{"id":286,"date":"2008-06-20T16:31:04","date_gmt":"2008-06-20T16:31:04","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2016-08-09T18:17:01","modified_gmt":"2016-08-09T18:17:01","slug":"supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/es\/blog\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Agrees with Foundation; Strikes Down a Prototype Union Organizing Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

\nIn case you missed it, the Supreme Court just struck down<\/a> (pdf) a biased California statute that prevented companies who received state grants from sharing accurate information about unions with their employees. Foundation attorneys filed an amicus curiae<\/i> brief in support of overturning the Ninth Circuit’s flawed reasoning.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe Foundation’s press release is now available online<\/a>. Money quote:\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nHad the Ninth Circuit\u2019s ruling not been overturned, employees of companies accepting funds from the state would be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Employers could have ultimately been blackballed from government contracts unless they cleared the path for union organizers to recruit new forced dues-paying union members.\n\t<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nThe Foundation’s amicus <\/i>brief is also availble online<\/a> (pdf). Union lawyers argued the California law was intended to ensure "neutrality" in the workplace, but the argument rang hollow, as Foundation attorneys pointed out (emphasis mine):\n<\/p>\n

\n\tAssembly Bill No. 1889, Cal. Gov\u2019t Code \u00a7\u00a7 16645.2 and 16645.7 (\u201cAB 1889\u201d), is the law at issue. It is a state labor regulation that has only one purpose and effect: to halt the free flow of non-coercive information from employers to their employees, so that unions may take advantage of the enforced silence and corral uninformed employees into unionization<\/b>. AB 1889\u2019s \u201cgag rule\u201d directly conflicts with the core of federal labor policy, which encourages the free flow of non-coercive information precisely so that employees can make an intelligent and fully informed decision to choose or reject unionization. Employees are the real victims of this misguided state effort to undo federal labor policy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nThe Foundation’s amicus<\/i> brief goes on to explain why state-enforced "neutrality" agreements are heavily biased in favor of union organizers (emphasis mine):\n<\/p>\n

\n

\n\tAB 1889<\/b> [the California law] enables unions to demand and receive so-called \u201cneutrality and card check\u201d agreements<\/b>, under which employees\u2019 right to choose or reject unionization in a free and uncoerced manner is hampered. For example, most \u201cneutrality and card check\u201d agreements place a gag on employer speech, so that employees are unable to learn from their employer anything that may be unfavorable to the union. <\/b>Moreover, such agreements typically provide unions with employees\u2019 home addresses <\/b>and other confidential information, so that union agents can make home visits and other potentially unwanted solicitations as a means to cajole or coerce employees to sign cards. <\/b>Additionally, unions are often given physical access to the workplace to further pressure employees to sign the cards. Perhaps most egregious<\/b>, most neutrality agreements waive NLRB-supervised secret-ballot elections and substitute the \u201ccard check\u201d process<\/b>, in which a signed authorization card counts as a \u201cvote\u201d for the union. Thus, the union acts to prevent employees from voting their consciences in a traditional secret-ballot election, even though experience shows that the process of soliciting union authorization cards often relies upon coercion and misrepresentations.\n\t<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nThe San Francisco Chronicle has a concise write-up here<\/a>. This passage highlights the court’s key findings:\n<\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n

\n\tThe court rejected arguments by California and labor unions that the state is entitled to restrict the use of its own funds in the workplace. Stevens said California was trying to regulate employer speech by requiring extensive record keeping, to ensure that no state funds were spent against unions, and by requiring businesses to pay the legal fees of unions and other private parties who successfully sued them for violations.\n\t<\/p>\n

\t<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

\nUnfortunately, this setback means that Big Labor is now more intent than ever on passing coercive "card-check" legislation. The Chronicle’s article continues:\n<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\tFrom a union perspective, he said, the case also highlights the importance of labor-backed legislation – passed by the House, but stalled in the Senate – that would require an employer to recognize a union if a majority of employees signed affiliation cards.<\/span>
\n\t<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

\nWhile the Foundation’s strategic litigation strategy continues to pay dividends, Big Labor’s political<\/a> clout<\/a> and election year campaign plans could put our forces on the defensive more than ever come November.\n<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\nIn case you missed it, the Supreme Court just struck down<\/a> (pdf) a biased California statute that prevented companies who received state grants from sharing accurate information about unions with their employees. Foundation attorneys filed an amicus curiae<\/i> brief in support of overturning the Ninth Circuit’s flawed reasoning.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe Foundation’s press release is now available online<\/a>. Money quote:\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nHad the Ninth Circuit\u2019s ruling not been overturned, employees of companies accepting funds from the state would be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Employers could have ultimately been blackballed from government contracts unless they cleared the path for union organizers to recruit new forced dues-paying union members.\n\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[889],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Agrees with Foundation; Strikes Down a Prototype Union Organizing Law - National Right to Work Foundation<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/blog\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"es_ES\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Agrees with Foundation; Strikes Down a Prototype Union Organizing Law - National Right to Work Foundation\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In case you missed it, the Supreme Court just struck down (pdf) a biased California statute that prevented companies who received state grants from sharing accurate information about unions with their employees. Foundation attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief in support of overturning the Ninth Circuit's flawed reasoning. The Foundation's press release is now available online. Money quote: Had the Ninth Circuit\u2019s ruling not been overturned, employees of companies accepting funds from the state would be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Employers could have ultimately been blackballed from government contracts unless they cleared the path for union organizers to recruit new forced dues-paying union members.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/blog\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"National Right to Work Foundation\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-06-20T16:31:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-09T18:17:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal Information\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Escrito por\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal Information\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tiempo de lectura\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutos\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/blog\\\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/blog\\\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal Information\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/652ac6218a4e5be3b3b21635c118d4cd\"},\"headline\":\"Supreme Court Agrees with Foundation; Strikes Down a Prototype Union Organizing Law\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-20T16:31:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-09T18:17:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/blog\\\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":659,\"commentCount\":0,\"articleSection\":[\"Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/blog\\\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/blog\\\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/blog\\\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court Agrees with Foundation; Strikes Down a Prototype Union Organizing Law - National Right to Work Foundation\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-20T16:31:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-09T18:17:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/652ac6218a4e5be3b3b21635c118d4cd\"},\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/blog\\\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/\",\"name\":\"National Right to Work Foundation\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"es\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/652ac6218a4e5be3b3b21635c118d4cd\",\"name\":\"Legal Information\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/9dd8b017e6d8f6d3a8f6565a48c44ec34db5e7a0837308bad9505aaa64ba93fc?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/9dd8b017e6d8f6d3a8f6565a48c44ec34db5e7a0837308bad9505aaa64ba93fc?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/9dd8b017e6d8f6d3a8f6565a48c44ec34db5e7a0837308bad9505aaa64ba93fc?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal Information\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nrtw.org\\\/es\\\/author\\\/nrtw\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Agrees with Foundation; Strikes Down a Prototype Union Organizing Law - National Right to Work Foundation","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/blog\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\/","og_locale":"es_ES","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Agrees with Foundation; Strikes Down a Prototype Union Organizing Law - National Right to Work Foundation","og_description":"In case you missed it, the Supreme Court just struck down (pdf) a biased California statute that prevented companies who received state grants from sharing accurate information about unions with their employees. Foundation attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief in support of overturning the Ninth Circuit's flawed reasoning. The Foundation's press release is now available online. Money quote: Had the Ninth Circuit\u2019s ruling not been overturned, employees of companies accepting funds from the state would be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Employers could have ultimately been blackballed from government contracts unless they cleared the path for union organizers to recruit new forced dues-paying union members.","og_url":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/blog\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\/","og_site_name":"National Right to Work Foundation","article_published_time":"2008-06-20T16:31:04+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-09T18:17:01+00:00","author":"Legal Information","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Escrito por":"Legal Information","Tiempo de lectura":"3 minutos"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/blog\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/blog\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\/"},"author":{"name":"Legal Information","@id":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/#\/schema\/person\/652ac6218a4e5be3b3b21635c118d4cd"},"headline":"Supreme Court Agrees with Foundation; Strikes Down a Prototype Union Organizing Law","datePublished":"2008-06-20T16:31:04+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-09T18:17:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/blog\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\/"},"wordCount":659,"commentCount":0,"articleSection":["Blog"],"inLanguage":"es","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/nrtw.org\/blog\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/blog\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\/","url":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/blog\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\/","name":"Supreme Court Agrees with Foundation; Strikes Down a Prototype Union Organizing Law - National Right to Work Foundation","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-20T16:31:04+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-09T18:17:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/#\/schema\/person\/652ac6218a4e5be3b3b21635c118d4cd"},"inLanguage":"es","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/nrtw.org\/blog\/supreme-court-agrees-with-foundation-strikes-down-a-prototype-union-organizing-law\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/","name":"National Right to Work Foundation","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"es"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/#\/schema\/person\/652ac6218a4e5be3b3b21635c118d4cd","name":"Legal Information","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9dd8b017e6d8f6d3a8f6565a48c44ec34db5e7a0837308bad9505aaa64ba93fc?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9dd8b017e6d8f6d3a8f6565a48c44ec34db5e7a0837308bad9505aaa64ba93fc?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9dd8b017e6d8f6d3a8f6565a48c44ec34db5e7a0837308bad9505aaa64ba93fc?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal Information"},"url":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/es\/author\/nrtw\/"}]}},"modified_by":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=286"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6156,"href":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286\/revisions\/6156"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nrtw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}