[EL] Serious Question About Knox v. SEIU

[Larry Levine]

If we returned working conditions and benefits to what they were 100 years
ago for anyone who is not a union member we would see unions regain their
strength in an instant.  I understand your point about the money and the
insurance companies. But aren't insurance rates to some extent regulated by
the state? Couldn't the state say policy holders would have to grant
permission to the company to spend part of the rate charge on politics and
that permission would need to be renewed every year. We could make the same
case about investor-owned utilities and a would guess a number of other
businesses. I'm not advocating this, at least not yet. Just chewing on it.
Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
[mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:14 AM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net; 'Scarberry, Mark'; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Serious Question About Knox v. SEIU

Larry - because once you give them the money, it's not yours any longer. I
have to correct many of my conservative friends on this point as well when
it comes to AFCSME spending 'taxpayer' $ on politics. 

As far as not letting non-members not reap the benefits of union membership,
I think that's a great idea. 

Sean

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Sender: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 20:43:25 
To: 'Scarberry, Mark'<Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>; <law-election at uci.edu>
Reply-To: larrylevine at earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [EL] Serious Question About Knox v. SEIU

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election