来源：《美联社新闻》
原文刊登日期：2021年6月23日
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with California agriculture businesses that objected to a state regulation giving unions access to farm /property in order to organize workers.
周三，最高法院站在了加州农业企业一边，反对一项允许工会进入农场以组织工人的加州法规。
As a result of the ruling, the businesses’ attorney said, California will have to modify or abandon the regulation put in place in 1975.
农业企业的律师说，这项裁决的结果是，加州将不得不修改或放弃这项1975年开始实施的法规。
The justices ruled 6-3 for the agriculture businesses. “The access regulation amounts to simple appropriation of private property,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority of the court. Roberts said the regulation “grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers’ property.”
大法官以6票对3票裁定农业企业胜诉。首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨代表最高法院的多数意见写道:“进入权规定相当于对私人财产的简单挪用。”罗伯茨说，加州的规定“授予劳工组织侵犯种植商财产的权利”。
At issue was a California regulation that allows unions access to farms and other agriculture businesses for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year, in order to organize workers. Businesses are supposed to be notified before organizers arrive, and organizers are supposed to come during nonwork times such as lunch and before and after work.
争论的焦点是加州的一项规定，该规定允许工会每天最多三小时，每年最多120天，进入农场和其他农业企业，以组织工人。企业应该在组织者到达之前得到通知，组织者应该在非工作时间来，比如午餐时间和工作开始前结束后。
Two agriculture businesses had challenged the regulation saying it had the effect of taking their property without compensation in violation of the Constitution. The businesses also said the regulation was outdated and unnecessary given that unions can now reach workers many ways, including via smartphone and radio.
两个农业企业对这项规定提出了质疑，称这项规定违反了宪法，造成了无偿征用他们财产的后果。这些企业还表示，鉴于工会现在可以通过智能手机和无线电等多种方式联系工人，这项规定已经过时，没有存在的必要了。
Writing for the majority, Roberts rejected the suggestion that the ruling would “endanger a host of state and federal government activities involving entry onto private property.”
在代表多数派撰写的意见书中，罗伯茨人认同这项裁决将“危及州和联邦政府涉及进入私人财产的一系列监管活动”的说法。
But writing for the three-justice minority, Justice Stephen Breyer said “the majority’s conclusion threatens to make many ordinary forms of regulation unusually complex or impractical.”
但大法官斯蒂芬·布雷耶在代表三名少数派大法官撰写意见书时表示，“多数派大法官的结论可能会使许多普通形式的监管变得异常复杂或不切实际。”
Breyer noted the “large numbers of ordinary regulations” that permit the temporary entry onto a property owner’s land. That includes entry for inspections ranging from food product safety like meat and dairy facility inspections to the inspections of nursing homes, preschools and foster care facilities. “I suspect that the majority has substituted a new, complex legal scheme for a comparatively simpler old one,” he wrote.
布雷耶指出，“大量的普通法规”允许临时进入业主的土地。检查范围包括从食品安全如肉类和乳品设施检查到养老院、幼儿园和寄养机构的检查。他写道:“我怀疑，多数派已经用一个新的、复杂的法律方案取代了一个相对简单的旧法律。”
The access regulation in particular is unique to California. And the state had said that union organizers use the regulation “sparingly” — only five times in the 2019-2020 budget year and 24 times in 2018-2019. Still, the United Farmworkers of America told the justices that the regulation is more necessary now than ever. The union said farmworkers are increasingly indigenous workers from Mexico and the only effective way to communicate with them is in person at their job sites.
进入规定是加州独有的。加州曾表示，工会组织者“很少”使用这一规定——2019-2020财年只有5次，2018-2019财年只有24次。尽管如此，美国农业工人联合会告诉大法官，这项规定现在比以往任何时候都更有必要。该工会表示，农场工人越来越多地是来自墨西哥的土著工人，与他们沟通的唯一有效方式是亲自到他们的工作场所。
In a statement, Joshua Thompson, who argued the case for the businesses at the high court, called the ruling a “huge victory for property rights.” He said, “Today’s decision affirms that one of the most fundamental aspects of property is the right to decide who can and can’t access your property.”
约书亚·汤普森在最高法院为这些企业辩护，他在一份声明中称这一裁决是“产权的巨大胜利”。他说，“今天的决定确认了财产最基本的一个方面，就是决定谁可以和不能使用你的财产的权利。”