User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:02:24 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:02:49 AM EDT
[#2]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:05:41 AM EDT
[#3]
Smells like desperation...
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:08:24 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:09:12 AM EDT
[#5]
Overturned in 60 days by appellate court.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:09:44 AM EDT
[#6]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:12:59 AM EDT
[#7]
I was always of the opinion that forced unionization was unconstitutional....violated your 1st amendment right to Freedom of Association.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:15:27 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This sentence right here confusses me. Why would the union provide services anyone who isn't a member? Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:22:55 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:24:20 AM EDT
[#10]
FPNI
Our law allows the unions to extort money from people that do not wish to join. Shameful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:24:28 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:32:19 AM EDT
[#12]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:35:56 AM EDT
[#13]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:39:34 AM EDT
[#14]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:47:05 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 3:47:07 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 4:02:26 AM EDT
[#17]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 4:08:27 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Smells like desperation... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yep. It will be overturned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 4:59:05 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Overturned in 60 days by appellate court. God, I hope so! I am so sick of everything being fucking politicized! WTF?!? GTFO of our lives you worthless, commie POS's! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 5:00:44 AM EDT
[#20]
...because that's what the constitution is about, right? Forcing people to join a group and give them money against their will.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 5:03:47 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 5:12:37 AM EDT
[#22]
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). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 5:14:33 AM EDT
[#23]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 5:19:27 AM EDT
[#24]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 5:24:11 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The judge should be disbarred and imprisioned. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
...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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 5:28:59 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 6:31:55 AM EDT
[#27]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 11:06:36 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 11:29:33 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 11:40:03 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 11:40:38 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 11:45:17 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 11:46:29 AM EDT
[#33]
Another judge that needs the overturn hammer.... and then the boot off of the bench.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 11:55:44 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 12:01:07 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 12:04:23 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...because that's what the constitution is about, right? Forcing people to join a group and give them money against their will. I'm amused that you can admit the government got it wrong here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2013 12:06:53 PM EDT
[#37]
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. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
