Supreme Court appears skeptical of California rule letting union organizers on private farms

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Monday to a California labor regulation that gives union organizers limited rights to go on to the private property of agribusinesses to encourage farm workers to join.

Most of the justices — conservative and liberal — agreed the "right to access" rule, adopted in 1975, appears to violate the property rights protected by the Constitution.

"It seems to me that letting the government come and use your land for non-business purposes seems to be exactly what the 'takings clause' was intended to avoid," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told an attorney for California. She was referring to the 5th Amendment's clause that says private property shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said homeowners would be surprised if the same sort of rule could be applied to their property. If a house were on a busy street corner, could the government "decide it would be beneficial to allow people to protest on my lawn because it's so highly visible to the traffic?" she asked.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hears-clash-between-143804613.html

[abqtommy]

1. Looks to me like farm workers are considered the property of the farm owners. That's

not good.

[Bluethroughu]

5. That was exactly what I was thinking about this case.

How can the humans that work on these farms make a grievance if the only person to speak with is the boss, your landlord usually on farms, and farmers can lock out the public which means lock in the workers...

Seems like labor practices should be regulated like the food that is produced by the farmers for public use.

[2naSalit]

2. Interesting...

I just heard a news piece about this on NPR a few minutes ago and I got the opposite impression from the way it was presented. Maybe I didn't hear the finer details.

[PBC_Democrat]

3. I love the idea of them organizing ...

But I'm sure I like the idea of them being allowed on private property to do it. If they wanted to meet somewhere else - that would work. Or even pass out information at an exit ...

It sounds kind of like a union demanding a conference room in the office to present to workers ... no company would permit that.

[Bluethroughu]

6. Problem is most of these workers live on the property.

If the food you consume from a private farmer is regulated, why shouldn't the farmers use of workers be regulated.

If the Supreme Court thinks this is a violation of the 4th Amendment, then do police need a search warrant to walk onto any private persons' property, every and anytime?

If a Union Labor advocate, walks on a property to ask a few questions and talk to the workers to make sure their rights are not being violated or to make sure they are not being held in slavery or indentured servitude, how is that a problem.

If farmers treat their workers so well, what are they afraid of, and why don't they support jail time for employers of illegal workers. Most of the farm workers are the most vulnerable of our society, for worker exploitation.

You could say well let the department of labor handle it, and I'd say you have an organization doing this free from tax dollars, the local unions.

[PBC_Democrat]

8. It has be done a different way ...

If the food you consume from a private farmer is regulated, why shouldn't the farmers use of workers be regulated.

>>> It is regulated. The Department of Labor and several state and local agencies have jurisdiction. Getting them to exercise proper oversight is a different problem.

If the Supreme Court thinks this is a violation of the 4th Amendment, then do police need a search warrant to walk onto any private persons' property, every and anytime?

>>> They don't, law enforcement in the jurisdiction have broad powers to enter private property under certain circumstances. But even that power is subject to the need for search warrants or exigent circumstances.

If a Union Labor advocate, walks on a property to ask a few questions and talk to the workers to make sure their rights are not being violated or to make sure they are not being held in slavery or indentured servitude, how is that a problem.

>>> Simply put - They are trespassing. They have no right to be there - no matter how honorable their intentions. Now, if one of the workers invites a union organizer over for a BBQ and a few dozen friends stop by ... That's all good. IF I suspect the bank down the street is treating their workers poorly, do I have the right to wander around the office to check on them?

If farmers treat their workers so well, what are they afraid of, and why don't they support jail time for employers of illegal workers. Most of the farm workers are the most vulnerable of our society, for worker exploitation.

>>> Totally agree with all points but we can't dismantle the 4th amendment. Remember that's the one that keep police from searching you, your vehicle, or your home with probable cause or a warrant. The correct way is expose the mistreatment in the local media, sadly shaming employers works well.

You could say well let the department of labor handle it, and I'd say you have an organization doing this free from tax dollars, the local unions.

>>> DoL is part of the government, a union is a private organization. Animal control is part of the government, ASPCA is a private organization. Animal control can come on my property to investigate animal abuse - the ASPCA can't. Government organizations, federal and local, work for us and we need to force them to do their jobs.

Easier said than done ...

[in2herbs]

4. If that's the way the court and corps. want it, then deny the corporations all government funding

cuz only in that way would they be "private" and on the same playing field as homeowners.

[Bluethroughu]

7. Damn right!

And corporations are Not people my friend, they can not be enumerated, under the Constitution, like all PEOPLE living in the U.S.A. have to be. PEOPLE, is defined by that itself.


Why this has not been brought to the Supreme Court, I don't understand.