resolution of the matter at the trial court level in the narrow issue before you is whether or not the addresses fluffs financial information will be disclosed to essentially an unregulated third party ending the final resolution of this matter i think it's important for me to explain to you exactly what we're talking about here in terms of what is being released we're talking about addresses of employees with their compensation information with how they allocate their pain that's for medical how they allocate their payments for pension and how much disposable income they have on a weekly basis that is what is contained in a certified payroll it's important for you to understand that this is one of a certified payroll under the california rules have a detailed presentation that is required by the employer about each employee employee decides how much is he going to pay for dental out of his paycheck how much is he going to pay for retirement how much is he going to pay for medical and what we're talking about here is releasing this information to essentially a totally  unregulated third party with that address so that that person can go to the address of the individual and discuss it with him or presumably anyone else in the household the confidential information there's no notice to the employee and no notice to the employer year of the release of this confidential information and that fact that's what's happened here there's no duty to maintain the confidentiality of the information released to the labor management committee or the p c p and there's no oversight of the entity and terms of what they do with that confidential information and so you have be allocated is of such a privacy nature then it's important that the employer assert that right on his behalf yes the westinghouse case that we've cited also specifically  must be it's i think it's important for the court understand we're talking about releasing the home addresses of employees which is considered private under the california constitution as well as under the federal cases that we've cite question here interviews the employees they can distribute the contact information they can get him there ards and under i watch you up point out that under california the straightest code title eight sixteen thousand after jobsite these employees are not ignorant of what they're supposed to be paid the awarding body posted at the job site where they're working so they have the information there are federal cases that specifically say that the problem was you didn't present a single piece of evidence other than exempt on some affidavit i think in this court indicating that in fact the employees you know were being it was being used for this purpose and not for the management committee or into teeth purporting to be a labor management committee then requests these certified payrolls and the employer is then put on notice that they're going to release the addresses of the employees employees i threats we've also pointed out in our papers that this is this is information under the statute that's going to competitors it's not what you want to call it a union or or a labor management committee half of this entity is the competitors of the employer whose addresses are being asked for i mean that's a real significant issue which under normal circumstances the addresses of employees are not available to is whether you have standing to raise the privacy interests of your employee yes and we believe we do directly because of the legal ins that the stanford university case and the other cases that we cited as well as the close relationship of the employers and the employees if you've got declarations here the employees are complaining to the employer about being contacted at home and people asking them about their financial information he's going again we don't know the the courts don't require  court david rosenfeld the half of  saw i compelling interest a very strong interest in acting seventy six seven hundred seventy six because what it does it adds an additional mechanism to enforce the prevailing wages and that's not a huge step not a huge mechanism but says that the state doesn't have the resources to completely monitor all the state prevailing wage jobs and there are other ways of effectively monitoring them to ensure compliance with the state law because the state has an interest all in those terms and really should be considered by this court i just want to dwell on this privacy issue for a moment and that is that you know i will concede that there is under the california constitution some privacy issues in home address and would welcome the visitor and frankly if they don't welcome they can tell whoever is home i don't want to talk to this person or tell the letter what so it's a very unintrusive system to ensure additional information have the interim missions payroll information revealed it's really confidential it's not like medical records it's not like other types of for information like in the stanford case where they were going to get into all of the detail about the competence of the individual what is there on the payroll records that might be considered confidential well mr freeman varies based on the way of the employer compensation system but you have to pay a toll prevailing wage and that can be accomplished by paying a certain amount in wages and certain amount of benefits so these prevailing wage forms that being revealed anyway the question is who home something i think what's also real another way and that is that when the prevailing wage is published by the state everybody knows what the total package is on that project it's posted on the state's website the only thing that the management committees are able to get those same documents but with the addresses present but not the names and social security numbers it's important to understand what the state was up enforcement of california's minimum waiver standards this statute is one of them are the other most significant statute was the labor code private attorney general's act of two thousand and four which invited give them the opportunity if they so wish to become additional players in the enforcement of the prevailing wage laws public works was in the us state of california opponents in this case argued that these laws are preempted by the national labor relations act and they also argued in the district court that there was an equal protection problem it appears that they have of the state that in fact there is a long history in the federal courts in state courts of recognizing the traditional responsibility of states for enforcing them labor standards winning and specifically the prevailing wage laws are something that have been recognized by this court many times as being within the legitimate police powers of the state to enforce i won't repeat the entire discussion that we've already had concerning the privacy issue but you know we did very vigorously in our brief before the court the issue that this is the privacy issue  distress there is no independent cause of action that's been raised they're saying that they're that they would be damaged by the release of this information for various reasons frankly it looks like an afterthought primarily the absolute right of privacy in one's address completely disconnected from the name or the social security number and we would have presented as it is in the trial court it does because of getting employees to speak in the presence of employer court i believe does constitute prejudice to the defendants here and we've cited cases that are brief which we believe stands for the proposition that issues not raised in the district court should not be addressed in the court of appea there are certain things which have a much stronger privacy protection in others personal records for example perhaps names and addresses change gether certainly social security numbers or something which are of names and or the social security's also and it is obviously clear the purpose of this is to provide the labor measure a committee good alternative of approaching these workers but it is also clear that the form of the materials that they're receiving is different then they publish list of names and addresses and proud of the concerns of the privacy laws is to put limitations on the employee addresses for purposes of supporting enforcing the davis bacon prevailing wage is slight the federal courts have said the interest in keeping employee addresses confidential is substantial and that's the balancing test for s now i smile i would think yes but i think it talks in terms of an exception to the privacy act i think that's the context in which the for you cases are discussed in the department of defense case i think there important in this regard which we've cited secondly these questions i urge the court to to study our arguments carefully because they are serious questions and that's the standard here we're not other projects other sites where the abuse their authority or their right and their role in this picture i can't believe you wouldn't be able to gather that kind of information well with the mobile you've been collecting it because confidentiality all of those different issues so hardships you know the state has not demonstrated anything the younger cases you can't even factor in administratively burden in balancing the right of privacy and so the balance of the hardships of plays in favor of maintaining the status quo management committees and whether they can overlap with the activities of unions and whether you can essentially subcontract out with your labor management committee all of these enforcement issues to someone who admittedly is not under your control