Justices strike down California rule allowing unions access to farms

[Bum]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with California farm owners in a labor dispute, striking down a state rule that granted union organizers access to agricultural sites.
The court divided 6-3 along ideological lines, with the conservative majority of justices finding that the rule was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the regulation "grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers' property," which violates the Constitution's Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
"Unlike a mere trespass, the regulation grants a formal entitlement to physically invade the growers' land," Roberts wrote. "Unlike a law enforcement search, no traditional background principle of property law requires the growers to admit union organizers onto their premises. And unlike standard health and safety inspections, the access regulation is not germane to any benefit provided to agricultural employers or any risk posed to the public."

Justices strike down California rule allowing unions access to farms

I had no idea this was actually a thing.....that states could mandate union access to private property.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with California farm owners in a labor dispute, striking down a state rule that granted union organizers access to agricultural sites.
The court divided 6-3 along ideological lines, with the conservative majority of justices finding that the rule was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the regulation "grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers' property," which violates the Constitution's Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
"Unlike a mere trespass, the regulation grants a formal entitlement to physically invade the growers' land," Roberts wrote. "Unlike a law enforcement search, no traditional background principle of property law requires the growers to admit union organizers onto their premises. And unlike standard health and safety inspections, the access regulation is not germane to any benefit provided to agricultural employers or any risk posed to the public."

Justices strike down California rule allowing unions access to farms

I had no idea this was actually a thing.....that states could mandate union access to private property.

Cesar Chavez will be rolling over in his grave.

 

[Nickyjo]

Cesar Chavez will be rolling over in his grave.

Fits a longstanding pattern of farmworkers getting the short end on labor rights and benefits. They were excluded from rights to organize, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, the 40 hour week, minimum wage, you name it. California growers, a few of which employ up to a thousand workers, maintained the image of Farmer Jones, who has to take on a hired hand or two to sleep in the barn for a few weeks and was the source of all those off-color "farmers daughter" jokes. Workers slowly began to claw back and get much of the rights listed above that were granted others. In this case, the rule made sense, especially as many workers may actually live on the growers' property. Hard to see how 1-2 organizers meeting workers on a dirt road as they arrive or leave work places any horrifying burden on a guy who owns several hundred or thousand acres that may be scattered over a few counties. But that's not the real issue. Government inspection officials get access to private property for various reasons. Stopping the union is the motivation for the challenge to the rule, not property rights.

 

[weaver2]

I had no idea this was actually a thing.....that states could mandate union access to private property.

I believe there is a federal law that states a business, factory, mill, plant, etc cannot refuse to let a union post union information on a bulletin board inside the business. I know there is a law that says an employer can't prevent a union worker from talking to other workers during break times and in the break room.

 

[weaver2]

Cesar Chavez will be rolling over in his grave.

Supreme Court is now doing what it was really packed to do: favor business, big business over everything else. Most people thought all that court packing was to repeal Roe. Surprise!

 

[Roadvirus]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with California farm owners in a labor dispute, striking down a state rule that granted union organizers access to agricultural sites.
The court divided 6-3 along ideological lines, with the conservative majority of justices finding that the rule was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the regulation "grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers' property," which violates the Constitution's Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
"Unlike a mere trespass, the regulation grants a formal entitlement to physically invade the growers' land," Roberts wrote. "Unlike a law enforcement search, no traditional background principle of property law requires the growers to admit union organizers onto their premises. And unlike standard health and safety inspections, the access regulation is not germane to any benefit provided to agricultural employers or any risk posed to the public."

Justices strike down California rule allowing unions access to farms

I had no idea this was actually a thing.....that states could mandate union access to private property.

Good. Union hacks ruin everything.

 

[TobyOne]

Only in CA would a law be passed allowing a private outside organization to trespass on private land. It makes you wonder what the the liberal numbskull justices were thinking. Thats the side of the court that was absent the day they taught law at law school.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with California farm owners in a labor dispute, striking down a state rule that granted union organizers access to agricultural sites.
The court divided 6-3 along ideological lines, with the conservative majority of justices finding that the rule was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the regulation "grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers' property," which violates the Constitution's Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
"Unlike a mere trespass, the regulation grants a formal entitlement to physically invade the growers' land," Roberts wrote. "Unlike a law enforcement search, no traditional background principle of property law requires the growers to admit union organizers onto their premises. And unlike standard health and safety inspections, the access regulation is not germane to any benefit provided to agricultural employers or any risk posed to the public."

Justices strike down California rule allowing unions access to farms

I had no idea this was actually a thing.....that states could mandate union access to private property.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Fits a longstanding pattern of farmworkers getting the short end on labor rights and benefits. They were excluded from rights to organize, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, the 40 hour week, minimum wage, you name it. California growers, a few of which employ up to a thousand workers, maintained the image of Farmer Jones, who has to take on a hired hand or two to sleep in the barn for a few weeks and was the source of all those off-color "farmers daughter" jokes. Workers slowly began to claw back and get much of the rights listed above that were granted others. In this case, the rule made sense, especially as many workers may actually live on the growers' property. Hard to see how 1-2 organizers meeting workers on a dirt road as they arrive or leave work places any horrifying burden on a guy who owns several hundred or thousand acres that may be scattered over a few counties. But that's not the real issue. Government inspection officials get access to private property for various reasons. Stopping the union is the motivation for the challenge to the rule, not property rights.

To pretend this is an infringement of workers’ rights to not let unions that don’t even represent those workers show up on private property whenever they like is absolutely absurd.

The alleged basis for allowing this in the first place almost 50 years ago was that farm workers need to be able to be directly communicated to in order to be able to learn about the advantages and disadvantages of buying a union’s services. First of all, this is bull**** on its face, even 50 years ago, but especially today. 50 years ago there weren’t computers, smartphones or internet. Today we can instantly look up any product or service we might want. Even poor farm workers almost certainly can access this information if they want.

Nothing should entitle an advertiser or solicitor access to private property against the owner’s wishes to insist on being able to directly solicit. Get. Lost.