By Assemblymember Mariko Yamada
During the summer of 2005, my older daughter worked for the Executive Officer of the California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (CalOSHA). Twelve outdoor workers died that summer-six of whom were farmworkers. She would always ask me, “Why isn’t anyone doing anything about this?”
In 2005, the state had no regulations governing outdoor work in high heat conditions. Following that slew of deaths, then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued emergency regulations. These became permanent in 2006.
Since then, employers of outdoor workers-including those in construction, utilities, transportation, and agricultural industries-have engaged in better heat illness prevention and response. Unfortunately, fatalities are still occurring, and penalties have been light.
Recent opinion pieces have focused on two of my votes, one for farmworker overtime pay and another for stronger heat illness protections. My commitment to agriculture is being questioned and my votes characterized as “partisan”.
From my very first budget vote on the Assembly Floor in 2008, when I was the lone Democratic “No” vote on the permanent elimination of the Williamson Act subvention fund, I have put myself on the line for agriculture. I have taken on the renewable energy industry when they skirted federal law and put agricultural pilots at risk and organized Assembly Democrats in opposing 2012 Farm Bill cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
In 2010, I voted for SB 1121 (Florez) a bill that would have granted overtime pay to farmworkers after an eight-hour day (currently, California farmworkers are eligible for overtime pay after a ten-hour work day through a wage order). Since 1938, domestic workers and farmworkers have been exempt from overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Coincidentally, these workers have been historically African American and Latino.
Farmworker overtime pay opponents argue that farm work is unique and different from other work because it is seasonal and dependent on weather conditions. Razor-thin profit margins would require farmers to cut hours and layoff farmworkers if they faced an increase in labor costs. With the most liberal agricultural wage order in the country, any change would put California farmers at a global disadvantage.
I recognize the concerns of farm owners. Agriculture is one of our most important businesses, and one that cannot leave the state. But I believed in 2010 as I do now that farmworkers perform some of the most difficult work in our society, and that California should be leading the way for improving wages and benefits for those without whom food and drink would disappear from our grocery stores, restaurants, bars, and kitchen tables.
This year, AB 2346 (Butler), “The Farmworker Safety Act of 2012”, is generating understandable controversy. The bill codifies existing CalOSHA heat illness regulations, specifies access to water and shade, and allows an additional private-right-of-action against violators with increased civil penalties. The latter provision responds to the “slap-on-the-wrist” given the farm labor contractors who employed Maria Isavel Vasquez Jimenez, the 17-year old pregnant farmworker who in 2008 died from heat illness while working in San Joaquin County. Her internal body temperature upon death was 108 degrees. As a result of a 2011 plea bargain, a judge sentenced the contractors to community service and probation. I believe farmworkers deserve better.
Since voting for AB 2346, I have worked with the author’s office and those who have come forward with constructive dialogue to address the “one-size-fits-all” approach to water and shade provisions, and to develop common-sense amendments to the bill. Over the past few weeks, I have facilitated meetings with the author’s office and local farmers, and answered calls, emails and letters on the subject. This legislation is providing an avenue for in depth discussions on this issue, and I welcome further input as we move forward.
For the past four years, I have been privileged to represent the 8th Assembly District, with the serious responsibility of casting thousands of votes affecting every aspect of California life.
I have served as a member of the Assembly Agriculture Committee, where I have taken hundreds of votes to protect one of our state’s most important industries.
Farmers in the 8th Assembly District have been leaders in compliance and innovation and deserve to be commended. But I also have a duty to my farmworker constituents as well as farmworkers across the state of California. Bringing them into the 21st Century with regards to overtime considerations and codifying basic water and shade regulations are two votes out of thousands for which I am willing to take the heat.
A final note: AB 2676 (Calderon) was recently amended to apply the same water and shade standards for animals to farmworkers. Both bills currently await August Senate hearings.
Assemblymember Mariko Yamada represents California’s 8th Assembly District which includes the cities of Benicia, Davis, Dixon, Fairfield, Rio Vista, Suisun City, Vacaville, West Sacramento, Winters and Woodland.
AB 2346 is another example of how the legislature has no clue about the real world. How is a farmer supposed to ensure that “cool” potable water is available within 10 FEET of each worker? 10 feet! In every other work environment, in needs only to be “readily accessible!!!” You’ve also created a statute that allows suits against a farmer who hires the labor contractor, if the contractor screws up. You’ve created private (i.e., attorney-fee driven) causes of action which make the ADA seem like a walk in the park. Don’t mouth off about “defending” agriculture when you’ve thoroughly pooched a piece of legislation that will cause enormous problems.
[i]”Her internal body temperature upon death was 108 degrees. As a result of a 2011 plea bargain, a judge sentenced the contractors to community service and probation. I believe farmworkers deserve better.”[/i]
So, if I understand this correctly, the contractors should have received harsher punishment for failing to protect this pregnant 17-year old girl from her own lack of good judgment? Why should we create more tragedy… damaging more lives in retribution?
I’m sorry, but this line of thinking from politicians really sticks in my craw. I.e., let’s punish the employer with more regulations, taxes and penalties to force them to provide care for those incapable of caring for themselves. Let’s exploit a singular emotive tragedy as justification to create even MORE rules to live by.
Certainly the business of farming cannot survive without farm labor. However, the farmer is already challenged enough to run a viable business. He/she can’t do it having to provide care to employees beyond providing them reasonable work for reasonable pay. Every new labor regulation is another operational detail that takes them time and effort detracting from the main purpose of putting food on the table.
I don’t have a problem with some reasonable shade and water regulations and government inspections and penalties… as long as these are rational policies designed in the context of what farm labor is and has to be. But, why not go after the farm labor union on this? Why not solve this problem by educating workers of the need for safety and safe behavior? Why doesn’t the labor union provide shade and water to their member workers? Does labor not own any responsibility other than organizing to penalize employers with higher costs and partnering with their political benefactors to increase employer regulations?
This young woman should not have been working in such conditions in her condition. She, more than anyone, would be in the best position to understand her health situation and make the best judgment calls for her required working conditions. If we REALLY want to reduce the risk of future occurrences of this type of tragedy, we would be better off seeking bottom-up solutions: educating and empowering people to make better choices to protect themselves from harm.
Top-down solutions are generally always less effective and less efficient than education for personal responsibility; nevertheless, they are the only type of ideas coming from politicians these days.
[i]Why doesn’t the labor union provide shade and water to their member workers?
[/i]
Huh? How would the labor union provide shade and water to their member workers on someone else’s property? And why is that the union’s job? I am responsible for the conditions my employees work in.
Don: You are not reponsible for the weather are you? This was an issue of weather and shade and water to mitigate danger from the heat. The unions are supposed to provide for the welfare of their members, so why not look to them to provide some education and standards for worker safety.
Notice a field of farm workers. Note the cars all parked in the field. How about addding some portable shade structures and water coolers? What about the union educating workers about the risks of overheating and sunstroke and the need to seek shade breaks and drink water to keep their body temp from rising too high? Certainly an employer can be regulated to force them to provide these things, but why not the union?
No matter how much responsibility you want to accept for controlling the conditions of your work environment protecting your employees; you will never be in a position to know more than they know about themselves. You may not know if an employee is pregnant and you are precluded by law to pry into employee’s personal health issues.
Consider this. Like many people, I think unions are a waste and want them all abolished. If they took some responsibility for providing services to protect their members other than just collective wage extortion, I might be more supportive of them.
Yes, Jeff, I am responsible for the weather.
I am absolutely responsible for the conditions my workers are in. When we had a landscape crew we were very cognizant of the hazards of working in 100 degree weather here in the Sacramento Valley. We as the employer were absolutely responsible for their safety in those conditions. We dealt with weather and shade and water and skin exposure and all the things that landscape contractors deal with. To assume that the 17-year-old who works for me (we had teenager employees) would have common sense on these issues would be beyond stupid as an employer.
[i]How about adding some portable shade structures?[/i] Excellent plan. I strongly urge farm employers to do that. Do you know what it took just to get farm employers to provide portable toilets? The history of farm labor in California is one of top-down mandates to provide decent working conditions for those working in the fields because some (not all) farm employers wouldn’t do it.
Don, I think we are more in agreement that in conflict on this.
You still won’t know that a 17-year old is pregnant unless she tells you, she is showing, or you ask her and she doesn’t lie (and then sues you for probing into her personal health issues.)
Your comment that you can’t assume that a 17-year old has enough common sense and so you, the employer, has to care for her… is indicative of where our worldviews (and maybe our politics) diverge. I think I am more optimistic that a 17-year old can and should have enough common sense on this if only we didn’t have so many people assuming they do not and creating so many rules and regulations to protect them based on that assumption.
I think people generally rise to the level of expectation provided by their leaders. People with left-leaning political orientation seem to have lower expectations for individual behavior and decision-making and hence seem to support more top-down rules to protect people from themselves. However, it is becoming clear that we cannot afford that approach. It is too expensive, and it creates perpetual growth in expectations for top-down saving. How about instead we raise our expectations for individual behavior, invest in education reforms instead of perpetual increases in regulation, and see how that works?
And let’s base our opinions for how it works or not on statistics and not on singular emotive exceptions.
Assume that a female employee of child-bearing age might be pregnant. She might not even know. Assume that any employee might be vulnerable to heat-related illnesses due to any number of conditions you and they might not be aware of. Some common medications, including benadryl, can increase your risk during exposure to heat.
You’re right. I assume that 17-year-olds don’t necessarily have a lot of common sense with regard to their own personal safety. I think statistics bear that out. Moreover, we were landscape contractors for twenty years. I can tell you from personal experience that people aren’t sensible about heat, and that people are very individual with regard to their tolerance for it.
Downtown: [i]”How is a farmer supposed to ensure that “cool” potable water is available within 10 FEET of each worker?”[/i]
Give them thermoses.
Geeze Don. I’m sure glad that we have you and others here to save all those ignorant people from hurting themselves.
What does the rest of the world rely on lacking so much caring and protection from a US-style nanny government?
I think my problem is that I think most 17-year olds have more common sense than the adults making all the stupid rules to live by.
[i]”Give them thermoses.”[/i]
Give, give, give, give, save, save, save save…
How about employees bring their own damn thermos?
I worked on farms and ranches from age 12-17 and it wasn’t a problem bringing my own water and preventing myself from overheating.
Another thing to consider is that perhaps the pregnant 17 year old farmworker did not speak English or was afraid to complain out of fear of losing a much needed job.
I have to agree w Don on this one. First of all, a 17 year old who is pregnant should not have been doing field labor. The employer should not have hired her in the first place. Secondly, it is the employer who provides the working conditions. I agree with Jeff that a union could certainly educate its workers to avoid sunstroke, but it is the employer who provides the working conditions. Personally I think no one should be picking anything in 100+ degree heat. The picking ought to take place in the morning and evening hours and not in the hot afternoon. Perhaps I strongly feel this way too bc I myself cannot take heat. I don’t sweat very much, and it becomes a real problem for me in extreme heat.
I have represented a dozen or so international workers in group care homes in wage and hour claims against abusive employers. The working conditions were gross. I havent had an ag employee case, but I can only imagine what goes on out there in the fields.
I view Assemblymember Yamada as my representative and speaking for me on these issues. She is a kind, loving person who is trying to represent human beings who have no other voice to help them. Her votes come from her heart.
I saw that local resident and farmer John Chiles signed a letter negatively commenting on her votes, and I strongly encourage John and friends to work with the Assemblywoman to reach a fair regulatory framework so there is a compromise that protects the workers, while also promoting the business of farming. We need both groups to prosper, and I believe that Assemblywoman Yamada speaks for all of us on this issue.
[quote]I strongly encourage John and friends to work with the Assemblywoman to reach a fair regulatory framework so there is a compromise that protects the workers, while also promoting the business of farming. We need both groups to prosper…[/quote]
Well said!
[i]”First of all, a 17 year old who is pregnant should not have been doing field labor. The employer should not have hired her in the first place.”[/i]
Elaine, I would defer to you on this related to farm labor. However, if I ask a work candidate or employee if she is pregnant I break the law. If I refuse to hire her, or change her job because she is pregnant, I break the law.
I also do not agree with your statement “a 17 year old who is pregnant should not be doing field labor”. That is a bit discriminatory, don’t you think?
My neighbors in the first house that we owned on a private drive wanted to farm the easement shoulder on either side of the drive. The rest of the neighbors agreed as long as the requesting family maintained it and kept it nice looking. The farming neighbors were a Mormon family with six kids. I left for work one morning seeing the wife, who was 9-months pregnant with her seventh, weeding the garden. I came home from work and she was still weeding. I went in our house and my wife said: “Did you hear she had the baby today?”
So, I absolutely disagree that we need a blanket rule that a pregnant 17-year old should not work in the fields. That should be her choice. There are a lot of women that can handle lots of different kind of work up until the doctor tells them to push… then they just work harder after that. It depends on the person.
“However, if I ask a work candidate or employee if she is pregnant I break the law. If I refuse to hire her, or change her job because she is pregnant, I break the law.
I also do not agree with your statement “a 17 year old who is pregnant should not be doing field labor”. That is a bit discriminatory, don’t you think?”
Jeff, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. That’s CA regulations for you, a lawyers dream state.
“Downtown: “How is a farmer supposed to ensure that “cool” potable water is available within 10 FEET of each worker?”
Give them thermoses.”
Don, so what happens when the thermos goes empty. Is the employer/farmer supposed to be right there next to them to fill it back up? Or is the worker supposed to walk back to the station more than 10 ft. away and refill it themselves? And if that’s the case, why couldn’t they just have walked to the water station in the first place and GOT A DRINK? Jeff’s right, nanny state over regulation.
Clarifying the law, the law requires the ten feet provision and then makes it clear that refers to a personal canteen.
Yes, the worker walks back and refills the canteen. You guys are way over-thinking this. Providing water is probably the easiest part of this.
17-year-olds need parental permission to join the military. They need parental permission to get married. That’s because we, as a society, have generally decided that there is an age at which people are still less able to make informed decisions. Evidently some of you disagree.
This is a reactive law, because that is how these things work. Someone dies in a situation where the employer was negligent, it is likely that there are other similar situations existing out there. You wouldn’t think it would be necessary to tell an employer not to let farmworkers handle Class I pesticides with their bare hands — but you do, in fact, have to tell employers not to let that happen. Handle Temik with your bare hands, you will die. When one worker dies, it is likely that someone will write a law about that.
It will be best if the industry works with the legislators on this.
“A reactive law”
try
“An over-reactive law”
It is an example of what does not work. It is an example of what Rusty49 wrote: [i]”nanny state over-regulation[/i]
If the law allows a 17-year old to take a job as a farm laborer without parental permission, then it is implicit that the law expects the 17-year old to have enough common sense to decide if and when she should work.
In any case, you used “parental permission” to justify nanny state regulations. I find that interesting. I also find it interesting that nobody has attempted to answer my question is it legal to ask if she is pregnant and then discriminate?
Jeff
[quote]I’m sorry, but this line of thinking from politicians really sticks in my craw. I.e., let’s punish the employer with more regulations, taxes and penalties to force them to provide care for those incapable of caring for themselves. Let’s exploit a singular emotive tragedy as justification to create even MORE rules to live by. [/quote]
This is not a single “emotive tragedy”. As pointed out in the article, there were 12 heat related deaths, 6 in field workers in 2005. From the time I spent in Fresno working the ER and the Internal Medicine floors, I would say that this is probably not an unusual tally. I personally watched as one 18 year old girl was brought in with a core temperature of 106, it took three days for her to die. Many people were brought in during the summer months in various stages of heat related illness, most of them from the fields. Just how many “emotive tragedies” would you consider acceptable before someone imposes reasonable regulations on the owners and supervisors of these fields?
This is far from a new problem. The farmers have had many, many years to step up and provide adequate working conditions and have not done so. I was in Fresno thirty years ago. You don’t think that is adequate time for them to provide shade and water ?
There are over 600000 people that safely work in California fields every year, and in 2010 (the most recent year statistics are available) there were two heat related deaths. Though any deaths in agriculture are tragic, perspective is important. Since 2005 the agricultural industry has worked with Cal-OSHA to implement very effective and workable Heat Illness Prevention standards and training. These standards require adequate shade and water to be provided and they contain consequences for failure to implement the standards.
Contrary to United Farm Workers dogma cited by AW Yamada, agriculture has embraced these programs and as a result the fields are a safer place to work (evidenced by all the shade pop-ups and trailers in fields where crews work). Recent legislation such as AB-2346 is not only unnecessary, but it is punitive and unworkable, and the agricultural industry was not invited for input prior to the vote (though we tried), in fact the vote occurred with breathtaking speed and caught most farmers completely by surprise.
As far as current rules not being punitive enough, farms and farm labor contractors can be shut down if they fail to adequately implement the Heat Illness rules. The examples cited by AW Yamada date from cases from 2008 or prior.
A definition of a bad law is one that makes criminals of ordinary citizens. AB-2346 does that to farmers because it is not possible to comply with it as it is written. The bill was so poorly written that it fails to even mention any temperature triggers, so farmers will be required to provide shade within 200 feet of workers at all times – in the fog in winter, for example, under penalty of lawsuits if anyone thinks they violated the law.
Mariko Yamada attempts to convince all of us that she supports agriculture, and then she votes against it, the leading industry in her district.
…”I voted for SB 1121 (Florez) a bill that would have granted overtime pay to farmworkers after an eight-hour day”…
There is currently legislation that mirrors SB-1121, and it will actually hurt the very people it is intended to help, and Mariko Yamada indicates that she will vote for it.
Farmers cannot afford to pay overtime amounting to 2 hours per day any more than Wal-Mart or McDonalds, so the net result would be less money earned by individual farm workers. I would submit that the rules currently in effect for agriculture better address the biggest challenge facing minimum wage earners – how to make ends meet with the least stress. Most minimum wage earners are forced to work two or more jobs to make enough money to live on. Farmworkers are able to earn significantly more money in a week in one job than their non agricultural peers can. Yes the hours are long, but considerably less stressful than juggling two jobs.
In addition, many farmworkers are able to live where they work, in my case I provide ranch housing rent free to my employees. I certainly do not do that because I am intent on exploiting poor farmworkers by overworking them.
Ask youself why you can no longer buy clothes made in the USA, or televisions, or the iPad you may be using to read this. It is because labor is cheaper elsewhere. Lest you think that your food will always come from here regardless of labor cost, guess what country is now the third largest producer of processed tomatoes. The same country that assembled your iPad and they seem to have no qualms about putting whatever they like in the food they produce (melamine in infant formula and dog food are recent examples).
medwoman: First, argricultural work is dangerous. Let’s keep this in context. Second the job is outdoors , in the summer, in the heat. There is not much we can do about that, can we? Third, the per-farm worker rate of death from heat stroke has been relatively stable per year for the last 25-30 years. My point about emotives, is reated to this issue being hyped as some new empidemic. It is not. It is a trumped up political move exploiting the reactionary tendencies of those prone to feel more than to seek the facts and think. Forth, I absolutely support working to reduce the numbers of farm workers killed from heat stroke. The difference is that I think we would be more effective with bottom-up education than layering MORE, and MORE, and MORE regulations on farmers and MORE abnd MORE and MORE over-compensated government workers to ineffectually inforce it.
Abusive farmers in this country, in this state, are a very small minority. Most farmers I know care about the people working in their fields. They are frustrated that some of these people are so bent on earning money that they won’t take care of themselves. What is a farmer to do? Start walking around with a tape measure and a stop watch to make sure all farm workers are close enough to the water and take exactly all the breaks the are required by law to take.
Rusty is correct… this is all just a lawyer bonanza. Sue the farmer because Joe or Mary was not reminded (or forced?) to take the breaks demanded by law? Sue the famer because the water was 27 centimeters too far away?
I am still waiting for an answer on the legality of asking about pregnancy and/or refusing to hire a pregnant woman. I hear crickets. (literally too since I am on my porch right now). The conundrum of the bleeding heart that it demands forced compasion while it also demands forced fairness. How do we reconcile these things? The fact is we don’t. It ends up a trap for farmers, just like it does for other business owners. It is a trap that lawyers are only too happy to exploit to develop their fat bank accounts and fund the campaigns of those pushing the very regulations.
If a 17-year old is incapable of having enough common sense for self-preservation, then the 17-year old should not be allowed to work in the fields where 100 degree days in full sun are naturally going to occur. It is dangerous. Don’t do the job if you are not informed and not willing to accept the risks. If it is too dangerous to have a pregnant girl work in the fields, then it should be legal to discriminate against a pregant woman working in the fields.
Delta Farmer: [i]”Ask youself why you can no longer buy clothes made in the USA, or televisions, or the iPad you may be using to read this. It is because labor is cheaper elsewhere. Lest you think that your food will always come from here regardless of labor cost, guess what country is now the third largest producer of processed tomatoes. The same country that assembled your iPad and they seem to have no qualms about putting whatever they like in the food they produce (melamine in infant formula and dog food are recent examples).”[/i]
Excellent point.
In the last 6 months president Obama has attended 90 fund-raising events and has not met with his business economic council once.
He recently said that if you own a business, you got a business, you didn’t build that business. He was off his teleprompter, so we get to understand the real view. That view is similar to California liberal Democrats that have controlled the state and sent it to the fiscal cliff. The view is this… we don’t value what the business owner provides. We don’t care that we make it more difficult for them. We don’t care that our political pursuits result in fewer and fewer jobs. In fact, fewer people working mean more hopeless voters that we can save… that we can exploit to retain our political power.
If you are a business owner (including farmers) you are poltically incorrect. Your are the enemy of the people. You are greedy. You are worthy of scorn and punishment. How dare you work try to make a case that you earned your success. Everything you have is because of labor and the briliance of politicians teeing it up for you. You should bow down and thank those politicians. And, you should give up 60%-70% of what you earned to help the “less fortunate”… ironically that are kept less fortunate mostly because of our crappy education system that liberal Democrats also protect.
There is trillions of capital in the US chasing everything other than business expansion and business startups. Obamacare and punative Yamada farm bills just keep adding to reasons NOT to start or expand a business. These politicians are tone-deaf. They are stubbornly ignorant.
Save a couple of farm workers from heat stroke, and destroy the economic prospects for hundreds and thousands. Sure, that is the right thing to do since we can always just add those hundreds and thousands of jobless farmworkers to the government dole.
Jeff
[quote]Don’t do the job if you are not informed and not willing to accept the risks. If it is too dangerous to have a pregnant girl work in the fields, then it should be legal to discriminate against a pregant woman working in the fields.[/quote]
And what exactly would you have a girl do if she has had to leave school to help support her younger brothers and sisters as happened to the girl we tried in vain to save in Fresno ?
[quote]My point about emotives, is reated to this issue being hyped as some new empidemic. It is not[/quote]
This is not being hyped as some new epdemic. The point is that it has been going on for many years. Adequate shade and water have to made available by those who own the property. You can have all the education about hydration and cooling you like and if those amenities are simply not available, it will not matter.
[quote]There is not much we can do about that, can we? Third, the per-farm worker rate of death from heat stroke has been relatively stable per year for the last 25-30 years[/quote]
Yes, Jeff. There is plenty we could do about it. Adequate shade, cooling stations and water would go a long way.
The very fact that this death rate has been relatively stable was exactly my point. 25-30 years in my opinion is ample time to make life saving changes. If the employers themselves are not capable of making the necessary changes left to their own devices, then laws may be necessary just as they were necessary to end child labor and
in humane sweat shops.
Delta Farmer
[quote]so farmers will be required to provide shade within 200 feet of workers at all times – in the fog in winter, for example, under penalty of lawsuits if anyone thinks they violated the law. [/quote]
And do you honestly believe that a farmer will be run out of business for not providing shade on a foggy day ?
If you are honest about feeling that this is simply a poorly written bill, then why not work with the legislators by supporting the aspects that make sense ( shade and water on a hot day) and suggesting rewrites of the portions that are nonspecific or ambiguous instead of painting someone making an honest effort at safety improvement as
” anti agriculture” ?
Jeff: you went pretty far off topic there.
Delta Farmer: As an employer, I pay overtime for anything over 8 hours in a work day. Why shouldn’t you?
Don: I will pull back to the main topic, but there is a connection here and a root cause. The bill adds more difficulty to the business of farming. Why are politicians so eager to make business more difficult at this time of double-digit unemployment?
The reason Delta Farmer should not pay overtime is that the increase in the cost of labor will have impacts to his ability to compete and hold market share. More small operators will go out of business. Fewer jobs. More imports. Fewer exports. You don’t think it is fair, but making it fair will have negative consequences. This is the wrong time to even consider this type of legislation.
It will only affect his ability to compete if his neighboring farmers are not paying overtime. We don’t know if he exports. I don’t know why some employers are exempt from overtime, just as I don’t know why some retailers are (or were) exempt from sales tax.
I don’t wish to offend Delta Farmer or make presumptions about his/her particular farm, but the fact is that farms in the Delta come with a considerable amount of public subsidy at all levels, from levee protection to water supply to direct crop payments. It is possible that none of those apply to him/her, but unlikely. Farmworkers pay taxes that help subsidize the Delta, just as the rest of us do.
Or, as the president put it so eloquently, “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Somebody invested in levees and water systems. Somebody is doing the work that gets the crops planted and hoed and harvested. Somebody is part of that community, and deserves a decent working condition and the same minimum benefits other workers get.
“This is the wrong time”? Please tell me what economic conditions should prevail, then, for us to adopt this.
“There are over 600000 people that safely work in California fields every year, and in 2010 (the most recent year statistics are available) there were two heat related deaths. “
By that logic you could argue against OSHA and any other work safety regulations since death is always is going to be an extremely low event. Of course you are also citing the extreme rather than injuries or illness here.
“And do you honestly believe that a farmer will be run out of business for not providing shade on a foggy day ? “
These are heat regulations required when the temperature rises above 80 degrees
[i]This is the wrong time”? Please tell me what economic conditions should prevail, then, for us to adopt this.[/i]
[quote]The real California unemployment rate is north of 20%. That is when you include the long term unemployment, those who have run out of benefits, the discouraged who have stopped looking and those with part time jobs wanting full time jobs.[/quote]
If you increase the costs for farmers by forcing them to pay OT (or from new compliance regulations), several consequences occur:
– To maintain costs, some will shed the number of employees and require the remaining to work harder to make up the difference.
– Some, to keep from paying OT, will stop allowing farm workers to work more than 8 hours a day, therefore reducing their income and consequentially their purchasing power.
– Some smaller and marginal farms will go out of business… and take the jobs with them.
– Labor will prefer famers that pay OT and this will establish a new corrosive competition for labor that benefits large famers with the benefit of economies of scale, and penalizes the small farmer having to limit OT.
– Some larger operators will absorb the extra labor costs by eliminating some more marginal crops and those that require more farm labor. This then will cause a drop in supply that causes domestic prices to rise which reduces exports and increases imports.
– Higher priced labor will help financially justify some larger farmers to invest in new machines and technology that reduce the need for labor. Investment in these machines will inspire manufacturers to invest to lower the cost of machines so smaller farmers can afford them. The end result is fewer jobs.
– Overall this will cause cost inflation of food, impacting low income people the most.
– Higher priced products results in lower exports and lower volume domestic retail sales. This combined with fewer farms, and lower production of crops requiring high levels farm labor will serve to depress the entire vertical market… warehouses, distributors, transport, canners, etc., etc.
[i]By that logic you could argue against OSHA and any other work safety regulations since death is always is going to be an extremely low event. Of course you are also citing the extreme rather than injuries or illness here.[/i]
Statistics and math matter David. Otherwise we are just being emotionally reactionary and incurring great costs to society for little benefit.
Farmworkers are 4-5 times more likely to die from hazardous tools and equipment than from heat exposure.
In the US…
– Farmworker heat-related death probability is: 1 in 256,140 workers.
– Risk of being struck by lightning in one year is: 1 in 700,000 people.
– Risk of being struck by lightning in one’s lifetime is: 1 in 3,000 people
– 33% of deaths from lightning strikes are agricultural workers.
So, let’s make farmers conduct 40 hours of mandatory equipment safety training per employee and require permanent OSHA inspectors on-site… and also install mobile lightning rods over the heads of all their workers.
See where this goes? It is perpetual. It lacks common sense. It sounds good and feels good to support this type of legislation, but it is exactly the accumulation of years of the same that have overloaded business with excess operational complexity and costs. We need to stop and consider statistics and math because we simply cannot afford to keep trying to save the world from any and all challenges, struggles and risks. We need to be ROLLING BACK oppressive business regulations instead of announcing new costly regulations. This is madness. What the hell is wrong with our politicians doing ANYTHING at this point that increases pressure on our unemployment bubble? They are really that ignorant, or do their political goals transcend common sense?
David; the law, as written, does NOT provide that the canteen is a water source. Section 6721(b)(1) requires continuous, ready access to water within 10 feet. Section 6721(b)(2) is not restrictive of 6721(b)(1): in fact, (b)(2) allows a worker to be given a cup, OR a canteen; that’s a different provision, relating to equipment to be provided to the employee. (b)(1) relates to the Employer’s obligation to provide water within a certain distance; (b)(2) relates to an employer’s obligation to provide equipment. It’s a poorly drafted law. It’s a trial lawyer’s dream: any violation is, per se, a violation of Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200.
There are questions along the lines of “I pay overtime, why shouldn’t farmers?” Farm products are subject to global competition for pricing; if a local landscape business had to compete with landscape business “X”, but landscape business “X” was able to pay its laborers the prevailing rate in China, or Mexico (as in the case of farmers), your business would collapse.
And with respect to the 17 year old pregnant woman… since it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, and illegal to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, and illegal to ask questions during hiring that would implicate those issues… how exactly is an employer supposed to “not hire” a pregnant female?
[quote]Elaine, I would defer to you on this related to farm labor. However, if I ask a work candidate or employee if she is pregnant I break the law. If I refuse to hire her, or change her job because she is pregnant, I break the law. [/quote]
I researched this case, which it turns out is a bit misleading. The girl in question who died was only two months pregnant, so she may not have even known she was expecting. So her pregnancy for me is a non-issue at only two months along.
As to your question, if the pregnancy makes the person unable to do the job properly, it is perfectly permissible to not hire/fire her. So your statement “If I refuse to hire her, or change her job because she is pregnant, I break the law” is incorrect. See [url]http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-an-employer-legally-ask-me-to-resign-because-i-6814.html[/url]
[quote]More facts are needed, but pregnancy discrimination is generally a violation of legal prohibitions against sex discrimination. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) In the case you describe, you might be asked to resign from a particular position if pregnancy would render you unable to perform the job. (This is rare unless your doctor has given you medical-related work restrictions.) If your employer has a job you can perform within any restrictions, you should be transferred to that job rather than fired. [/quote]
I understand your confusion on this issue. As I was researching the matter, I came across several legal websites who had it wrong. I’m pretty familiar with this area of the law, so I knew when I was being given bogus information.
1. There are lots of industries that compete globally that pay overtime.
2. Lightning strikes and injuries are more common than most people think. Nobody should be working out in the open during a lightning storm. Duh.
[quote]I also do not agree with your statement “a 17 year old who is pregnant should not be doing field labor”. That is a bit discriminatory, don’t you think?
My neighbors in the first house that we owned on a private drive wanted to farm the easement shoulder on either side of the drive. The rest of the neighbors agreed as long as the requesting family maintained it and kept it nice looking. The farming neighbors were a Mormon family with six kids. I left for work one morning seeing the wife, who was 9-months pregnant with her seventh, weeding the garden. I came home from work and she was still weeding. I went in our house and my wife said: “Did you hear she had the baby today?”
So, I absolutely disagree that we need a blanket rule that a pregnant 17-year old should not work in the fields. That should be her choice. There are a lot of women that can handle lots of different kind of work up until the doctor tells them to push… then they just work harder after that. It depends on the person.[/quote]
Here is where I have to disagree. There is a huge difference between doing some weeding in a home garden, versus working in the fields long, hot hours as a migrant worker. I weeded my garden at 7 months pregnant and thought nothing of it. But it wasn’t particularly hot, and I wasn’t out there more than 2 hours. And I have to tell you, I mistakenly thought the pregnant girl who died was 7 months pregnant – I have no idea where I got that idea from.
I am not necessarily an advocate for over-regulation. I am somewhat sympathetic to the responsible farmer. But then the responsible farmer really has nothing to worry about if the regulation is reasonable. And supplying migrant labor in the fields with water and shade seems a no-brainer to me. Now whether the water is within 10 feet versus 200 feet seems overkill to me (pardon the pun); and I’m glad to hear from the farmer it appears there are pretty severe consequences for noncompliance. But if some 17 year old who was 7 months pregnant showed up in 100 degree heat to pick vegetables, the farmer should not hire her – the work is too dangerous for someone that far along. And the farmer can legally make that judgment call…
There ARE many industries that compete globally, and pay overtime. However, as we’ve seen, the result is outsourcing manufacturing overseas becoming the norm, not the exception. However, the agricultural sector is different (in part) because the production facility cannot be relocated, without the farmer going under; there are tens of thousands of manufacturers of a particular “product,” and thousands of distributors who procure the goods based on price, etc. etc. But you really can’t dispute that American farmers are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to labor costs as they relate to competition-and labor costs are generally the biggest expense a farmer faces. If foreign countries have marketable commodities, the US is often marginalized, due to production expenses (see “Garlic,” or “Pineapples,” among other items)
“Farmworkers are 4-5 times more likely to die from hazardous tools and equipment than from heat exposure.”
That is not surprising since heat exposure tends to be not only seasonal but also geographical as well as related to the time of the day. I would venture to say that farmworkers are exposed far more often to the use of tools and equipment than to heat and that would account for that differential (accepting your math at face value).
“I researched this case, which it turns out is a bit misleading. The girl in question who died was only two months pregnant, so she may not have even known she was expecting. So her pregnancy for me is a non-issue at only two months along.”
I covered the case at the time and the real problem to me was the lax medical treatment she was given after it was clear she was in distress. Water issues were there as well however and that is what this legislation is attempting to deal with.
Downtown: Do you have a general objection to the law or do you have a specific objection to provisions within it? Seems to me the specifics of the legislation could still be tweaked (there Senate version is still pending).
When NAFTA passed, it was expected that the wage disparities in agriculture would seriously affect California farmers. After all, at the time Mexican labor wage averaged $6 a day. But in fact, the impact on growers of the many specialty crops in our state was not significant. It varied, of course; I remember news articles about Brussels sprouts growers being out-competed, while the almond industry clearly benefited. But to your statement”
[i]”you really can’t dispute that American farmers are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to labor costs as they relate to competition-and labor costs are generally the biggest expense a farmer faces. If foreign countries have marketable commodities, the US is often marginalized…”[/i]
I would say that is not an accurate analysis overall. American farmers are at a disadvantage for labor costs, but still successfully compete.
Here’s a study, a few years old but very comprehensive: [url]http://aic.ucdavis.edu/research1/NAFTA_full.pdf[/url]
David, the other point to consider is that farm work comes with a higher level of danger. Like crab fishing and underwater construction… some jobs are inherently more dangerous.
The highest percentage of farmworkers are recent immigrants or seasonal workers from Mexico. What is the rate of farm laborer death from heat stroke in Mexico? I suspect that the US is a MUCH safer place to work for farm laborers… and the rate of injury or death from heat stroke is so low that it does not require these new rules. Assuming this bill passes, my expectation is that the rate of injury or death from heat stroke will not decline, or will decline so little to be statistically insignificant. There is that saying “you can lead the horse to water, but you cannot make him drink”.
[i]”And the farmer can legally make that judgment call”[/i]
And Mike Harrington, or another attorney, would be happy to take the case to sue the farmer for discrimination of a pregnant woman.
Elaine, I have reviewed your resources and response to my question about the legality of an employer asking about pregnancy and then refusing to hire someone because she was pregnant. At best these laws and precedent are ambiguous and fraught with a high level of legal risk for the employer. I think you are on shaky ground for this… based on how I read it. I certainly would not be comfortable taking that action based on the law.
David; the potable water requirement should be modified to “readily available,” consistent with every other occupation. That way, it fits with what’s occurring on the ground. Water should be available; but there’s a big difference between how close it really needs to be, depending if someone’s riding a 4-wheeler, checking an orchard, or hand weeding a row crop. If there’s a working crew, for example, picking stonefruit in an orchard (assuming 15-foot tree spacing), that’s one water source for every 4 trees being harvested….
The exclusive enforcement mechanism should be through the Labor Commissioner’s Office. Creating a private right of action, particularly with a “10 foot” standard (sorry-it’s a absolute. If it’s 11 feet away, it’s a violation. There’s no gray area) is insane. It’s effectively a one-way fee shift, so it promotes the same type of shakedowns through demand letters, demands a farmer has no recourse but to settle. There’s no requirement of actual injury to create the private right of action; only that the violation occurred. “You failed to provide a clean 8-oz cup.” “the water source for the bulk of the day was located 25 feet way.” Bingo, 2 violations at $500 each, plus a demand for $3000 in attorneys’ fees….
Don, the 2002 NAFTA analysis predates expirations of many of the TRQ’s that were still in place (tariffs); NAFTA kept 5/10/15 year tariffs in place on many commodities. You may want to check out the NFFC fact sheet (http://www.nffc.net/Learn/Fact Sheets/food inc and fresh.pdf), or the Congressional Research Center (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34468.pdf). Crops where the United States remains competitive are largely those where geography is a key factor (we have optimal conditions); efficiency is key; or post-harvest practices add value (think winegrapes); or there are just blatant subsidies (soybeans).
The UK has [b]Health and Safety at Work Regulations[/b]. The [b]Risk Assessment[/b] section seems to mitigate the risks to employers being sued for age, health or pregnancy discrimination.
[quote]Risk assessment
3.—(1) Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of—
(a)the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and .
(b)the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking, .
for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions and by Part II of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997.
(2) Every self-employed person shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of—
(a)the risks to his own health and safety to which he is exposed whilst he is at work; and .
(b)the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking, .
for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions.
(3) Any assessment such as is referred to in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be reviewed by the employer or self-employed person who made it if—
(a)there is reason to suspect that it is no longer valid; or .
(b)there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates; and where as a result of any such review changes to an assessment are required, the employer or self-employed person concerned shall make them. .
(4) An employer shall not employ a young person unless he has, in relation to risks to the health and safety of young persons, made or reviewed an assessment in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (5).
(5) In making or reviewing the assessment, an employer who employs or is to employ a young person shall take particular account of—
(a)the inexperience, lack of awareness of risks and immaturity of young persons; .
(b)the fitting-out and layout of the workplace and the workstation; .
(c)the nature, degree and duration of exposure to physical, biological and chemical agents; .
(d)the form, range, and use of work equipment and the way in which it is handled; .
(e)the organisation of processes and activities; .
(f)the extent of the health and safety training provided or to be provided to young persons; and .
(g)risks from agents, processes and work listed in the Annex to Council Directive 94/33/EC(1) on the protection of young people at work. .
(6) Where the employer employs five or more employees, he shall record—
(a)the significant findings of the assessment; and .
(b)any group of his employees identified by it as being especially at risk.[/quote]
“As an employer, I pay overtime for anything over 8 hours in a work day. Why shouldn’t you?”
Don, I do pay overtime during harvest when things need to get done with the labor we have. But farmers can not afford to pay overtime every work day of the year just to get the work done, they will hire more people and everyone will work an 8 hour day, 40 hour work week just like virtually all other business in California. What you should be asking is why can’t other businesses offer a 60 hour straight pay work week if their employees ask for that option. Ask any of my employees which they would prefer and every one of them will say they prefer the 60 hour week.
“These are heat regulations required when the temperature rises above 80 degrees “
David that may have been the intent of the regulation, but nowhere in AB 2346 does it refer to a temperature trigger and it specifically supercedes prior regulations. Read the bill.
This bill is a knee jerk reaction to a problem that has already been well addressed. The current standards are indeed working well in the field, we do not need more heaped on top.
Delta Farmer: I though farm workers were exempt from overtime laws. Do you pay OT just because it is your specific company policy; or am I wrong about the law?
I agree with your idea to allow employees to choose for themselves if they want to work 40, 50 or 60 hours a week for straight pay. I think some on this blog will opine that these employees might be too ignorant to make that decision themselves and thus require the care of nanny government to set the rules to work by.
Jeff Boone said “So, if I understand this correctly, the contractors should have received harsher punishment for failing to protect this pregnant 17-year old girl from her own lack of good judgment? Why should we create more tragedy… damaging more lives in retribution? “
Whatever you feelings about the the legislation Jeff, your indifference to the death of a 17 year old is disturbing.
Delta Farmer: The senate version seems to have an 80 degree temperature trigger. I’m on my phone or I would link it.
” I think some on this blog will opine that these employees might be too ignorant to make that decision themselves and thus require the care of nanny government to set the rules to work by.”
I would opine that such a provision would allow the employees to be pressured into the employer’s ideal arrangement.
Mr. Toad – No projecting please.
I just have a different perspective that solutions need to be designed from a rational perspective and not an emotional one.
The following might help you understand that perspective. It is the “fence test”:
Which side of the fence are you on?
[moved to bulletin board; see thread started by medwoman here:[url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=729&Itemid=192[/url]
Jeff, most agricultural workers in California are subject to overtime for hours worked over 10 hours in a day or 60 hours in a week.
David, farmworkers choose to work in agriculture because of the 10 hour work day. They are here to make money. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads to stay and work long hours. I have always encouraged employees to find the best employment they can, and I have a very stable work force. Of the few that have left to work in another industry, many come back when they realize that they can only work a 40 hour week, and they discover what it costs to rent an apartment in town.
JB: [i]If a conservative is homosexual, he leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.[/i]
My observation is that conservative homosexuals end up becoming liberal on the issue of homosexuality. I thought you used to define yourself as something like socially moderate to liberal. I guess not.
Great post Jeff and so true.
[quote]“Farmworkers are 4-5 times more likely to die from hazardous tools and equipment than from heat exposure.” [/quote]
And I am sure that doctors are far more than 4-5 times more likely to die from heart attacks than from needle sticks. That does not mean that we should not encourage needle safety in the OR.
Jeff
I could not resist my response to your “fence test”. But this was so far off topic that I decided to exile myself to the Bulletin Board before either Don or David decided to whip out the hook, as it were. If you have time, I think you might get a smile or two out of my reinterpretation.
Delta Farmer
[quote]David, farmworkers choose to work in agriculture because of the 10 hour work day. They are here to make money. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads to stay and work long hours. I have always encouraged employees to find the best employment they can, and I have a very stable work force. Of the few that have left to work in another industry, many come back when they realize that they can only work a 40 hour week, and they discover what it costs to rent an apartment in town.[/quote]
I think that our difference of opinion about this stems from a different interpretation of the word “choice”.
There is a huge difference between being able to choose freely between roughly comparable options for work and having to choose between accepting long hours that mean the ability to eat and have housing vs shorter hours that provide either one or the other, but not both.
I also disagree that “nobody is holding a gun to their heads to stay and work longer hours”. True it is not a gun, with the immediate risk of fatality, but rather the risk of malnutrition, exposure, or illness for them or them families. This is clearly a threat, even if not of a bullet, and does not consistute for me a real “choice”.
I agree with Medwoman here. I disagree on choice and while there is no gun holding, there is the obvious necessity of getting work and the lack of obvious choices. I know quite a few migrant farm workers and I don’t think most would characterize it as a choice. That they are willing to do that work does not mean that we need to exploit that willingness.
Sorry Jeff, indifference to premature death is inhumane no matter what side of the fence you are on. This is why there is no statute of limitations on murder. All employers have a responsibility to keep their employees alive and their customers too. That you fail to understand this is shocking. You can be against this legislation all you want but the facts of the death of this young woman, facts that caused the indictment of her boss, are clearly unacceptable. If your dismissive attitude towards this incident were to prevail there would be many more deaths than you can imagine. In fact, that is the problem, there was a cluster of heat related deaths of farm workers around the time of this incident.
When there is a cluster of deaths for any reason we need to look for solutions to systemic flaws. Think about changes at the post office in response to the Unabomber or tamper proof seals as examples. This legislation may not be the perfect solution but to argue that its just the fault of the victims so we shouldn’t try to improve the system is not the way we do things in this country. It is not only inhumane but also invites more fatalities.
“The highest percentage of farmworkers are recent immigrants or seasonal workers from Mexico.”
Can you cite your source to support this statement?
[i]”That they are willing to do that work does not mean that we need to exploit that willingness.”[/i]
This statement and Mr. Toad’s and medwoman’s posts clearly define an absolute different view of the world as it related to society and the human condition. It is fascinating to me for a few reasons: one – it confirms what I believe to be the case, two – it establishes that we will never agree on many things that stem from this view.
Three – I think it is destructive even though well-intended.
We can’t walk in each other’s shoes, which is unfortunate because it might help us better understand how these opposing viewpoints developed and stick.
For me, this statement is breathtaking in its blind Orwellian-ness and derogatory-ness. It defines an “US” and “THEM” division; where “US” are the class of people that know better and provide care, and “THEM” are the ignorant and incapable class of people that will always need US to save them from their poor decisions and those that would exploit their circumstances.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that all of us agree that there is a percentage of the population at the lower steps of the pyramid-ladder climb to greater economic prosperity. I think we can certainly agree on this since it can be based on simple math and statistics. We can debate the magnitude of impact for the line under which we say is poverty. For example, 80% of those we define as being in poverty in the US have a standard of living in the top 10% of the global population. Nevertheless, if we shelve that debate we can degree with the numbers below the line we set.
So then, the next logical question is what do we do about those below the line? What is the best approach to for helping them achieve greater prosperity and/or happiness?
Here is where the real conflict exists… and it is a doozy, IMO.
My experience in life is that life is a damn struggle no matter where on the pyramid-ladder fate and luck happen to launch you from. Humans are designed – either from our creator or our evolution or both – to reset our expectations relative to our own view of our own circumstances. We never reach some point where we are satisfied. This is a positive attribute in the sense that it causes us to continually strive for improvement and advancement. It is why billionaires seek to achieve greater success. It is why people starting with nothing can create a great life for themselves (assuming they live in a free country with a robust private economy).
The American system has been successful because it has exploited this tendency of individual pursuit of happiness and prosperity within a robust free-market economic system. It was designed to combat the exact type of toop-down social justice pressures and demands implicit in what David and medwoman write and what our political system has morphed into from responding to.
Mr. Toad takes the easy road attacking me personally as being indifferent to the death of a 17-year old. He is establishing a story that he is a better person because he cares about this lost person more than I do. That is the identity pursuit of most of my friends on the left… they want it to be known that they care more.
It is blind and short-sighted bullshit.
The person blogging on this topic that cares the most about these individuals is Delta Farmer. However, he is the very one being targeted with punishment from Mr. Toad, David, medwoman and Representative Yamada. Think about it… these folks would disallow these people from choosing to work 60 hours per week. In their mind these people are victims incapable of making that decision. In their minds Delta Farmer is exploiting their “unfortunate” circumstances to abuse them with the need to work 60 hour weeks. In their minds, we should step in and protect and save these people from the unhappiness (projected unhappiness) that must be caused anybody having to work in the fields for 60 hours per week.
The primary difference in our views here is a level of sophistication for understanding relative happiness and emotional projection. Mr. Toad, David, medwoman and Ms. Yamada, like many people with a more liberal political worldview, project a victim status on these farmworkers. They assign a level of unhappiness to their existence relative to how THEY project they would feel in similar circumstances… stopping short of rationalizing what the relative views of others might be. They “feel the pain” of the farmworker and are compelled to save them from it… even if the individual farmworker is not in pain and not unhappy. They feel it, so it much be so.
Here is the problem… humans can be trained to be give up. Their natural motivation to strive and grow and struggle and persevere can be destroyed by others telling them they are oppressed and exploited victims. Want a solution to poverty in this country? Stop training people to be victims, and start re-training them to pursue individual happiness.
I simply do not see a farmworker as a victim. They are just humans deserving of the same benefit of consideration for their human condition. I have the same expectations for their ability to strive, grow, struggle and persevere as I do any other human. The people giving them a job and opportunities for self-determined growth and economic prosperity are those deserving the label of saver and hero. In my opinion, those projecting a victim status on them are those worthy of scorn. Sorry.
“The person blogging on this topic that cares the most about these individuals is Delta Farmer. “
My wife’s family was a farm working family. She grew up with brothers and sisters working along side her mother. She very strongly disagrees with your view here.
David:
Here is a source: [url]http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report/ch1.cfm[/url]
David, of course she disagrees. Go back and read what I wrote to understand a possible reason why.
How do you reconcile the flood of people that want to migrate here to work in the fields in the US as being unhappy and exploited immediately after they arrive? How do you resolve the obvious conflict given that these people have struggled to pursue greater propsperity and succeeded? What is their relative happiness compared to the people in their home county unable to migrate here and work in the fields?
I was a farm worker for many years when I was young, and I found my coworkers to be very happy people. I find them less happy now. I think they are being told they should be unhappy by those that want to exploit that manufactured unhappiness.
“How do you reconcile the flood of people that want to migrate here to work in the fields in the US as being unhappy and exploited immediately after they arrive? “
Desperation? Having no other choice? Accepting the lesser of the horrible situations? It gets back to my initial point, just because someone willingly submits to a given situation does not mean we are right to exploit that willingness.
But David, that is you projecting again. You are setting some level of expectation relative to your own views. Being low income does not mean unhappiness. It is also not a permanent condition unless a person choses to stay there or gives up trying to advance.
When I was young I was very poor. But I was never a victim. If I am ever a victim, it would only be for a very temporary time until I could fix the damage caused me. God forbid I am ever a victim of my own dysfunction… or that I slip down that slippery slope of comfort waiting for others to care for me. What a terrible place to be… capable but defeated.
Another consideration for you is that you cannot save the world. People desperate in Mexico cannot be part of our domestic economic problem. You cannot save people from themselves. You certainly cannot save people outside of the control of our system of governance. You can only teach and provide opportunity for them to save themself.
It is a glass half full view that the US agriculture industry is strong enough to provide these job opportunities for migrants from other countries where they have far fewer opportunities. You should celebrate this and thank the farmer and slap the farmworker on the back in congratulations of his/her good fortune.
Then go to work helping to provide training and education so these farm workers can pursue the next step up the pyramid-latter of US economic prosperity and happiness.
There is nothing wrong with honest hard work. Trust me; it is much more healing than the hours of therapy so many Americans seem to require these days.
Don’t be so gloomy about the plight of farmworkers… or, I think I might have to start affectionately calling you Eeyore!
“But David, that is you projecting again. You are setting some level of expectation relative to your own views.”
How do you know I’m not basing it on conversations I have had with farm workers?
David:
Go here: [url]http://www.agsafe.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=53[/url]
Note that this is funded primarily by private companies in the agriculture business.
What is your vision for an acceptable situation for farm labor?
I don’t have a vision per se. I do think that dealing with the issues that led to the death of the 17 year old were a reasonable approach. I would encourage those who believe that the wording and language should be cleaned up or tightened to do so.
“Mr. Toad takes the easy road attacking me personally as being indifferent to the death of a 17-year old. He is establishing a story that he is a better person because he cares about this lost person more than I do. That is the identity pursuit of most of my friends on the left… they want it to be known that they care more.”
Talk about projection!
Jeff, indifference to human death puts you outside the mainstream. This seems to be what you don’t get.
Indifference to human death? Wow Toad. That is sure a shovel full of fertilizer.
So, do I take it that you believe you are “in” the mainstream. Maybe you can enlighten me for what you think being in the mainstream looks like. How does someone like yourself express himself well enough concerning human death to not be labeled as being indifferent to it?
I will say, though, that having dealt with an awful lot of death of family members in my life, it might give me a different perspective about the topic. I might possibly even have a more evolved perspective than those having less experience. One bit of that perspective is that dead people don’t give a shovel-full-of-fertilizer what you or I think, say or write. So, if you are prone to feeling sad over the death of someone, just make sure you are not projecting that sadness on them. Instead, you should try thinking about the living and what you might do to help make their lives safer, happier and richer.
Yamada’s bill might make farm workers a little safer. Though, I doubt it will make much of a statistical difference. We might only just feel better that we did at least try something. However, it won’t help make anyone’s life happier or richer. In fact, it will do the opposite. That is my problem… In honor of this dead girl, we are going to make farmworker’s lives less happy and less rich, while really not doing much to improve their safety. It is not good legislation. It is the wrong way to solve the problem.
Its pretty simple don’t be dismissive of those who have died. When people die ask what can be done to prevent somebody else from suffering the same fate.
Jeff your philosophy of workplace safety seems more retro than Upton Sinclair’s “The jungle” and yes of course he was a socialist. Its 2012 not 1912. Jeff we try to keep our workers alive.
[quote]“I researched this case, which it turns out is a bit misleading. The girl in question who died was only two months pregnant, so she may not have even known she was expecting. So her pregnancy for me is a non-issue at only two months along.”
“I covered the case at the time and the real problem to me was the lax medical treatment she was given after it was clear she was in distress. Water issues were there as well however and that is what this legislation is attempting to deal with.”[/quote]When you covered this case at the time, David, did you gather anything about why there would be such a light plea agreement for such an apparently serious case of manslaughter? What we’ve read so far doesn’t track. I can’t imagine any law that would bring a heavier sentence down on those responsible.
No because when I covered the case, they hadn’t even charged them yet.
Guess we’re going back and forth with basically the same followup comments on these two Assemblymember Yamada stories. So, I’m moving to today’s story to try to understand this. Generally, I can’t see any reason to have new laws if the existing laws for the identical situations aren’t adequately enforced.
Using the death of a pregnant 17-year-old to garner support for Ms. Yamada’s proposal doesn’t make sense since inadequate laws don’t seem to be the problem with this farmworker’s case. Inadequate/improper enforcement of existing laws appears to be the problem to be corrected.
“Ms. Yamada’s proposal”
That’s the odd thing, it’s not Yamada’s proposal. She only voted for it.
“I can’t see any reason to have new laws if the existing laws for the identical situations aren’t adequately enforced. “
There are not current regulating water and breaks for farmworkers. Where there are current laws is that the supervisors failed to take proper care of their employee when she became distressed. As Medwoman said in today’s article – she felt at that point it was probably too late. If that’s the case, then the current laws could not have saved the young lady.