California Neutrality Law Struck By U.S. Supreme Court Kept Public Monies Out Of Labor Relations

By Gil Cedillo

California State Senator

Last month the United States Supreme Court struck down the nation’s first “state neutrality” law on labor relations. The case, Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, challenged the validity a California law prohibiting contractors receiving state funds from using those monies to assist, promote or deter union organizing activities.

Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the decision for the Court noting that federal labor law protects debate between unions and employers and that states may not prohibit one side from making its case to workers. Stevens added, “AB 1889 imposes a targeted negative restriction on employer speech about unionization” and therefore the law violates the free speech rule established in the National Labor Relations Act.

Conservatives further opined that under AB 1889 it would be impossible to distinguish state funds from other revenues contractors receive.

Working with labor leaders I authored AB 1889 in 2000 in order to address the misuse of public monies by state contractors which were using state grant and program monies – in some extreme cases millions of dollars – to suppress labor organizing.

The legislation was written with great sensitivity around the equal, and potentially conflicting, protection of employers’ free speech rights and workers’ right to organize. The law did not restrict an employer’s right to speak out against unions; it simply required that state money or public money not be used to fund such activities.

Unions do not receive public funding to run organizing campaigns in the workplace, why should a contractor be allowed to use millions of taxpayer dollars to block a worker’s right to organize?

Furthermore as government increase the use of private contractors to conduct public services it is a customary and justifiable expectation that these contractors are accountable for the public funding they receive. Regardless of the service or product purchased, taxpayers must expect fiscal accountability from these agents. Policing, prisons, day care, health care, military security, transportation – hundreds of government functions have been and will increasingly be handled by private contractors. To say fiscal accountability is an undue burden to these hired hands is to undermine the value of our tax dollars and calls into question the ability of a contractor to handle the job.

Comments

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.