Blow for California unions as Supreme Court rules against access to farms
‘Here we see the full force of the new six to three conservative majority,’ CNN Supreme Court analyst says
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Supreme Court has sided in favour of California agriculture businesses in their challenge to stop unions from accessing private property without compensation in order to organise workers, in a move that could have wider implications for unions.
The justices ruled six to three, meaning California will have to modify or abandon the regulation, which permitted groups access to businesses for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year.
“The access regulation amounts to simple appropriation of private property,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the decision.
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, told the broadcaster that the ruling shows the “full force of the new six-three conservative majority” since Justice Amy Coney Barrett was instated.
The analyst said that the decision is the first marker of the court “embracing a broad view of property rights both in general and at the specific expense of organized labour”.
"Indeed, it's just the third time all term that the court split right down party lines in a signed opinion and the first in a non-criminal case," he said. "In that respect, it is, almost certainly, a harbinger of things to come."
Under the current regulation, businesses are supposed to be notified before organisers arrive and they are supposed to come during nonworking hours such as lunch and before and after work.
The business that brought the case said the access regulation, which is unique to California, was unconstitutional and that it was outdated and unnecessary given that unions can now reach workers via smartphone and radio.
Unions and critics argued that ruling in favour of businesses could have wider implications for unions in the court system.
They fear it may call into question other regulations that allow governments to access private property in the name of protecting workers such as for health and safety inspections.
Justice Roberts, however, suggested this would not be the case for health and safety inspections because allowing such access would remain beneficial to the agricultural employers and the public, CNN said.
It’s unclear how much will change as a result of the court’s ruling as union organisers had used the regulation “sparingly” between 2019 and 2020.
Additional reporting by the Associated Press
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments