YES ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ INDIANA IS GOING TO COURT OVER UNEMPLOYMENT.

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SURVIVES ANOTHER LEGAL CHALLENGE.

PLUS, TEACHERS UNIONS SUE OVER A NEW LAW AND MORE ON INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING JUNE 18TH, 2021.

>> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF INTD PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS.

AND ICEMILLER, MORE AT ICEMILLER.COM.

THIS WEEK, INDIANA LEGAL GROUPS ARE TAKING THE STATE TO COURT OVER ITS DECISION TO END FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AT THE END OF THIS WEEK.

INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S JUSTIN HICKS REPORTS THEY SAY THE STATE IS VIOLATING ITS OWN LAW WHICH SAYS IT MUST GIVE CITIZENS ALL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS OF FEDERAL LAWS.

PLAINTIFFS INCLUDE THE CONCERNED CLERGY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND SEVERAL HOOSIERS AFFECTED BY THE STATE'S DECISION.

IN COURT DOCUMENTS, SEVERAL SAY LACK OF CHILDCARE OR ONGOING QUARANTINES AND BUSINESS CLOSURES MEAN THEY'LL LIKELY BE EVICTED WITHOUT FEDERAL BENEFITS.

DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT DATA SHOWS THE END OF FEDERAL BENEFITS WOULD IMPACT AROUND 160,000 HOOSIERS, WITH ALMOST 80 PERCENT OF THEM LOSING ALL UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

JENNIFER TERRY OF INDIANA LEGAL SERVICES IS AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING PLAINTIFFS.

SHE SAYS THEY ALSO ASKED THE JUDGE FOR AN INJUNCTION THAT WOULD TEMPORARILY HALT THE STATE'S ABILITY TO END FEDERAL BENEFITS.

JENNIFER TERRY: AT THIS POINT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT HEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MIGHT OCCUR, BUT WE HOPE THAT IT WILL HAPPEN FAST.

>> IS THIS LAWSUIT GOING TO SUCCEED?

IT'S THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW PANEL DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY REPUBLICAN JOEY FOX JON SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS AND NIKI KELLY, STATEHOUSE REPORTER FOR THE FORT WAYNE JOURNAL GAZETTE I'M INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATEHOUSE REPORTER BRANDON SMITH ANN DELANEY, IS THIS LAWSUIT THE WAY FORWARD ON UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS?

>> WELL, I DON'T THINK THE PEOPLE WHOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WERE TERMINATED SO ABRUPTLY HAVE ANY CHOICE.

THE STATUTE SAYS WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS, THAT'S HOOSIERS ARE ENTITLED TO ALL BENEFITS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROVIDES NP WAS DONE BY THE GOVERNOR IN KNEE JERK REACTION TO HIS RIGHT WING PARTY.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE.

A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT BACK TO WORK FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS.

THEY MAY HAVE ISSUES WHERE THEY LIVE, WITH A FAMILY MEMBER WITH A CONDITION THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT COVID AND THEY CAN'T GET VACCINATED.

THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT REASONS FOR THIS.

THE LAW ALREADY REQUIRES THEM TO SHOW THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET JOBS, OKAY?

SO THAT'S ALREADY THERE AND IT SHOULD BE THERE.

THAT'S A GOOD THING BUT TERMINATING THIS IN VIOLATION OF THE INDIANA CODE WAS NOT ONLY NOT THOUGHT THROUGH, I MEAN INDIANA'S ALWAYS BEEN A DONOR STATE.

WE NEVER GET BACK FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHAT WE PAY INTO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO THE STATE ECONOMY.

AND TO MAKE THINGS BOUNCE BACK EVEN FASTER AFTER THE COVID LOCK DOWN AND THEY JUST TURNED THEIR BACKS ON IT FOR IDEOLOGIC REASONS.

AND IT'S REALLY A MISTAKE AND IT HARMS PEOPLE LENT MY, PEOPLE, IT DOESN'T LEGITIMATE MY HARMS, IT HARMS LEGITIMATELY PEOPLE, THAT IT SHOULD BE OVERTURNED.

>> GOVERNOR WAS TALKED TODAY, ABOUT ENDING THOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

HE SAID THERE ARE 100,000 JOBS UNFILLED IN THE STATE OF INDIANA RIGHT NOW.

THERE ARE PROGRAMS YOU CAN GO THROUGH TO THE STATE TO GET STRANGE TO APPLY FOR THOSE JOBS.

DO WE NEED THIS LAWSUIT TO REINSTATE THESE BENEFITS FOR A FEW MONTHS?

>> SO I THINK YOU GOT TO GO BACK TO THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THESE BENEFITS WERE ADDED.

AT THAT TIME, RIGHT, WE WERE UNDER PANDEMIC.

WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF WAS FORCING BUSINESSES TO CLOSE.

THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR EXTREME MEASURES.

AND IF YOU WILL RECALL, HOW QUICKLY THESE THINGS WERE PASSED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

THIS WAS KIND OF A ONE SIZE FITS ALL LET'S GO WE GOT TO GET PEOPLE MONEY RIGHT?

BUT NOW WE'RE NOT THERE.

SO IF WE ARE FOLLOWING THE DATA WHEN OUR UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS COMING BACK WE'VE GOT EMPLOYERS WHO CAN'T HIRE MOMENT.

THEY'RE COMPETING WITH WAGES OF UNEMPLOYMENT.

SO NOW IF THE SITUATION IS NOT INFORMED BY COVID IT'S TIME TO END SOME OF THESE COVID RELATED PROGRAMMING NOW SO THAT WE CAN FULLY GET THE ECONOMY BACK ON TRACK.

>> AND FORCE PEOPLE BACK INTO MINIMUM WAGE JOBS WITH NO BENEFITS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO RAISE THE PAY.

GREAT IDEA.

>> IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT UNEMPLOYMENT SHOULD LOOK IN THE FUTURE, WHAT THESE PROGRAMS SHOULD DO, WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE AVAILABLE JOBS AND STILL GET THOSE BENEFITS THAT'S FINE.

>> BUT THEY ARE SHOWING JON -- >> TAKING A PROGRAM, YOU'RE STEALING A BASE ON THE BASIS OF A PROGRAM.% >> WHICH IS WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS.

>> RATHER THAN ACTUALLY HAVING THE DEBATE WHICH I THINK YOU WOULD LOSE.

>> WITH YOU, YEAH.

>> THERE'S A LOT OF FOCUS, THERE WAS A LOT OF FOCUS ON THE PART OF THE FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DURING COVID THAT CREATED -- THAT GAVE MORE MONEY TO PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN REGULAR UNEMPLOYMENT.

BUT THESE BENEFITS GO BEYOND THAT.

THERE IS THE EXTENSION BEYOND THE 26 WEEKS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR MOST UNEMPLOYED HOOSIERS BUT THERE'S ALSO IMPORTANTLY A BRAND-NEW KIND OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT FOR THOSE WHO ARE SEX EMPLOYED.

GIG ECONOMY WORKERS WHICH THERE ARE INCREASINGLY MORE OF AS THE GIG ECONOMY STRENGTHENS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

ASKED TODAY ABOUT THAT, THE GOVERNOR SAID, I'M ONLY BARELY PARAPHRASING HERE, IF YOU HAD A JOB, OR STARTED A BUSINESS BEFORE COVID, FREE PANDEMIC, AND IT'S NOT -- PREPANDEMIC, AND IT'S NOT AVAILABLE ANYMORE YOU JUST HAVE TO FIND A NEW JOB.

IS THAT A GOOD ANSWER GLX PROBABLY NOT FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THOSE JOBS AND AREN'T ABLE TO FIND JOBS FOR WHICH THEY HAVE THE APPROPRIATE SKILLS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.

WE'RE ALL ASSUMING HERE THE ARGUMENT THAT FOR CUTTING OFF THE BENEFITS ASSUMES THAT THERE'S SOME DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN A SEVERANCE, SUSPENSION OF BENEFITS, AND THOSE PEOPLE INSTANTLY CHECKING A BOX, AND OVERNIGHT, BECOMING EMPLOYEES AT THESE COMPANIES THAT ARE SCREAMING FOR JOBS.

AS WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE, A LOT OF UNEMPLOYMENT IS IN COMMUNITIES AND PARTS OF THE STATE WHERE NOBODY'S HIRING.

SO DO WE HAVE A PROGRAM WHEREBY NOT JUST JOB SKILLS BUT ARE WE GOING TO PAY TO MOVE PEOPLE FROM SOUTHERN INDIANA, RURAL AREAS WHERE THERE IS NO MANUFACTURING BASE ANYMORE, WHERE THERE IS NO KIND OF ECONOMIC INFRASRUCTURE, THE WAY YOU WOULD FIND IN SAY INDIANA, CENTRAL INDIANA OR IN INDIANAPOLIS?

I DOUBT IT.

NOT PREPARED TO DO THAT.

>> AREN'T ALL OF THOSE ARGUMENTS THAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAVING BEFORE THESE KIND OF EXTREME BENEFITS THAT HAD TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAD TO SHUT THE ECONOMY DOWN?

>> THERE ARE ALSO OTHER REASONS.

>> THE GIG ECONOMY IS CLEARLY AN ARGUMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF HOW IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE OUR ECONOMY IS SHIFTING, IT'S GOING TO SHIFT THE EVEN MORE, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SAYING, GO BACK TO WORK, TO A TRADITIONAL OFFICE SETTLING, FORGET IT, IT'S NOT WHAT I WANT ANYMORE.

>> LET ME ASK THE QUESTION THIS WAY, WHICH IS THAT DISCUSSION THAT WAS JUST HAD WAS A LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION, IT WAS OLEGITIMATE DISCUSSION BEFORE THE PANDEMIC.

IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE NOW THAT THE PANDEMIC IS WINDING DOWN LET'S SAY.

BUT THESE FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WERE AVAILABLE THROUGH, FOR AFEW MORE MONTHS.

THEY WERE GOING TO END, NO MATTER WHAT.

SO WHY NOT JUST LET THEM RUN OUT NATURALLY, INSTEAD OF CUTTING IT OFF PREMATURELY?

>> OBVIOUSLY WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE POLITICS OF IT AND HOW, YOU KNOW, REPUBLICANS FEEL THAT THAT IS WHAT IS STOPPING PEOPLE FROM TAKING A JOB.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT IS NOT OCCURRING IN ANECDOTALLY IN SOME PEOPLE.

BUT I DO THINK FOR A LOT MORE PEOPLE, THE CALCULATION IS DIFFERENT.

SO I MEAN I JUST THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THIS TIME TO ACTUALLY -- BECAUSE REGARDLESS WHETHER WE HAVE THREE MORE MONTHS OF THIS THING, THOSE PROGRAMS, THOSE PROTECTIONS ARE ENDING.

WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET PEOPLE CONNECTED TO THOSE JOBS, WHERE THEY LIVE, AND ALSO I DO THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT SOME PEOPLE, I SEE THINGS ONLINE ALL THE TIME, THEY SAY TELL ME WHERE I CAN FIND A JOB THAT'S NOT IN A FACTORY OR RESTAURANT.

IT'S WELL THAT'S WHERE THE JOBS ARE.

>> ALL RIGHT.

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SURVIVED ANOTHER LEGAL CHALLENGE THIS WEEK AS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED ON THE FEDERAL HEALTH CARE LAW.

OBAMACARE, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN UPHELD BY THE NATION'S HIGH COURT THREE TIMES, HAS HELPED ENSURE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF HOOSIERS SINCE IT WAS ENACTED MORE THAN A DECADE AGO.

THE SUPREME COURT'S LATEST DECISION THREW OUT A CHALLENGE TO THE LAW ON THE GROUNDS THAT TEXAS AND OTHER OBJECTING GOP-DOMINATED STATES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY ANYTHING UNDER THE MANDATE PROVISION AND THUS HAD NO STANDING TO BRING THE CHALLENGE TO COURT.

THE MANDATE, THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL PROVISION OF THE LAW, REQUIRED THAT PEOPLE EITHER BUY HEALTH INSURANCE OR PAY A PENALTY.

IN 2017, CONGRESS GOT RID OF THE PENALTY AFTER THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE CONCLUDED THAT THE LAW WOULD CONTINUE TO FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY WITHOUT IT.

INDIANA IS ONE OF THE STATES THAT JOINED TEXAS IN THIS LATEST CHALLENGE TO OBAMACARE.

JOEY FOX, DO YOU THINK HOOSIERS ARE TIRED OF, OR SUPPORT, THE CONSTANT REPUBLICAN ATTACKS ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT?

>> LOOK, I MEAN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS SHOVED THROUGH BY DEMOCRATS ONLY IN 2009.

DEMOCRATS TOOK A HUGE BEATING IN SEVERAL ELECTION CYCLES FOR IT.

HOWEVER WE ARE NOW IN 2021.

I THINK FOCUS AND OUR ENERGY REALLY SHOULD BE SPENT ON WHAT WE DO NOW.

BECAUSE THE BIG PROBLEM NOW WE HAVE ARE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS AROUND THE STATE PAYING ABSOLUTELY EXORBITANT PRICES FOR HEALTH CARE.

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT I THINK OBJECTIVELY EXPANDED ACCESS TO CARE.

IT DIDN'T DO MUCH FOR EITHER QUALITY OR AFFORDABILITY.

AND I THINK THOSE ARE THE ISSUES NOW THAT WE HAVE TO TACKLE.

I THINK THERE ARE MARKET DRIVEN REFORMS THAT WE COULD DO TO IMPLEMENT, TO HELP MAKE SURE ON THE PRIVATE SIDE, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS WHO ESSENTIALLY THEIR HEALTHY COVERAGE FOR EMPLOYEES ARE SUBS SUBSIDIZING MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.

ESPECIALLY IN INDIANA, THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO FOCUS.

>> I'M GLAD TO THINK THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT A GOVERNMENT OPTION FOR PEOPLE, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD MOVE ON YOUR PART.

>> THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID!

>> HOLD ON.

I WANT TO ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.

I'VE HEARD JOEY IS NOT THE ONLY REEBILITY I'VE HEARD FROM -- REPUBLICAN I'VE HEARD FROM WHO SAYS, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S NEXT, HOW DO WE THEN DISMANTLE -- LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.

I THINK A LOT OF REPUBLICANS ARE STUCK ON WE NEED TO KILL BOWCT BOBAMACARE.

>> WE'RE COVERING ALMOST HALF A MILLION HOOSIERS WITH THAT AND 31 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY ARE UNDER OBAMA CARE.

IF THEY WANT TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT BUILDING ON IT AND STOP THE RIDICULOUS ATTACKS ON IT, THEN YOU HAVE TODD ROKITA OUT THERE SAYING THIS IS NOT THE END OF IT, HE'S GOING TO ATTACK IT AGAIN.

IT HAS TO STOP AND THEY HAVE TO COME ONE SOME IDEAS.

REMEMBER WE WERE GOING TO HAVE REPEAL AND REPLACE?

REMEMBER THAT?

THAT'S THE FIRST THING TRUMP WAS GOING TO DO.

HAVE WE HEARD AN IDEA OUT OF THE REPUBLICANS HOW TO DO THAT?

NO WE HAVE NOT.

[SIMULTANEOUS SPEECH] [SIMULTANEOUS SPEECH] [SIMULTANEOUS SPEECH] WE NEED TO GO FORWARD, WE NEED TO GO FORWARD WITH WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ON THAT AND OBVIOUSLY THE PUBLIC OPTION IS ONE WAY TO DO IT.

>> WHEN WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS LAWSUIT, THAT JUST FINALLY WAS RESOLVED BEFORE, WE HEARD FROM SENATOR MIKE BRAUN, FROM SENATOR TODD YOUNG WHO DIFFERING LEVELS FOR THE LAWSUIT BECAUSE IF IT GOES AWAY SO DOES ALL OF THIS ACCESS.

WE NEED A REPLAYERSMENT.

IT'S CLEARLY AS SHE MENTIONED TODD YOUNG IS NOT DONE TRYING TO STRIKE DOWN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

>> I THINK TODD ROKITA.

>> TODD ROKITA, VERY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

MY APOLOGIES TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ROKITA.

IS THAT A PROBLEM THAT IF REPUBLICANS GET A MAJORITY IN THE SENATE OR THE HOUSE AT SOME POINT IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO YEARS OR FOUR YEARS, DO THEY HAVE TO ADDRESS, WHAT DO WE REPLACE THIS WITH, IN CASE EVENTUALLY ONE OF THESE LAWSUITS DOES SUCCEED?

>> I'M HOPING WE MOVE PAST THE REPEAL AND REPLACE.

I'M HOPING PEOPLE SMARTER THAN ME WHO UNDERSTAND MARKET FORCES START LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE SAID, AFFORDABILITY.

WE'VE SEEN IN THIS PANHANDLE WE'VE GIVEN ARE FEE VACCINES TO PEOPLE, ALL ACROSS YET YOU'RE PAYING INSANE PRICES FOR LIFESAVING INSULIN.

THERE ARE WAYS TO HELP THE HEALTH CARE SITUATION IF WE WOULD STOP DOING THAT AROUND FOCUS ON MOVING FORWARD, I HOPE WE DO.

>> IS IT STILL GOOD POLITICS TO ASSAIL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT?

>> IT'S PROBABLY IN INDIANA.

IT'S PROBABLY CERTAINLY IT REMINDS ME OF THE OLD LATE NIGHT, IT WASN'T OSKETCH, SOMEONE WENT OUT EARLY WITH A MICROPHONE IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PASSAGE AND SAID, DO YOU FAVOR AFFORDABLE CARE ACT?

YES, WHAT ABOUT OBAMACARE?

NO, THAT'S COMMUNISM.

SOCIETY PROTECTING OUR MOST VULNERABLE, NO, IT'S JUST LIKE COVID HAS BECOME YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A FRONT FOR A BIGGER ISSUE ABOUT THE POLARIZATION OF AMERICA.

SO BUT PROBABLY GOING AGAINST OBAMACARE, IN INDIANA, IS STILL A POLITICAL WIN.

BUT I DO THINK THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT HERE IN MOST STATES HAS BECOME SEEN AS A POSITIVE AND WE SAW THAT IN THE LAST -- I DOUBT AS MANY DEMOCRATS AS WERE RUNNING ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ACROSS THE COUNTRY WOULD HAVE DONE SO IF THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A NEGATIVE.

AS TO THE QUESTION WILL THIS GO AWAY SIMPLY BECAUSE NOW THE COURTS HAVE DEALT WITH IT THREE TIMES, I WOULD POINT OUT WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE WITH SUCH STRONG OPINIONS ONE COURT DECISION, TWO COURT DECISION, THREE NEGATIVE COURT DECISIONS DOESN'T NECESSARILY STIFLE THE DISCUSSION AS ROE V. WADE WHICH HAD A 30 YEAR HEAD START ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

>> I HOPE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IN 30 YEARS.

>> ROE V. WADE WAS A SUPREME COURT DECISION RIGHT?

AS OPPOSED TO A PHYSICAL -- TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.

EACH WEEK WE POSE AN UNSCIENTIFIC, ONLINE POLL QUESTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR ICEMILLER E-MAIL AND TEXT ALERTS.

THIS WEEK'S QUESTION: WILL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EVENTUALLY BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE COURTS?

A.

YES B.

NO LAST WEEK'S QUESTION: SHOULD INDIANA'S NEW SECRETARY OF COMMERCE ALSO KEEP HIS LEADERSHIP ROLE AT THE PRIVATE COMPANY HE FOUNDED?

JUST 10% OF YOU SAY YES, 90% SAY NO.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PART IN THE POLL GO TO WFYI.ORG/IWIR AND LOOK FOR THE POLL.

THREE INDIANA TEACHERS UNIONS ARE SUING THE STATE OVER A NEW LAW THEY SAY VIOLATES TEACHERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH.

INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S JUSTIN HICKS REPORTS THE LAW REQUIRES TEACHERS TO OPT IN EVERY SCHOOL YEAR TO HAVE UNION DUES AUTOMATICALLY DEDUCTED.

FROM THEIR PAYCHECKS.

THE COMPLAINT FILED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT STATES THE NEW LAW WOULD INTERFERE IN EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACTS BETWEEN UNIONS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

PLAINTIFFS SAY THE NEW AUTHORIZATION PROCESS WILL BE AN ONEROUS BURDEN ON TEACHERS, SCHOOLS, AND UNIONS.

GROUPS WHO ADVOCATED FOR PASSAGE OF THE CONTENTIOUS LAW IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SAY IT GIVES TEACHERS MORE RIGHTS BY ALLOWING THEM OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM TO OPT OUT OF UNION DUES MUCH THEY ALSO PUSHED FOR A PROVISION, NOW LAW, THAT TELLS TEACHERS IN LARGE BOLD FONT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO JOIN THE UNION.

JON SCHWANTES, IS OPTING IN EVERY YEAR REALLY THAT BIG A BURDEN?

>> I SUPPOSE NOT.

WE DO A LOT OF THINGS ONCE A YEAR OR MORE FREQUENTLY AS A SOCIETY.

BUT THIS ISSUE IS ABOUT MORE THAN THAT.

LIKE EVERYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT YOU KNOW GOING ONLINE AND CLICKING A BOX.

IT'S ABOUT WEAKENING LIKE AND IDEALLY IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO THE UNION DISMANTLING OR UNDERCUTTING OR EVISCERATING A UNION THAT HAS BEEN LARGELY A SUPPORTER OF DEMOCRATIC CAUSES AND DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.

THIS AGAIN, NOTHING JUST HAPPENS IN INDIANA.

I HATE TO TELL YOU THIS HAS HAPPENED IF EVERY STATE.

THIS HAS BEEN PART OF THE PLAY BOOK AS FAR BACK AS THE CONTRACTUAL WITH AMERICA, WITH NEWT G G GINGRICH.

BACK IN 1994.

I REMEMBER THE DEBATE TAKING PLACE MORE THAN A DECADE AGO.

THIS IS ADDING I GUESS ANOTHER LAYER IN TERMS OF THE COMPLEXITY OF HAVING TO RENEW.

AGAIN LET'S KEEP IN MIND THIS IS NOT ABOUT RECORD KEEPING, THE ABILITY TO REMIND YOURSELF LIKE YOU'RE CHANGING THE BATTERIES IN YOUR SMOKE DETECTOR ONCE A YEAR OR CHANGING TO DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME.

IT'S MORE THAN THAT.

IT'S A LOT TO ASK, YOU GRO THE O THINK ABOUT IT IN THE GENERAL CONTEXT.

>> THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS BEEN NIBBLING AROUND THESE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN ONE SESSION RIGHT?

>> THEY DIDN'T EVEN TRY TO HIDE IT RIGHT?

WE'RE GOING AGAINST THE TEACHERS UNION NOT THE PIPE AFFILIATERS OR STEAL WORKERS UNION, ONLY TEACHERS UNION.

IT HAS TO BE IN 14 POINT BOLD TYPE THAT THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BACK DOWN.

I THOUGHT BACK TO WORK, THAT THIS WAS FAIRNESS AND APPARENTLY THAT WASN'T ENOUGH.

WE JUST KEEP GOING AT IT.

AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THAT THEY AREN'T TARGETING TEACHERS JUST STRAIGHT ON.

>> YOU'RE A LAWYER.

HELP ME, DRAW A LINE FOR ME FROM I HAVE TO OPT IN TO HAVE THESE THINGS AUTOMATICALLY DEDUCTED TO FREE SPEECH.

AS A NONLAWYER THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

>> RED FOR ED, AND THE FACT THAT TEACHERS IN THIS STATE WERE BEING GROSSLY UNDERPAID UNDER THE REPUBLICANS FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS AND THEY'RE BEING PUNISHED FOR DOING THAT.

THEY'RE BEING PUSHED THAT IS WHAT THIS IS.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OPTING IN OR ANYTHING ELSE.

THEY WANT TO MAKE THEM SUFFER AND THEY WANT TO MAKE THEM SUFFER BY MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT TO HAVE ANY MEANINGFUL INFORMATION FROM THE UNION TO THE EMPLOYEES.

BECAUSE THEY WANT TO RESTRICT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY.

IT'S NOT JUST SIMPLY THAT YOU HAVE TO OPT-IN.

THEN YOU HAVE TO BE SENT AN E-MAIL AND THEN YOU HAVE TO RESPOND TO THE E-MAIL AND IT HAS TO HAPPEN EVERY YEAR, OKAY?

NOBODY ELSE DOES THAT.

NOBODY ELSE DOES THAT.

IT'S DONE BECAUSE THEY ARE PUNISHING THE TEACHERS FOR POINTING OUT THE FACT THAT THEY'VE BEEN LEFT BEHIND IN TERMS OF SALARY FROM THE STATE BY THE REPUBLICANS.

>> NIKI MAKES THE POINT, IT IS NOT JUST EVERY UNION, IT'S JUST THE TEACHERS UNION.

IS IT FEELING LIKE THEY'RE TARGETING THE TEACHERS UNION?

>> THEY ARE GOING AGAINST THE TEACHERS.

>> DOES THAT MAKE IT BETTER?

>> SURE, ZOOM OUT FOR JUST A SECOND.

IN THE LAST YEAR THERE HAVE BEEN A GROUP OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN WORSE FOR KIDS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THAN TEACHERS UNIONS AND SPECIFICALLY, FOR ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE ALLEGED TO BE SO PROGRESSIVE THEY'VE BEEN WORSE FOR KIDS OF COLOR, POOR KIDS, DISABLED KIDS,.

>> BASED ON WHAT?

>> AROUND THE COUNTRY WHEN EVEN WHEN THE SCIENCE DIDN'T SUPPORT THEIR POSITION THEY HAVE ACTIVELY AROUND THE COUNTRY TRIED TO KEEP SCHOOLS CLOSED WHILE ACTIVELY OPPOSING PARENTS ABILITY TO CHOOSE ANOTHER SCHOOL FOR THEIR FOLKS.

I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S THAT BIG OF AN ASK TO CHECK A BOX.

>> OH COME ON.

>> REPUBLICANS HAVE THE SAME ENTHUSIASM FOR SEVERING THE TIES BETWEEN FIRST RESPONDERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHERE REPUBLICANS ARE WILLING TO SAY THEY'RE GOOD AND SOME WHERE THEY'RE BAD, AND BACKERS OF REPUBLICANS GENERALLY OR -- >> THAT'S ALL IT IS.

>> WHO IS LOOKING OUT FOR THE INTERESTS KIDS EXPHEEPS [SIMULTANEOUS SPEECH] >> I WANTED TO GET TO THE OTHER TOPIC.

THE INDIANAPOLIS BUSINESS JOURNAL REPORTED THIS WEEK THAT ROLLS-ROYCE PLANS TO VACATE ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF ITS DOWNTOWN INDIANPOLIS CAMPUS IN FAVOR OF A LONG-TERM, REMOTE WORK MODEL.

SOURCES TOLD IBJ THAT THE UK-BASED AIRCRAFT ENGINE MANUFACTURER PLANS TO GIVE UP 270 THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE ON THE CAMPUS THAT, PRE-PANDEMIC, HOUSED ABOUT THREE THOUSAND EMPLOYEES.

IT WILL BE SEVERAL WEEKS BEFORE THE PLANS ARE FINALIZED.

IBJ REPORTED THAT ONE OF ITS SOURCES SAID IT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY TO FIND A SINGLE USER FOR EVEN ONE OF THE BUILDINGS ROLLS-ROYCE WILL VACATE.

NIKI KELLY, IF YOU'RE IN ANY METROPOLITAN AREA OF INDIANA, HOW CONCERNED ARE YOU ABOUT WHAT THIS MIGHT SIGNAL FOR OTHER COMPANIES?

>> I MEAN MAYBE A LITTLE BUT I GOT TO BE HONEST.

THAT'S THE FIRST SORT OF LARGE ANNOUNCEMENT LIKE THAT WE'VE HEARD.

ANECDOTALLY EVERYONE IN MY LIFE IS GOING BACK TO THE OFFICE.

BECAUSE WHILE WE HAVE PROVED THAT WE CAN DO IT, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE ALSO LOOKED AT THE PROS OF BEING IN THE OFFICE, YOUR ABILITY TO IN-PERSONAL COLLABORATE.

YOUR FOCUS IS JUST STRAIGHTER AND KEEN WHER CLEANER WHEN YOU'E OFFICE, THAN A CAT NIBBLING AT YOUR FEET.

I WAS SURPRISED AT THIS ONE THOUGH.

>> WHEN ELI LILY UNVEILED THEIR RETURN TO WORK PLAN, AS THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE CORPORATE LEADERS AND GOING, OKAY THAT'S HOW THEY'RE GOING, IS THIS GOING TO BE A MODEL OR THE OTHER COMPANIES?

>> I THINK A LOT OF COMPANIES ARE SEEING THAT THESE SORTS OF MODELS ARE ATTRACTIVE TO CURRENT EMPLOYEES AND ESPECIALLY TO POTENTIAL HIRES.

SO I THINK A HYBRID MODEL IF NOT AN OUT AND OUT WORK MODEL WILL BE DANGLED AS A CARE CARROT BY T OF COMPANIES IN INDIANA AND OTHER PLACES.

EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A BLOW IN TERMS OF NOT HAVING PHYSICAL SPACE THAT EVERYBODY CAN CONVERGE ON, YOU HAVE LEGS WEAR AND TEAR ON THE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

>> THERE ARE A LOT OF DOWN SIDES IF YOU ARE A RESTAURANT IN DOWNTOWN INDIANAPOLIS, FOR INSTANCE.

BUT IF YOU'RE ROLLS-ROYCE, I MANUAL YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS AND GOING, OUR EMPLOYEES CAN WORK FROM HOME AND HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE GOING TO SAVE ON RENT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

REAL ESTATE AND WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH HOUSING, THE CORE DOWNTOWN IS NOT QUITE AS HOT AS WHERE THE SUBURBS ARE, WE'VE BEEN SELLING, YOU CAN WALK TO WORK, WALK TO THE PARK, NOW YOU CAN LIVE IN THE SUBURBS AND YOU DON'T HAVE THAT NECESSITY FOR BEING HERE.

IT'S GOING TO BE I HATE THE WORD DISRUPTIVE BUT IT'S GOING TO BE DISRUPTIVE.

WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT.

>> BUT IS THIS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM THAT METROPOLITAN DOWNTOWNS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TACKLE?

>> I THINK IT MIGHT BE.

WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR SURE.

YOU HAVE SUCH AMOUNTS OF BUILDINGS FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS, TO DRAW PEOPLE DOWNTOWN EVEN IF THEY'RE WORKING IN THEIR OWN APARTMENT, THEY STILL MIGHT LIKE THAT.

>> IT'S GOING TO TAKE A WHILE FOR THERE SOUL TO SORT OF SETTLE BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE THOSE SORTS OF DECISIONS.

>> THAT'S TRUE, WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

>> BUCKLE UP THAT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THIS WEEK.

OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY REPUBLICAN JOEY FOX JON SCHWANTES OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS AND NIKI KELLY OF THE FORT WAYNE JOURNAL GAZETTE IF YOU'D LIKE A PODCAST OF THIS PROGRAM YOU CAN FIND IT AT WFYI.ORG/IWIR OR STARTING MONDAY YOU CAN STREAM IT OR GET IT ON DEMAND FROM XFINITY AND ON THE WFYI APP.

I'M BRANDON SMITH OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

JOIN US NEXT TIME BECAUSE A LOT CAN HAPPEN IN AN INDIANA WEEK.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF THE INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS, AND ICEMILLER.

MORE AT ICEMILLER.COM.

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELISTS.

INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS A WFYI