Right to Work

Judge Rules Against Indiana's Right-to-Work Law

Attorney general vows to take it to State Supreme Court


A Lake County judge has ruled Indiana's so-called "right to work" law unconstitutional.

During a legal challenge launched by Local 150, Judge John Sedia took issue with the part of the law requiring unions to represent workers while making illegal for them to require membership dues.

"The right to work law here is unsafe, unfair and an unnecessary law and now it's been ruled unconstitutional, so we couldn't be more pleased," said Jeff Harris, spokesman for the Indiana AFL/CIO.

"The court in Lake County has said (to the legislature), you're requiring this statute,  you're requiring citizens and organizations in this state to provide services without compensation and that's got to be problematic for any legislature or any attorney general," said Stephanie Jane Hahn, an attorney who specializes in employment law.

Problematic or not, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has already indicated that his office will appeal the ruling directly to the Indiana Supreme Court.

NEXT: Gay Couples Seek Equality in Investment Rules

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The court in Lake County has said (to the legislature), you’re requiring this statute, you’re requiring citizens and organizations in this state to provide services without compensation and that’s got to be problematic for any legislature or any attorney general,” … Well duh, you are a sucker-at-the-teats-of-the-public-taxpayer government union… We all know who ya are, these days… An ya have to make do with a mere $100 K a year, for scrubbing toilets, you poor over-worked “pubic sewer-ants” you? Then just QUIT yer jobs already, and go work for willing payers, WILL YA please?!?!?!? PLEASE do us ALL a flavor?!?!?!

  2. Now that union membership isn’t a prerequisite for work in some places, why would anyone want to join a union that collect fees?

    1. For safety, duh. Without unions, those jobs turn into widowmakers since there are no laws decreeing age minimums, wage minimums, or health and safety conditions. What’s needed is a Federal organization responsible for occupational health and safety. It could even have its own acronym. Something like OSHA. If only we had one of those, then unions could voluntarily disband knowing they’ve accomplished their ultimate goal of making workplaces safer.

  3. People shouldn’t be forced to join unions (and pay dues), but on the flip side, those that don’t shouldn’t get representation from the union.

    1. Why could they not simply have wrote the law to the enforcement of ‘at will’ contract instead of this? Would it have complicated the rents of too many with invested interest to do allow people free association based on their own choices?

    2. The problem is, of course, that the unions and their enablers in management have spent decades setting themselves up as the sole option for representation.

      If they insist on maintaining this role then they have to do it without extorting money from unwilling employees. If they don’t want to serve all comers, then they can get the hell out of the way.

  4. as a hoosier, I do agree with today’s ruling. hopefully it’ll be fixed soon enough. they got it through once, and we’re even more republican now, and they wouldn’t even have to do the whole bill this time.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.