Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    26,114
    Thanks (Given)
    30261
    Thanks (Received)
    16802
    Likes (Given)
    2806
    Likes (Received)
    2526
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475209

    Default The Supreme Court just handed down disastrous news for unions

    Vox.com
    Vox.com
    The Supreme Court just handed down disastrous news for unions
    Ian Millhiser - Wednesday





    Since 1956, the Supreme Court has applied a well-established framework to businesses that wished to exclude union organizers from their property. On Wednesday, however, the Court effectively scrapped that framework — one that was already fairly restrictive of union organizing — and replaced it with something far more restrictive.


    In the process of deciding Wednesday’s case, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Court also rewrites much of its existing Fifth Amendment law. Then it adds caveats to its new rule that resemble the reasoning behind an infamous anti-labor decision from more than a century ago. The Court’s decision is rooted in value judgments about what sort of regulations are desirable and what should be forbidden — namely, those protecting workers’ rights. And it was handed down on a party-line, 6-3 vote.

    Thus far, the Supreme Court’s first term since Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation gave conservatives a supermajority has been a fairly mixed bag. The Court rejected a frivolous attack on the Affordable Care Act and has sent mixed messages about how fast it plans to move its religion jurisprudence to the right.

    But 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 — institutions that are often celebrated by liberals and loathed by conservatives.

    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 — the hour before the start of work, the hour after the end of work, and the workers’ lunch break.

    Thus, union organizers are allowed on a farm’s 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.

    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’s longstanding regulation violates the Constitution’s “Takings Clause,” which provides that no one shall have their property taken from them by the government “without just compensation.”

    And, in order to reach this result, Roberts rewrites decades of law interpreting that clause.

    The Court’s new interpretation of the Takings Clause is extraordinarily deferential to property owners
    Before Wednesday, the Court distinguished between two different types of violations of the Takings Clause. “Per se” takings involved unusually severe intrusions on private property — such as if the government strips a plot of land of all of its economic value — and were treated with particular skepticism by courts. Less severe intrusions, meanwhile, were classified as “regulatory” takings.

    Property owners subject to a per se taking nearly always prevail in court, while property owners alleging a regulatory taking are much less likely to succeed — even when the government imposes fairly strict limitations on how they can use their property. In one famous regulatory takings case, the Court upheld a New York City law preventing the owners of Grand Central Terminal from constructing a high-rise office building on top of the terminal.

    Because the Court views per se takings with such extraordinary skepticism, past decisions held that very few intrusions on private property qualify as such a taking. A per se taking did not occur unless the government deprived a property owner of “all economically beneficial or productive use” of their property, or subjected the property owner to a “permanent physical occupation” of their land.

    Thus, California’s regulation did not qualify as a per se taking prior to Cedar Point, as the presence of union organizers does not strip a worksite of all of its economic value, and California's regulation did not allow those organizers to permanently occupy a worksite. It only allowed them to enter the property for three hours a day, and for only about a third of the year.

    Roberts’s opinion doesn’t eliminate this distinction between regulatory and per se takings altogether, but it significantly blurs the line. Under the new rule announced in Cedar Point, any law or regulation that “appropriates a right to invade” private property amounts to a per se taking. If California allowed union organizers to enter an employer’s land for a single minute, then California committed a per se taking.

    “The right to exclude is ‘one of the most treasured’ rights of property ownership,” Roberts writes. And much of his opinion suggests that any intrusion on this right to exclude amounts to a taking.

    But then Roberts’s opinion takes an unusual turn, in an apparent effort to ward off some of the radical implications of its expansive vision of per se takings.

    Roberts isn’t willing to live with the implications of his opinion for cases that don’t involve unions
    One problem with Roberts’s expansive view of the Takings Clause is it could prevent the government from performing very basic functions, such as health and safety inspections.

    Suppose, for example, that a restaurant has a disgusting, rat-infested kitchen that violates numerous local health ordinances. The restaurant’s owners obviously do not want these violations to be discovered, so they refuse to admit any government health inspectors. Under Roberts’s reading of the Takings Clause, it’s not clear why the restaurant owner should not be allowed to do so — or why it shouldn’t be able to, at the very least, demand compensation from the government before health inspectors can be allowed on their property.

    After all, if “the right to exclude is ‘one of the most treasured’ rights of property ownership,” why should an employer be allowed to exclude union organizers but not health inspectors.

    Indeed, as California warned in its brief, the expansive vision of the Takings Clause laid out in much of Roberts’s opinion “would also imperil a wide variety of health- and safety-inspection regimes,” They include “food and drug inspections, occupational safety and health inspections, and home visits by social workers,” as well as a federal law providing that “underground mines must be inspected ‘at least four times a year.’”

    Roberts’s 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 these inspections to stand. “The government may require property owners to cede a right of access as a condition of receiving certain benefits,” such as a license to operate a business, Roberts writes, so long as that condition “bears an ‘essential nexus’ and ‘rough proportionality’ to the impact of the proposed use of the property.”

    Those are some very large and very vague words, and it’s not entirely clear what it means for an inspection requirement to be roughly proportional to “the impact of the proposed use of the property.” Nor is it clear why, if the government can require restaurant to admit health inspectors as a condition of doing business, why it can’t also require that restaurant to admit union organizers as a condition of employing workers.

    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 doesn’t view protecting workers’ right to organize as important enough to justify a similar exception.

    There is precedent for this kind of thinking. In Lochner v. New York (1905), an infamous Supreme Court decision that is often taught in law schools as an example of how judges should not behave, the Court drew a similar line between laws intended to protect health and laws intended to protect workers from abuse.

    Lochner struck down a New York state law limiting the number of hours that bakery workers could work in a given day or a given week (at the time, workers were typically paid by the day or by the week, so working additional hours did not mean more pay). In reaching this conclusion, the Court held that laws intended to “conserve the morals, the health, or the safety of the people” are typically valid, but laws intended to regulate working conditions are far more suspect.

    But Lochner is now widely viewed as a terrible misstep by the Supreme Court, and even Roberts accepts this view of Lochner. Dissenting in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Roberts denounced “the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.”

    And yet, just six years after his opinion in Obergefell, Roberts is engaged in the very same kind of “judicial policymaking” — judging rooted in a judge’s personal value judgments rather than in law or precedent — that he once decried.

    So what happens now?
    There is one potential silver lining for the unions impacted by Cedar Point. The Takings Clause does not forbid the government from restricting property rights, it merely requires that the government compensate property owners when it violates this clause. And it’s not at all clear how mu...

    more at link given...
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  2. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
    Likes fj1200 liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,595
    Mentioned
    130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475199

    Default

    That article is biased and slanted as fuck. blatant misinformation.

    And the author of it should feel, but will not feel, ashamed.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  4. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
  5. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    20,520
    Thanks (Given)
    2799
    Thanks (Received)
    2310
    Likes (Given)
    116
    Likes (Received)
    229
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6614228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darin View Post
    That article is biased and slanted as fuck. blatant misinformation.

    And the author of it should feel, but will not feel, ashamed.
    Of course it is and it should be noted as an opinion piece but that would be pretty much anything on Vox. But anything that strengthens property rights is good.

    Those are some very large and very vague words, and it’s not entirely clear what it means for an inspection requirement to be roughly proportional to “the impact of the proposed use of the property.” Nor is it clear why, if the government can require restaurant to admit health inspectors as a condition of doing business, why it can’t also require that restaurant to admit union organizers as a condition of employing workers.

    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 doesn’t view protecting workers’ right to organize as important enough to justify a similar exception.
    His clear bias is not recognizing that there is a difference between requiring government inspectors access but not private union organizers.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  6. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
    Likes darin liked this post
  7. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,595
    Mentioned
    130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Of course it is and it should be noted as an opinion piece but that would be pretty much anything on Vox. But anything that strengthens property rights is good.



    His clear bias is not recognizing that there is a difference between requiring government inspectors access but not private union organizers.

    Exactly.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  8. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    38,516
    Thanks (Given)
    25154
    Thanks (Received)
    20747
    Likes (Given)
    617
    Likes (Received)
    6048
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475399

    Default

    And yet, just six years after his opinion in Obergefell, Roberts is engaged in the very same kind of “judicial policymaking” — judging rooted in a judge’s personal value judgments rather than in law or precedent — that he once decried.
    Never heard of Vox. If this twist on English/context is an indication of what it puts out, it can burn to the ground with everyone in it as far as I'm concerned.

  9. Likes SassyLady liked this post
  10. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,243
    Thanks (Given)
    355
    Thanks (Received)
    2017
    Likes (Given)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    134
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1559039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darin View Post
    That article is biased and slanted as fuck. blatant misinformation.

    And the author of it should feel, but will not feel, ashamed.
    That's the key to gathering information. Discard the chaff and keep the information with the intent to verify it as a second step. Here is an example:

    Below is a piece of unvarnished propaganda:

    http://en.granma.cu/mundo/2021-06-25...egions-peoples


    Takeaway: Cuba admits to maintaining its presence in Venezuela.

    Done.
    Last edited by tailfins; 06-26-2021 at 11:18 AM.
    Experienced Social Distancer ... waaaay before COVID.

  11. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    65,282
    Thanks (Given)
    7211
    Thanks (Received)
    31372
    Likes (Given)
    5590
    Likes (Received)
    6475
    Mentioned
    476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Never heard of Vox. If this twist on English/context is an indication of what it puts out, it can burn to the ground with everyone in it as far as I'm concerned.
    Vox is like Salon and FAR left. VERY far left.
    How do you catch a unique rabbit? Unique up on him! (was my Mom's favorite joke )

  12. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
    Likes Kathianne liked this post
  13. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    10,877
    Thanks (Given)
    4548
    Thanks (Received)
    4948
    Likes (Given)
    3293
    Likes (Received)
    2419
    Mentioned
    66 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    16277927

    Default

    The difference between health inspectors and union organizers is that union organizers are not entering the property to protect the well being of the business' clientele.
    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

  14. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
    Likes Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, darin liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums