Neither side winning debate

If ever there were an issue that prompts a response of “on the one hand, but on the other hand,” it’s the proposed right-to-work legislation making its way through the General Assembly.
Some folks feel passionately about the issue.
Union members will argue vehemently that the legislation is an attempt by over-reaching Republicans to undermine Indiana’s unions. Republican lawmakers and their most loyal supporters dismiss that notion and insist it’s all about worker freedom and job creation.
But a good chunk of the Hoosier electorate falls somewhere in the middle.
We don’t like the idea that people could be forced to join a union when they don’t want to. But, at the same time, we don’t like the idea that people could freeload and get the benefits negotiated by a union without paying dues.
We’re pretty much in agreement with Republicans that companies looking to site plants in Indiana would find right-to-work an incentive. But we’re pretty much in agreement with Democrats that the jobs created by such companies would be lower-paying.
We agree with the GOP that Democratic members of the House ought to stop the shenanigans, but we sympathize with the Democrats because we know the shenanigans are about the only tactic they have left.
It’s “on the one hand, but on the other hand” every time we try to formulate a firm opinion on the topic.
And our guess is that we’re not alone. At least one Republican member of the House has struggled with the issue enough that he’s bucking the GOP and will vote against right-to-work, risking his party’s wrath down the road. There are probably moderate to conservative Democrats from rural districts who don’t have any problems with the legislation being approved.
So what’s to be done?
The idea of a referendum is silly. That’s not how we make laws in Indiana.
But now that the ins and outs of the issue have been debated for months, doesn’t it make sense to go through a general election cycle with candidates’ right-to-work positions known to the voters so an informed decision can be made at the ballot box? That way, no matter what the outcome, no one could argue that it was “shoved down the throat” of the electorate. — J.R.[[In-content Ad]]