Recent federal court rulings rejecting union challenges to Indiana and Wisconsin right-to-work laws confirm such measures' sound legal basis, bode well for Michigan's new right-to-work law and beg this question:
Why does Pennsylvania still lack such a law?
The judge who upheld Indiana's statute rejected union contentions that it overreached, writing that voters “ultimately can decide” its fate, which is “beyond the reach of the federal court,” The Washington Free Beacon reports.
And with the U.S. Supreme Court upholding right-to-work laws since the 1940s, as National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation lawyer Glenn Taubman notes, Indiana's law ultimately should prevail over a union challenge it still faces in state court.
Upholding Wisconsin's law, a federal appeals court in Chicago also overturned a prior ruling that stopped provisions prohibiting automatic union deductions from paychecks and requiring periodic union recertification by workers.
It's past time that all Pennsylvania workers be protected against what Mr. Taubman reminds is “forced unionism and monopoly representation that infringe on individual employees' rights.”
To their credit, six Republican state legislators introduced right-to-work legislation in the General Assembly on Tuesday. And for all Pennsylvania workers' sake — and for that of freedom and liberty, not to mention competitiveness and job retention — the GOP-controlled state House and Senate must approve it and Republican Gov. Tom Corbett must sign it.
Otherwise, they should be prepared to find a new situation.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.