[EL] Serious Question About Knox v. SEIU

[Larry Levine]

And that differs from an individual insurance policy holder or stock holder
how? Why can't I just tell my insurance company I want none of the money I
pay to them used for political purposes and have them lower my rate
proportionally? This of course begs the question: if an employee wants to
opt out than he or she should not have a right to any of the benefits
included in the collectively bargained agreement - no vacation, no pension,
no health care, nothing above minimum wage. We have generations of workers
who have no historical perspective regarding the benefits and working
conditions they enjoy. The 8-hour day, the 40-hour week, paid overtime, etc.
were not bestowed by benevolent employers. They were hard won and will
vanish if organized labor were to go away.

Larry

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of
Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:12 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Serious Question About Knox v. SEIU

 

An employee does not have a choice of a union. 

 

Employees as a body can vote to choose a different union (or I suppose to
have none at all), but that is not a right held by the individual worker. It
therefore is not an answer to a claim of individual rights made by an
employee.

 

Mark S. Scarberry

Professor of Law

Pepperdine Univ. School of Law

 

 

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Larry
Levine
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 3:08 PM
To: 'Jonathan Adler'; 'Samuel Bagenstos'; 'Volokh, Eugene'
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Serious Question About Knox v. SEIU

 

Don't employees have a choice of unions called decertification? Can't they
also affiliate with a different union. It isn't easily accomplished. But it
can be done.

Larry

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Adler
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:42 PM
To: Samuel Bagenstos; Volokh, Eugene
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Serious Question About Knox v. SEIU

 

Is it possible that another factor is the monopoly position of the union?
If so, might that mean if employees had a choice of union representation (as
I understand is the case in some European nations) that there would be less
of an issue?  So, for instance, if the state required all motorists to
purchase insurance from a single, specified insurance provider it would then
be more analogous a public sector union.

 

Just a thought, and perhaps not one worth pursuing.

 

------ 
Jonathan H. Adler 
Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law 
Director, Center for Business Law & Regulation 
Case Western Reserve University School of Law 
11075 East Boulevard 
Cleveland, OH 44106 
ph) 216-368-2535 
fax) 216-368-2086 
cell) 202-255-3012 
 <mailto:jha5 at case.edu> jha5 at case.edu 
http://www.jhadler.net <http://www.jhadler.net/> 
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=183995
  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120622/a26e01b4/attachment.html>