来源：《洛杉矶时报》
原文刊登日期：2021年6月23日
文章结构
第一段：最高法院推翻了加州的一项法规，本文表示反对这项判决。
第二段：该法规的具体内容。
第三段：最高法院的判决理由和案件起因。
四五六段：该判决带来的问题。
七八段：结论。
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday tossed aside a California regulation that gave farm union organizers limited access to farms and processing facilities so they could reach workers during idle hours, ruling that the practice amounted to an unconstitutional violation of a property owner’s right to deny access to others. We disagree.
星期三，最高法院的保守派多数否决了加州的一项规定，该规定允许农场工会组织者有限制地进入农场和加工场所，以便他们可以在空闲时间接触工人，最高法院裁定这一做法违宪，侵犯了业主拒绝他人进入的权利。对此，我们不同意。
The regulation allows a limited number of labor activists access to non-work areas of agricultural job sites for an hour before and after the workday, and for an hour at lunch, for a maximum of 120 days a year after notifying the property owner. The regulation is designed to make it easier for farmworkers to receive information and expertise about their right to organize and collectively bargain.
加州的规定允许数量有限的劳工维权人士在通知业主后，在工作日开始前结束后以及午餐时间进入农业工作场所的非工作区域一小时，每年最多允许120天。这项规定旨在让农场工人更容易获得有关他们组织和集体谈判权利的信息和专业知识。
But in an opinion written for the 6-3 majority by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court held that the regulation amounted to the government “taking” private property without compensation. The case arose in 2015 from a pair of lawsuits brought after Fowler Packing Co., a large grape grower, barred access to union organizers and Cedar Point Nursery, a strawberry grower, complained that labor agitators disrupted work at its packing plant.
但在由首席大法官小约翰·g·罗伯茨撰写的多数票（投票结果6比3）意见书中，最高法院认为，这一规定相当于“拿走”私人财产而不给予补偿。该案件始于2015年的两起诉讼，起因是大型葡萄种植商福勒包装公司禁止工会组织者进入，草莓种植商雪松点苗圃抱怨劳工煽动者扰乱了其包装工厂的工作。
Advocates argued that if the court struck down the regulation, it could call into question other incursions onto private property, including those by government health and safety inspectors seeking to ensure compliance with regulations.
劳工权益支持者认为，如果最高法院推翻这一规定，那么其他侵犯私人财产的行为，包括政府卫生和安全检查员为确保法规的遵守而采取的行动，都可能受到质疑。
Roberts wrote that such visits aren’t jeopardized by Wednesday’s ruling because “unlike standard health and safety inspections, the access regulation is not relevant to any benefit provided to agricultural employers or any risk posed to the public.”
罗伯茨写道，周三的裁决并没有危害到这种视察，因为“与标准的健康和安全检查不同，加州准入规定不会给农业雇主带来任何利益，禁止这个规定也不会对公众造成任何风险。”
But that reasoning doesn’t hold up. Health and safety inspections primarily benefit the public and employees, not employers; the visits are potentially more intrusive on employers’ property than the limited ones the state rules allow union organizers. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing in dissent, sided with the advocates and warned about the fallout from the majority’s logic: “In my view, the majority’s conclusion threatens to make many ordinary forms of regulation unusually complex or impractical.”
但这种推理站不住脚。健康和安全检查主要有利于公众和雇员，而不是雇主；与加州规定允许工会组织者进行的有限访问相比，安全检查对雇主财产的侵犯可能更大。大法官斯蒂芬·g·布雷耶持不同意见，站在了劳工权益支持者一边，并对多数派逻辑的后果提出了警告：“在我看来，多数派的结论可能会让许多普通形式的监管变得异常复杂或不切实际。”
Giving labor organizers limited access to farms and processing facilities solely to talk with workers strikes a proper balance between the rights and interests of the property owners and those of the people they employ. But the conservative majority, which has undercut labor rights in several recent rulings, didn’t see a need for balance.
给予劳工组织者有限的进入农场和加工场所的机会，仅仅是为了与工人交谈，这在业主和被雇用者的权益之间取得了适当的平衡。但在最近的几项裁决中削弱劳工权利的保守多数派认为没有必要保持平衡。
This decision does not end labor rights in the fields, of course. It just makes it more difficult for members of a predominately nonwhite and non-English-speaking work force to exercise those rights, once again signaling to working Americans that at least before this Supreme Court, the deck is stacked against them.
当然，这一判决并没有终止田地里的劳工权利。这只会让以非白人为主、不讲英语的农场劳工更难行使这些权利，这再次向美国劳动者发出信号，至少在最高法院面前，形势对他们不利。