Labor policy experts know that unions have historically been granted special privileges in American society. The Right to Work movement has sought to restore the balance in employer-employee relations by allowing employees to opt out of compulsory union membership. And in the aftermath of Janus v. ASCME, we’ve seen unions seek First Amendment exceptions preventing employers from communicating directly with employees about their right to opt out.
This spring, labor relations are headed to the Supreme Court once again with Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a case in which two California-based agricultural businesses are asking to invalidate California’s unlawful union access regulation. This regulation requires all agricultural employers to allow union organizers access to their private property for up to three hours a day, 120 days a year—for the purpose of trying to recruit new members.
Unions have no special right to invade private property and disrupt commercial operations. Simply put, there’s no union exception to our fundamental rights.
The legal argument in this case centers not on labor policy, but on property rights—specifically Fifth Amendment takings law. In essence, if a government gives unions an easement on private property, they must compensate the property owner appropriately.
Join us on March 3 for a discussion of how property rights relate to labor policy in this case and beyond. PLF attorneys will get you up to date on the current status and history of property rights and takings law, leaving you prepared to connect this case to the larger labor issues at stake in America.