First things first, I fucking hate labor unions. They are the wart on America’s asshole. This case has done nothing to change my opinion of them. Nine years ago, I wrote about why I think they shouldn’t even be legal here. It’s a little dated, and I feel my writing and logical arguments are probably better know, so I should rewrite that shit. But anyway, moving on.
We all know those Californians loves them some fucking labor unions, and they have pretty favorable laws regarding those cunts (I use cunts in the British or Aussie way as a general pejorative, not the American way as a sexist attack on women. So back the fuck up off me with that noise). Well, Cedar Point Nursery owns a strawberry farm in California, and the United Farm Worker (UFW) cunts showed up on their land with bullhorns and shit, convincing some workers to come off their jobs and join protests, while most just kept on working. They are supposed to give notice ahead of the time, to let the site prepare for them, but they didn’t.
The issue here though, is that California law forces companies to allow such unions on to their property to talk to their employees, which is fucking bullshit, in a country that is supposed to have property rights, but I digress.
Cedar Point is challenging such laws under the fifth amendment, considering it an unlawful takings of property. Think of it this way, if the government can basically just tell the property owner they have no right to control who comes on their property, and can’t even charge the people money who come onto their property, the government is effectively taking control of their property.
Counsel for Cedar Point opened with:
Joshua P. Thompson
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: An access easement that takes the right to enter, occupy, and use another’s private property effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Any time limitations placed on access go towards the just compensation due, not whether a taking has occurred. The access regulation at issue in this case authorizes an easement on the property of Petitioners for the benefit of union organizers. Under the terms of the Access Regulation, organizers may occupy the businesses’ property for three hours each day, 120 days each year. This Court should hold that the taking of this easement violates the Fifth Amendment because it effects a physical taking without compensation, and the Court should so hold for two reasons. First, the appropriation of a real property interest triggers a categorical duty to compensate.
The Access Regulation authorizes the taking of a real property interest in the form of a continual right to occupy and use Petitioners’ property. And, second, at a more fundamental level, the Access Regulation denies Petitioners the right to exclude union organizers from their property.
Such an infringement on the most fundamental property right merits per se treatment. The Ninth Circuit, however, took a different tack.
It demoted the right to exclude to just another stick in the bundle and would give per se treatment only to those rare easements that authorize 24/7 occupation. Not even the Board supports that extreme rule.
But the Board offers no basis, much less a principled one, on which to distinguish access easements that merit per se treatment from those that don’t. If the government wants to take an access easement over private property, it has to pay for it.
Failure to pay just compensation violates the Takings Clause. I welcome the Court’s questions.
The Cedar Point people acknowledge that historically, such workers lived on the land, and thus, were really never able to be exposed to unions and shit, since they would never leave the property.
But now we have shit like internet and cars, and it’s pretty fucking easy for people to get info like this. Plus, most of those workers don’t live on the property anymore, presumably because others laws about being a landlord are a pain in the ass these days.
Not that I give a fuck about the California Board’s rules that support the union, but their argument is like, “Hey, we only come before and after work, and during lunch. That’s fair, isn’t it?”
Justice Barrett seemed to be willing to accept Cedar Point’s argument as absolute, when she opened this question at them.
So let me ask you this: What if California had a regulation that permitted union organizers to go onto the property of your clients one hour a day, one day a year.
Is that a taking subject to the per se rule?
However, counsel had previously agreed that if people were living on the property, and didn’t have access to this info otherwise, he could see where such a rule allowing them onto the property could be an exception to a takings clause. Barrett’s question was effectively saying, “I don’t even see how you allow that if you’re argument is true.”
Hard to tell if she believes in that absolutism, but if she does, I actually agree with her. Fuck those union pricks.
Once the California Board’s side stepped up, Justice Thomas had an interesting line of questioning.
I’m quite interested in how related the inspection or the opportunity to be on private property has to do with the—how related does it have to be to the business operation. For example, could you have the exact same requirement, except during non-business hours for the property to be available for training of the — of the National Guard, for example, or the state police? Since it’s — since it’s open property, just simply say for three hours a day, not more than 120 days a year, but certainly not to interfere with the business, the state police could train there?
Counsel for California was of the opinion, this was very different, and would in fact be a violation of the property owner’s rights. But Thomas, seemingly unimpressed with that load of horse shit, pressed him that if the cops can’t come and train there after hours, why can the union come and agitate their workers after business hours.
Counsel salvaged himself by saying that the union workers are there on matters related to the work being done there, and to assist the workers, as opposed to the cops just using his land for their own personal gain.
In a 6:3 entirely partisan ruling, the conservative justices ruled in favor of Cedar Point Nursery, telling the labor unions to go eat a bag of dicks. This decision makes me want to cheer loudly. Fuck those labor union pricks in the ass. Government cannot force an employer to allow union assholes onto their property. Now fuck off with that noise.
I’m not even going to dignify the minority’s opinions with an explanation. Unions don’t deserve an ounce of such respect. It’s extortion and racketeering by any other name. Good riddance.
Hear oral arguments and read about the case here.