Supreme Court rules California farms can keep union organizers off private land
Source: LA Times
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a historic California law inspired by Cesar Chavez and the farmworkers union, ruling that agricultural landowners and food processors have a right to keep union organizers off their property.
The justices by a 6-3 vote said the states right of access rule violates property rights protected by the Constitution. It says private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts said the access regulation is not germane to any benefit provided to agricultural employers or any risk posed to the public.
The three liberal justices dissented.
Read more: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-06-23/supreme-court-says-california-farms-can-keep-out-union-organizers
Casady1
(2,133 posts)is filled with corporate lawyers. I work in the legal vertical and these people are shills.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Fullduplexxx
(7,863 posts)OneCrazyDiamond
(2,032 posts)Period.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,439 posts)FBaggins
(26,735 posts)Nor does the dissent argue that such a right exists.
The state (CA) created a regulation that would create a right to perform union organizing tasks on someone else's property (for a limited number of hours/days per year).
I obviously haven't read the entire thing yet, but it doesn't even look like SCOTUS is saying that California can't do that. It's just that creating such access is a "taking" and thus can't be done by the state without just compensation for the limitation of those property rights.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,032 posts)If they can't meet them there, it will be more difficult to form a union.
I think there is room for an exception to property rights at the private business who has workers on that property.
Supreme Court's decision is more impactful than my opinion.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)And bus the workers to the fields. So the workers are seldom in public where they can be approached by union organizers.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,032 posts)The workers aren't trespassers. They should be able to invite a union rep to at least meet the workers.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)The ruling doesnt say that the state cant regulate in that way
it just says that such a regulation counts as a taking.
The state does have the power to take private property for public use. They just cant do so without just compensation.
malthaussen
(17,194 posts)... or other "private property," including the parking lots. Who does the USSC think it's fooling?
-- Mal
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)This case is non-employees trying to organize on someone else's property. Factory organizing is more often performed just outside the gates and/or by existing employees who are already on the property.
To the extent such organizing is done by outsiders trying to start a union... yes, I suspect this ruling would apply.
malthaussen
(17,194 posts)I do worry a bit about "thin edge of the wedge" rulings, though. It's not like unions are loved in the US.
-- Mal
LiberalFighter
(50,922 posts)And what organizers do in our labor union does.
Same for when there are strikes. Strikers are not allowed on company property. But they can be in the right of way or what is considered public property. As long as they don't create a safety issue.
Marthe48
(16,952 posts)stores, any private business entity, because they are all owned by somebody.
Stupid, bad anti-union ruling.
bucolic_frolic
(43,161 posts)Everything is owned. By their logic in this case you can't even communicate about union organizing over a smart phone because someone owns the airwaves. Soon you can think but you can't speak. Someone owns you.
Jedi Guy
(3,189 posts)If the owner of a property doesn't want you there, that's their right. It's their property. That's how it works.
BigmanPigman
(51,590 posts)when I worked there in Display. I spoke to about two whole people in the lunchroom during my break. The next day I was called into the General Manager's office and told I couldn't do that, even though I was on my own time.
When the recession closed the store I was thrilled. I said that I was going to choose a career that has a union and I did just that. I became a teacher and was the union rep at my site. Go Union!!!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,972 posts)In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the Supreme Court struck down a California law that gave union organizers access to farm sites. The decision means people seeking out farm workers for unionization purposes going forward will be violating the property rights of agricultural landowners and food processors, who can now legally keep them off their land.
Critics lamented the result. Niko Bowie, a professor at Harvard Law, wrote that the regulation "was the product of a years-long campaign by César Chávez" and the United Farm Workers "to force agribusiness to respect the dignity and workplace rights of agricultural workers." Slate's Mark Joseph Stern agreed, tweeting that the high court's "conservative supermajority just undid one of César Chávez's greatest accomplishments." He called it "a complete and total blowout against unions" that marks "an incredibly dark day for organized labor."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-conservatives-just-undid-one-of-c%c3%a9sar-ch%c3%a1vezs-greatest-accomplishments/ar-AALmxAj