it wrong here.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 12:06:53 PM EDT
This right here is why we need to elect strong Conservatives who are vengeful of and will stick it to their Democrat opponents with Conservative judicial appointments and who will clean out / purge all libtarded state employees.  

It's not discrimination over political affiliation.  It's simply a judgement of competence.  People who vote D are incompetent and have poor judgement and therefore can't perform their state government job correctly.
Top Top