{"id":5788,"date":"2021-08-10T17:29:16","date_gmt":"2021-08-10T17:29:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=5788"},"modified":"2021-08-10T17:29:16","modified_gmt":"2021-08-10T17:29:16","slug":"the-supreme-court-just-handed-down-disastrous-news-for-unions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=5788","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court just handed down disastrous news for unions"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

“CedarPoint<\/em>\u00a0is a sign the radical new conservative regime that many Republicans crave and that liberals fear could actually be upon us. The Court fundamentally reshaped much of American property law in\u00a0Cedar Point<\/em>. It did so in a party-line vote. And it did so in a case involving labor unions \u2014 institutions that are often celebrated by liberals and loathed by conservatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


The case involves a nearly half-century-old California regulation, which gives union organizers limited, temporary access to farm worksites. Under this regulation, a union may enter such a worksite for up to 30 days at a time, and it may invoke this right up to four times a year. On the days when the union is permitted to enter, it may only speak to the workers for three hours a day \u2014 the hour before the start of work, the hour after the end of work, and the workers\u2019 lunch break.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Thus, union organizers are allowed on a farm\u2019s property for a maximum of 120 days a year, and for a total of only three hours per day. And the union also must notify the employer when it wishes to invoke this right.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the right of unions to enter onto a California farm to organize workers is now in deep trouble. In an opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that California\u2019s longstanding regulation violates the Constitution\u2019s \u201ctakings clause<\/a>,\u201d which provides that no one shall have their property taken from them by the government \u201cwithout just compensation.\u201dAnd, in order to reach this result, Roberts rewrites decades of law interpreting that clause.”
…
“Under the new rule announced in Cedar Point<\/em>, any law or regulation that \u201cappropriates a right to invade\u201d private property amounts to a per se taking. If California allowed union organizers to enter an employer\u2019s land for a single minute, then California committed a per se taking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe right to exclude is \u2018one of the most treasured\u2019 rights of property ownership,\u201d Roberts writes. And much of his opinion suggests that any intrusion on this right to exclude amounts to a taking.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“One problem with Roberts\u2019s expansive view of the takings clause is that it could prevent the government from performing very basic functions, such as health and safety inspections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Suppose, for example, that a restaurant has a disgusting, rat-infested kitchen that violates numerous local health ordinances. The restaurant\u2019s owners obviously do not want these violations to be discovered, so they refuse to admit any government health inspectors. Under Roberts\u2019s reading of the takings clause, it\u2019s not clear why the restaurant owner should not be allowed to do so \u2014 or why it shouldn\u2019t be able to, at the very least, demand compensation from the government before health inspectors can be allowed on their property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After all, if \u201cthe right to exclude is \u2018one of the most treasured\u2019 rights of property ownership,\u201d why should an employer be allowed to exclude union organizers but not health inspectors?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Roberts\u2019s opinion recognizes that it would be untenable to hold that health and safety inspections violate the Constitution, so he carves out a special rule allowing such inspections to stand. \u201cThe government may require property owners to cede a right of access as a condition of receiving certain benefits,\u201d such as a license to operate a business, Roberts writes, so long as that condition \u201cbears an \u2018essential nexus\u2019 and \u2018rough proportionality\u2019 to the impact of the proposed use of the property.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those are some very large and very vague words, and it\u2019s not entirely clear what it means for an inspection requirement to be roughly proportional to \u201cthe impact of the proposed use of the property.\u201d Nor is it clear why, if the government can require restaurants to admit health inspectors as a condition of doing business, it can\u2019t also require that restaurant to admit union organizers as a condition of employing workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court has simply made a value judgment here. It views health inspections as sufficiently important to justify creating an exception to its new understanding of the takings clause, but it doesn\u2019t view protecting a worker\u2019s right to organize as important enough to justify a similar exception.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“the Court has revolutionized its understanding of the takings clause. And it did so in an opinion that applies an extremely skeptical rule to pro-union regulation while it simultaneously creates carveouts for regulations that the Court\u2019s conservative majority supports.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2021\/6\/23\/22547182\/supreme-court-union-busting-cedar-point-hassid-john-roberts-takings-clause<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Cedar Point is a sign the radical new conservative regime that many Republicans crave and that liberals fear could actually be upon us. The Court fundamentally reshaped much of American property law in Cedar Point. It did so in a party-line vote. And it did so in a case involving labor unions \u2014 institutions that are often celebrated by liberals and loathed by conservatives.<\/p>\n

The case involves a nearly half-century-old California regulation, which gives union organizers limited, temporary access to farm worksites. Under this regulation, a union may enter such a worksite for up to 30 days at a time, and it may invoke this right up to four times a year. On the days when the union is permitted to enter, it may only speak to the workers for three hours a day \u2014 the hour before the start of work, the hour after the end of work, and the workers\u2019 lunch break. <\/p>\n

Thus, union organizers are allowed on a farm\u2019s property for a maximum of 120 days a year, and for a total of only three hours per day. And the union also must notify the employer when it wishes to invoke this right.<\/p>\n

But the right of unions to enter onto a California farm to organize workers is now in deep trouble. In an opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that California\u2019s longstanding regulation violates the Constitution\u2019s \u201ctakings clause,\u201d which provides that no one shall have their property taken from them by the government \u201cwithout just compensation.\u201d<\/p>\n

And, in order to reach this result, Roberts rewrites decades of law interpreting that clause.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Under the new rule announced in Cedar Point, any law or regulation that \u201cappropriates a right to invade\u201d private property amounts to a per se taking. If California allowed union organizers to enter an employer\u2019s land for a single minute, then California committed a per se taking.
\n\u201cThe right to exclude is \u2018one of the most treasured\u2019 rights of property ownership,\u201d Roberts writes. And much of his opinion suggests that any intrusion on this right to exclude amounts to a taking.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“One problem with Roberts\u2019s expansive view of the takings clause is that it could prevent the government from performing very basic functions, such as health and safety inspections.<\/p>\n

Suppose, for example, that a restaurant has a disgusting, rat-infested kitchen that violates numerous local health ordinances. The restaurant\u2019s owners obviously do not want these violations to be discovered, so they refuse to admit any government health inspectors. Under Roberts\u2019s reading of the takings clause, it\u2019s not clear why the restaurant owner should not be allowed to do so \u2014 or why it shouldn\u2019t be able to, at the very least, demand compensation from the government before health inspectors can be allowed on their property.<\/p>\n

After all, if \u201cthe right to exclude is \u2018one of the most treasured\u2019 rights of property ownership,\u201d why should an employer be allowed to exclude union organizers but not health inspectors?”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Roberts\u2019s opinion recognizes that it would be untenable to hold that health and safety inspections violate the Constitution, so he carves out a special rule allowing such inspections to stand. \u201cThe government may require property owners to cede a right of access as a condition of receiving certain benefits,\u201d such as a license to operate a business, Roberts writes, so long as that condition \u201cbears an \u2018essential nexus\u2019 and \u2018rough proportionality\u2019 to the impact of the proposed use of the property.\u201d<\/p>\n

Those are some very large and very vague words, and it\u2019s not entirely clear what it means for an inspection requirement to be roughly proportional to \u201cthe impact of the proposed use of the property.\u201d Nor is it clear why, if the government can require restaurants to admit health inspectors as a condition of doing business, it can\u2019t also require that restaurant to admit union organizers as a condition of employing workers.<\/p>\n

The Court has simply made a value judgment here. It views health inspections as sufficiently important to justify creating an exception to its new understanding of the takings clause, but it doesn\u2019t view protecting a worker\u2019s right to organize as important enough to justify a similar exception.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“the Court has revolutionized its understanding of the takings clause. And it did so in an opinion that applies an extremely skeptical rule to pro-union regulation while it simultaneously creates carveouts for regulations that the Court\u2019s conservative majority supports.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[528,877],"class_list":["post-5788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-supreme-court","tag-unions"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5788","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5788"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5788\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5789,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5788\/revisions\/5789"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}