The Indiana Supreme Court is to hear arguments concerning the right-to-work law in this state. The right-to-work law is an illegal law. The law itself may not be illegal. It is illegal because it is not being applied according to its own wording.
The right-to-work law has made having union representation a matter of individual choice. Before right-to-work, union representation was based on majority vote. The right-to-work law has changed that.
A company employs 100 workers. A union vote takes place. Sixty workers vote for union representation. Forty vote against having a union. Prior to RTW the company had a union shop. All workers were union workers.
The right-to-work law has changed that process. A company employs 100 workers. A union vote takes place. Sixty workers vote against union representation. Forty vote for the union. Supposedly that ends everything right there. Not so. Majority rule no longer applies. Individual choice now applies. Those 40 workers who want union representation are legally entitled to union representation.
The matter of being a card-carrying union member is a non-issue to me. However, I do agree that no one should lose their job or be denied a job over refusal to join the union.
Paying for union representation is another matter. All the right-to-work law says is that a person can choose to pay union dues or choose not to pay union dues. However, the union has every right to be paid for any services that they may provide for any individual or any group of people. The unions have every legal right to be compensated for services rendered. Pay union dues or pay when billed.
Greg Zoeller claims that no demands are placed upon the unions. I would like to see that version, if any, that he has of the RTW law. The law requires the unions to represent the nonmembers and the non-dues-paying members. It may have helped if persons such as Zoeller and Mitch Daniels, Indiana’s worst governor, would have read the RTW law before allowing it to be passed by the lawmakers in the Statehouse.
The Indiana Supreme Court has no choice here. Either strike down the right-to-work law or make it apply by its own wording. Union representation is now an individual choice. And unions are to be compensated for services rendered.
Curtis J. Ransom