Examiner Editorial: Indiana case may become Big Labor's newest weapon

SEPTEMBER 13, 2013

Do unions exist for the benefit of workers, or do workers exist for the benefit of unions? A judge in Lake County, Ind., ruled recently that it is the latter. Judge John Sedia said in a Sept. 5, 2013, ruling that his state’s right-to-work law, which prevents workers from being forced to join a union or pay dues to one as a condition of employment, violates a section in the state that bars the delivery of services “without just compensation.” The judge’s thinking went like this: Union contracts require them to represent all employees in a workplace. A worker not paying dues is stealing from the union.

It’s an absurd argument. What the judge ignored was the fact that it is the unions that demand their contracts with management cover all workers. Nothing forces them to make that demand. Courts have long recognized the validity of “members-only” contracts in which unions only represent people who voluntarily join. Unions don’t like such contracts because they generate less dues money. Consider Judge Sedia’s ruling from the perspective of an ordinary wage earner: That person gets a job only to find out he is obligated to support the company’s union, a long-standing arrangement the worker never had an opportunity to vote on in the first place…..To Read More…..

My Take - So then, let me see if I understand this correctly.

1. Many years ago a group of people had an opportunity to vote on whether or not they should be represented by a union. They decided that unionizing was a good idea and voted to bring in some union or other.

2. Then the union negotiated a contract with the companies that made it impossible for anyone to work for the company without being in the union, or at least pay union dues.

3. Then the states passed laws that said that was entirely right and good.

4. Now however, it would appear that a lot of people don't like that.

5. So the state decided it was unfair and probably unconstitutional to force anyone into a contract to be represented by someone not of their choosing, and a contract they didn't vote on, so they could choose not to be in the union or pay union dues. 

Have I outlined this correctly so far?

6. The unions really hated that because – supposedly - they are all for the working man, so they sue state to overturn this law.

7. However, the argument they use isn't that they are concerned about the working man.  The argument they use is they are concerned about themselves.

8. Now a Galacticly Stupid judge has decided that the union exists to make money, not represent those paying dues...... ergo.....everyone has to pay dues.

9. Therefore the unions, who are supposedly for the working man, do not exist for the working man. This judge has decided the working man exists for the unions, and it would appear they aren't even allowed to pick another union or vote the union out.

Would someone explain to me how this would be different than saying ...... the government doesn't exist for the people; the people exist for the government.   Tell me.  What system of government would that be called?   One more thing.  How is this kind of thinking different than the thinking behind Obamacare?   Just a thought!