Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
amid saw love the detriments and bad
losses that have been experienced when it comes to the
rights %uh workers there's finally a positive story to report this is written
up in raw story:
a judge has declared Indiana's right to work law
known to many as the right to work for less law
unconstitutional and it was ruled unconstitutional by state Superior Court
Judge
a Indiana John Cydia and he found
that a provision in the law which requires unions to represent workers who
do not even pay their union dues
actually violates the state constitution know some people have emailed me two or
three people
they're not fully understanding why this is such a big victory what what's the
issue with this
representing people who are paying their union dues in an
effort to her unions those who are
against organized labor and against the rights
over Labor's to organize pass this provision because essentially
think about what it means without contributing union dues without paying
your union dues
the unions still must represent you what does that mean
it's simply a way of making them have to do way more work for less money
and weakening unions is very simple I mean imagine if you had
attorneys who were forced to not only represent people who do pay them
but also represent people who don't pay them well obviously they're going to
have a lot more work and they're not going to make any more money
and it's just a way to her unions and this is a huge victory Louis
absolutely yeah and it it sets a precedent of course
I had this is one provisioning above the law
the law can be altered %ah the law can be changed in in other states
I guess in theory this could still fly so that is the question that the
question whether this is going to now
a the the kinda spread to other states and it's going to really depend on those
state constitutions because it was based on the state constitution
that this was declared unconstitutional not the the Federal Constitution
and it's just such a transparent attack on labor I mean why would you require
a group to represent non group members
other than to sabotage that grouper sabotage
the quota I'm a and william shatner
why would you why would you there's no but there's no reason to do that
other than to put that group in a worse financial position
that's exactly what it would have done and I am thrilled that this happened
it really isn't that often that we have positive news to report when it comes to
the rights
workers