The debate on right-to-work legislation has roiled the Indiana General Assembly every time the proposal has arisen. This source of friction must be handled carefully.
On Wednesday, House Speaker Brian Bosma fined 33 of the 40 House Democrats $1,000 each for missing roll call that day. Without a quorum, the session could not convene. That $1,000-a-day fine is a stiff penalty for going on strike against what they perceive as a union-busting proposal.
Walking away from the job isn't acceptable. The Democrats should show up, vote according to their principles and then campaign accordingly.
For their part, the Republicans should listen to the House Democrats' proposal to put this question to a referendum.
Democratic leader Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, said the Democrats would propose amending House Bill 1001 to require a positive result on a right-to-work referendum before the bill could become law.
The proposal for a referendum makes sense, although not the way Bauer proposes.
Structure the referendum so there is time for a full discussion of the topic, including perhaps public debates, before a vote is taken.
There is much information for the public to digest. Many questions must be answered.
Would passing right-to-work legislation drive down personal incomes in a state where they are already below the national average? Would Indiana see more high-paying jobs come to the state as a result of passing this law? Would unions suffer from lack of financial support? Would worker protections be weakened? What's the experience in states that already have right-to-work laws compared to states without them?
A referendum would bring all this to light, more so than the legislative study commission hearings last year.
But make this an advisory referendum, not final approval for a law already passed by the General Assembly. Requiring ratification for a new law is not a good precedent. The responsibility for making new laws belongs with the Legislature, not the voters.
Let the General Assembly take up the matter again after the referendum, for a more well-informed decision about the ramifications of passing the legislation — including, of course, how the voters might respond when those legislators seek re-election.