Posted on 11/23/2007 6:59:32 AM PST by redwill
The Supreme Court intervened in a dispute between organized labor and management Tuesday, agreeing to decide the validity of a state law that limits employers' ability to weigh in on union organizing.
The case accepted by the justices comes from California, where a law passed in 2000 prohibits employers from using money they receive from the state to oppose or support unionization efforts.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
The case accepted by the justices comes from California, where a law passed in 2000 prohibits employers from using money they receive from the state to oppose or support unionization efforts.
The law, passed by the Democratic-led state legislature and signed by then-Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the objection of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business interests. Those groups argued that federal labor law guarantees the free speech rights of employers and trumps state regulations in this area.
If the law is allowed to stand, the chamber said labor unions would seek to pass similar measures in other states and would gain an advantage over management in the fight to bolster union membership.
The Bush administration backed the business groups in calling for the court to take the case.
"California has adopted a policy of coercing certain employers to remain silent in response to union organizing efforts," the administration said. The law at issue "regulates employer speech that Congress intended to leave unregulated."
Defending the law, the state said employers remain free to advocate vigorously against organizing campaigns. The only restriction the law imposes is that those businesses may not use money received from the state for that purpose.
Last term, the Supreme Court ruled against unions in a Washington case. The justices upheld a state law that limits public employee unions' use of fees paid by state workers who decline to join the union.
Arguments will be heard early next year in the case, which is Chamber of Commerce v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General of California, 06-939.
Is the following correct to say:
If you are a private company that has contracts with the state government, you cannot campaign against unionization because the funds you use may come from the state?
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
It sounds like that would be correct, unless you have an accounting method to separate public money streams from private money.
“Chamber of Commerce v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr”
Is it correct to say that this is Gerry Brown’s Socialism 101 class for those who flunked the first time?
ping. Thought you’d like this.
Weird case....
This case is very important. An organization accepting government funds is obligated to spend those funds according to constraints imposed by the government. This law however seems to impose constraints on all spending, not spending connected to the government contracts. It is a reasonable restriction that government funds not be used for lobbying. Outside of those funds, however, the organization should be free to engage in lobbying, union bashing, or other legal behavior. Similar restrictions on funds have followed this approach. For example in Denver, non profit groups receive government contracts for services. There are many restrictions on how those funds can be spent. The non profit groups however can spend other funds in an unrestricted manner. Often the non profits spend large amounts for lobbying or campaign contributions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.