|
Farmworker union activists’ testimony to legislators in support of a politically-motivated bill was filled with misstatements of fact and outright fabrications. FACT CHECK:"We believe there is no worker shortage."- Rosalinda Guillen in testimony to WA House of Representatives Labor and Workplace Standards Committee, Jan. 22, 2019.
“Yes, there’s a lot of oversight, there’s a lot of rules, there’s a lot of regulations, but it’s not monitored efficiently.”- Rosalinda Guillen on H-2A guestworker program in testimony to WA House of Representatives Labor and Workplace Standards Committee, Jan. 22, 2019.
“This program has been growing and displacing local workers.”- Ramon Torres on H-2A guestworker program in testimony to WA House of Representatives Labor and Workplace Standards Committee, Jan. 22, 2019.
“H-2A employers are incentivized to reject local workers.”- Andrea Schmitt, in testimony to WA House of Representatives Labor and Workplace Standards Committee, Jan. 22, 2019.
“This program is being used against domestic workers.”- Ramon Torres on H-2A guestworker program in testimony to WA House of Representatives Labor and Workplace Standards Committee, Jan. 22, 2019.
“H-2A workers are expressly exempt from the main federal law that protects farmworkers, the Agricultural Worker Protection Act.”- Andrea Schmitt, in testimony to WA House of Representatives Labor and Workplace Standards Committee, Jan. 22, 2019.
“Retaliation against H-2A workers who demand even basic employment standards is rampant.”- Andrea Schmitt, in testimony to WA House of Representatives Labor and Workplace Standards Committee, Jan. 22, 2019.
“The H-2A program makes workers uniquely vulnerable to abuse.”- Andrea Schmitt, in testimony to WA House of Representatives Labor and Workplace Standards Committee, Jan. 22, 2019.
|
 | While there is an obligation for any qualified, available domestic workers to receive jobs before H-2A guest workers can be hired, some who apply are often not qualified and/or available for the specific job openings. It has been a practice of anti-H-2A labor activists to provide long lists of workers “applying” for these jobs in an attempt to disprove a farmer’s claim of lack of labor. But those lists have been found to be almost entirely comprised of people either unqualified, unavailable, or simply unwilling to do the jobs the farmer has open. |
“There have been problems with the [ESD] wage survey in the last few years that have threatened to depress wages as much as 4 to 6 dollars per hour.”
- Andrea Schmitt, in testimony to WA House of Representatives Labor and Workplace Standards Committee, Jan. 22, 2019.
| | Although both farmers and farmworker advocates have questioned the accuracy of the wage survey, there is no way around the fact that the minimum wages required for all workers doing the same job on a farm using the H-2A program are guaranteed to be higher in Washington than anywhere else in the US. We’re not sure how Schmidt can claim that the best minimum pay for farmworkers in the nation is somehow “depressed” by several dollars an hour. In fact, some believe that the wage survey’s problems, alluded to by Schmidt, have actually artificially inflated farm worker wages in Washington. |
Claim: The Sumas farm retaliated against a group of workers simply because they were seeking information.
- Made by Ramon Torres on H-2A guestworker program in testimony to WA House of Representatives Labor and Workplace Standards Committee, Jan. 22, 2019.
 | Farmers bear the costs of bringing workers far from their homes, provide government approved housing, and pay numerous other costs when using guest workers. Why in the middle of the time-sensitive fruit harvest would a farmer send much-needed farmworkers packing simply for asking for information? No farmer wants to lose workers at the very time they are needed most. Mr. Torres’ answer does not add up. |
Labor advocates distorted the facts in testimony to legislators in Olympia.
A new proposal, House Bill 1398/Senate Bill 5438, was aimed at compensating the State Employment Security Department for its role in monitoring farms using guest workers. This unnecessary additional monitoring -- given the exceptional level of oversight of the many regulations protecting farm workers under the federal guest worker program -- will be costly, cumbersome and only encourage more farming to leave this state, taking away more work opportunities from both domestic and guest workers.
Secondly, because the guest worker program is federal, any cost burden that the state needs to bear should come from federal, not state funds. The guest worker program is already exorbitantly expensive because of the requirement of Adverse Effect Wage Rates and the numerous obligations including free housing and transportation. As was seen with some categories of fruit this past season, Washington farming is rapidly losing market share to foreign competition because of the 20 to 30 times more in labor costs that workers in Washington benefit from.
Passage of any such measure should be based on actual facts, not on false accusations and outright fabrications. Some advocates of the measure are not being truthful in pushing legislators to pass this bill. While they claim to be advocating on behalf of workers, their actions against one farm actually cost over 600 guest workers the opportunity to continue working at this farm. The farm has instead turned to mechanical harvesting rather than face the continuing false accusations and litigation of the union activists. This meant that these workers had to find alternative, often less appealing, guest worker opportunities in states like Georgia and Florida, or lose the income they count on to support their families in Mexico. The $11 per day(!) minimum wage for farm work in Mexico pales in comparison to the $20 to $30 per hour most earned on this Sumas farm.
Fruit imports are now at well over 50% of US consumption. Mexican farms are rapidly gaining ground over our local farmers because of the vast difference in compensation and benefits. Consumers are hurt because of food safety issues with this imported fruit, but even more importantly, workers are hurt as they lose these high-value opportunities. Adding more costs to our farmers will further accelerate this trend that consumers don’t like and that actually harms workers despite claims that it’s intended to help them.
The motivation is not, as they say, protecting workers. Their goal is to limit farmers from having access to available workers, thereby pushing their union agenda more easily. With just one union agreement in place in the state, Ramon Torres, the head of the union, was quoted in a news article as saying his goal is to gain full-time employment from union dues, so he does not have to continue working as a farm laborer.
We have no objection to his pursuit of full-time union employment. We do however object to his and his fellow union activists distorting the truth and telling outright falsehoods in their support of this legislation as well as in their publicity efforts.
On January 22, 2019, several of these activists testified before the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee. Much of their testimony is in direct contradiction to the facts. Their statements can be viewed here and time references are provided to assist viewing: www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2019011193
Ramon Torres (:51.26 to :56.00)
Mr. Torres’ primary testimony is that there is no shortage of domestic workers and this program prevents domestic workers from getting these jobs. Either report about the sharp decline in available farm works is wrong, or Mr. Torres is not telling the truth. It is not just the statistics and numerous media reports documenting the severe worker shortage that contradict Mr. Torres’ testimony, but the fact that farmers must first provide extensive proof of their efforts to recruit domestic workers and that farmers would most certainly prefer to hire local workers if they could. This is because of the high cost of the guest worker program. Mr. Torres’ unsubstantiated statement that the guest worker program adversely affects domestic workers is contradicted by the fact that when domestic workers and guest workers are hired by the same farm to do the same work, all of them must be paid the Adverse Effect Wage Rate. In Washington state the 2019 AEWR is $15.03, once again the highest in the nation. Other states such as South Carolina must pay as low as $11.13 per hour in 2019. This puts our farmers at a competitive disadvantage with farmers from other states, not to mention the far greater wage difference paid by foreign farmers.
Mr. Torres does not mention that the workers at the farm which signed an agreement with Mr. Torres’ union would be getting paid considerably more than has been reported they currently are if the farm employed even a few guest workers.
Mr. Torres was later asked for clarification of his statements about worker retaliation. At 1:02.20 Mr. Torres explains that the workers at the Sumas farm were retaliated against for merely asking for information about the worker who became ill. He states that the response of the farm to asking the question was to put their bags out on the street. He further stated that the workers did not know where the bus stop, airport or stores were.
This again contradicts the known facts about the situation. No farmer who has assumed the full cost of transportation to and from Mexico and who badly needs those workers in the middle of harvest would return workers for simply asking a question or seeking information. Further, the farm has full responsibility for transportation at any time should the worker decide to return home. That includes bus transportation to not only the airport and stores but also to recreational opportunities provided to the workers such as the excursions to Lake Whatcom. Workers who leave their jobs and do not return to work can be returned to their homes, again at the farm’s expense. The farm is obligated to ensure their return in order to prevent the guest worker program from becoming an avenue for illegal immigration.
Rosalinda Guillen (:57.30 to 1:01.40)
Ms. Guillen, head of the activist group Community to Community, testified that the bill would provide greater efficiency in monitoring farms for potential abuse of workers and that it would save money and prevent the deaths of workers such as what happened on the Sumas farm in 2017. Ms. Guillen said in her testimony: “Yes, there’s a lot of oversight, there’s a lot of rules, there’s a lot of regulations, but it is not monitored efficiently.” We are grateful that Ms. Guillen recognized the exceptional level of oversight, rules and regulations of the guest worker program. But she provided no support for her contention that adding an additional level of oversight would add to efficiency. It contradicts experience to suggest that a program that is already very highly regulated and enforced would experience more efficiency by adding a redundant layer.
The current inspections are conducted by numerous agencies in addition to private audits required by many distributors and retailers. Evidence of the severity of even minor violations of rest breaks and meal breaks is provided by the initial fine of $149,000 issued against the Sumas farm by the Department of Labor & Industries. The Department reported to the press that the publicity about the farm generated by Ms. Guillen led to the exorbitant fine. We ask if this is fair or just given the dishonesty in the accusations. We also ask what other industry or employer faces this kind of scrutiny and punishment?
Ms. Guillen’s primary complaint against the H-2A program and the Sumas farm is that she claims the program and the farm management were responsible for the death of a guest worker in 2017. Unlike many previous public statements, in her testimony Ms. Guillen was careful not to make an explicit accusation. But she did claim that if this bill passes, such deaths would be prevented. Ms. Guillen and her supporters have consistently maintained positions in stark contrast to the facts including statements about worker accommodations, food, and most of all, about the cause of this worker’s tragic death. The Department of Labor & Industries’ investigation and the Medical Examiner records have made it very clear that the man died of natural causes due to untreated diabetes. The farm did everything they could to help the worker when they first became aware of it as the investigations showed. It is cynical at best for Ms. Guillen and her supporters to continually distort the facts about this tragic incident in pursuit of their income and political goals.
At 1:01.27 Ms. Guillen repeats Mr. Torres’ unsubstantiated conclusion when she states: “We believe there is no worker shortage.” Such obvious denials of the plain facts concerning worker treatment, worker shortages and enforcement of numerous rules and regulations need to be taken into consideration when evaluating Ms. Guillen’s testimony.
Andrea Schmitt (1:38 to 1:41)
Ms. Schmitt is an activist attorney with Columbia Legal Services, which has pursued legal action against a number of farms using guest workers. She states, again without any substantiation, that the guest worker program makes workers “uniquely vulnerable.” This contradicts Ms. Guillen’s testimony which recognizes the fact of numerous laws, rules, regulations and monitoring. It is unlikely that any worker working in the US is subject to more legal protections and more aggressive monitoring and enforcement of the numerous laws that apply.
Ms. Schmitt’s primary focus appears to be retaliation against workers which she claims, again without any substantiation, is rampant. She explains workers are vulnerable to retaliation for two reasons: 1) workers cannot leave the employment of one farm to go to work for another or presumably take a job in another industry such as construction, and 2) farmers have full control over who they choose to hire. What Ms. Schmitt apparently misses in this explanation that the farmer must prove to the federal Department of Labor with great detail their efforts to employ domestic workers, and show how those efforts have not succeeded in securing the needed workers. The farm then enters a contract that requires them to pay for all transportation, housing and numerous other requirements. The farm contract also makes the farm or farm labor employer responsible for the return of the worker home to prevent the program becoming an avenue for illegal immigration. If workers can move to farm to farm at their whim, who will pay the transportation costs? Who will ensure their return home?
Ms. Schmitt takes issue with farmer’s right to choose who their employees will be. This allows them, she suggests, to retaliate against workers who have proven to be troublesome. Would Ms. Schmitt also want to give this right to non-farm employees? Should any employer be forced to rehire a worker with a proven record of abuse, theft or troublemaking? What apparently makes guest workers “uniquely vulnerable” in Ms. Schmitt’s view simply amount to reasonable, widely-acceptable hiring practices.
Summary
The credibility of the witnesses providing testimony is crucial. Good policy decisions should be based on facts, not unsupported assertions and outright fabrications. Farm workers are highly valued, much needed and strongly protected by current laws, regulations and enforcement, which even the activists concede. No additional oversight is needed. If the state needs additional funds to compensate for its work required related to a federal program, that funding needs to come from the federal government. Adding further costs on farmers already struggling to find labor and pay the high costs of the guest worker program will result in accelerated food imports, food safety problems, loss of valuable jobs, and loss of farms to other states and nations.
Secondly, because the guest worker program is federal, any cost burden that the state needs to bear should come from federal, not state funds. The guest worker program is already exorbitantly expensive because of the requirement of Adverse Effect Wage Rates and the numerous obligations including free housing and transportation. As was seen with some categories of fruit this past season, Washington farming is rapidly losing market share to foreign competition because of the 20 to 30 times more in labor costs that workers in Washington benefit from.
Passage of any such measure should be based on actual facts, not on false accusations and outright fabrications. Some advocates of the measure are not being truthful in pushing legislators to pass this bill. While they claim to be advocating on behalf of workers, their actions against one farm actually cost over 600 guest workers the opportunity to continue working at this farm. The farm has instead turned to mechanical harvesting rather than face the continuing false accusations and litigation of the union activists. This meant that these workers had to find alternative, often less appealing, guest worker opportunities in states like Georgia and Florida, or lose the income they count on to support their families in Mexico. The $11 per day(!) minimum wage for farm work in Mexico pales in comparison to the $20 to $30 per hour most earned on this Sumas farm.
Fruit imports are now at well over 50% of US consumption. Mexican farms are rapidly gaining ground over our local farmers because of the vast difference in compensation and benefits. Consumers are hurt because of food safety issues with this imported fruit, but even more importantly, workers are hurt as they lose these high-value opportunities. Adding more costs to our farmers will further accelerate this trend that consumers don’t like and that actually harms workers despite claims that it’s intended to help them.
The motivation is not, as they say, protecting workers. Their goal is to limit farmers from having access to available workers, thereby pushing their union agenda more easily. With just one union agreement in place in the state, Ramon Torres, the head of the union, was quoted in a news article as saying his goal is to gain full-time employment from union dues, so he does not have to continue working as a farm laborer.
We have no objection to his pursuit of full-time union employment. We do however object to his and his fellow union activists distorting the truth and telling outright falsehoods in their support of this legislation as well as in their publicity efforts.
On January 22, 2019, several of these activists testified before the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee. Much of their testimony is in direct contradiction to the facts. Their statements can be viewed here and time references are provided to assist viewing: www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2019011193
Ramon Torres (:51.26 to :56.00)
Mr. Torres’ primary testimony is that there is no shortage of domestic workers and this program prevents domestic workers from getting these jobs. Either report about the sharp decline in available farm works is wrong, or Mr. Torres is not telling the truth. It is not just the statistics and numerous media reports documenting the severe worker shortage that contradict Mr. Torres’ testimony, but the fact that farmers must first provide extensive proof of their efforts to recruit domestic workers and that farmers would most certainly prefer to hire local workers if they could. This is because of the high cost of the guest worker program. Mr. Torres’ unsubstantiated statement that the guest worker program adversely affects domestic workers is contradicted by the fact that when domestic workers and guest workers are hired by the same farm to do the same work, all of them must be paid the Adverse Effect Wage Rate. In Washington state the 2019 AEWR is $15.03, once again the highest in the nation. Other states such as South Carolina must pay as low as $11.13 per hour in 2019. This puts our farmers at a competitive disadvantage with farmers from other states, not to mention the far greater wage difference paid by foreign farmers.
Mr. Torres does not mention that the workers at the farm which signed an agreement with Mr. Torres’ union would be getting paid considerably more than has been reported they currently are if the farm employed even a few guest workers.
Mr. Torres was later asked for clarification of his statements about worker retaliation. At 1:02.20 Mr. Torres explains that the workers at the Sumas farm were retaliated against for merely asking for information about the worker who became ill. He states that the response of the farm to asking the question was to put their bags out on the street. He further stated that the workers did not know where the bus stop, airport or stores were.
This again contradicts the known facts about the situation. No farmer who has assumed the full cost of transportation to and from Mexico and who badly needs those workers in the middle of harvest would return workers for simply asking a question or seeking information. Further, the farm has full responsibility for transportation at any time should the worker decide to return home. That includes bus transportation to not only the airport and stores but also to recreational opportunities provided to the workers such as the excursions to Lake Whatcom. Workers who leave their jobs and do not return to work can be returned to their homes, again at the farm’s expense. The farm is obligated to ensure their return in order to prevent the guest worker program from becoming an avenue for illegal immigration.
Rosalinda Guillen (:57.30 to 1:01.40)
Ms. Guillen, head of the activist group Community to Community, testified that the bill would provide greater efficiency in monitoring farms for potential abuse of workers and that it would save money and prevent the deaths of workers such as what happened on the Sumas farm in 2017. Ms. Guillen said in her testimony: “Yes, there’s a lot of oversight, there’s a lot of rules, there’s a lot of regulations, but it is not monitored efficiently.” We are grateful that Ms. Guillen recognized the exceptional level of oversight, rules and regulations of the guest worker program. But she provided no support for her contention that adding an additional level of oversight would add to efficiency. It contradicts experience to suggest that a program that is already very highly regulated and enforced would experience more efficiency by adding a redundant layer.
The current inspections are conducted by numerous agencies in addition to private audits required by many distributors and retailers. Evidence of the severity of even minor violations of rest breaks and meal breaks is provided by the initial fine of $149,000 issued against the Sumas farm by the Department of Labor & Industries. The Department reported to the press that the publicity about the farm generated by Ms. Guillen led to the exorbitant fine. We ask if this is fair or just given the dishonesty in the accusations. We also ask what other industry or employer faces this kind of scrutiny and punishment?
Ms. Guillen’s primary complaint against the H-2A program and the Sumas farm is that she claims the program and the farm management were responsible for the death of a guest worker in 2017. Unlike many previous public statements, in her testimony Ms. Guillen was careful not to make an explicit accusation. But she did claim that if this bill passes, such deaths would be prevented. Ms. Guillen and her supporters have consistently maintained positions in stark contrast to the facts including statements about worker accommodations, food, and most of all, about the cause of this worker’s tragic death. The Department of Labor & Industries’ investigation and the Medical Examiner records have made it very clear that the man died of natural causes due to untreated diabetes. The farm did everything they could to help the worker when they first became aware of it as the investigations showed. It is cynical at best for Ms. Guillen and her supporters to continually distort the facts about this tragic incident in pursuit of their income and political goals.
At 1:01.27 Ms. Guillen repeats Mr. Torres’ unsubstantiated conclusion when she states: “We believe there is no worker shortage.” Such obvious denials of the plain facts concerning worker treatment, worker shortages and enforcement of numerous rules and regulations need to be taken into consideration when evaluating Ms. Guillen’s testimony.
Andrea Schmitt (1:38 to 1:41)
Ms. Schmitt is an activist attorney with Columbia Legal Services, which has pursued legal action against a number of farms using guest workers. She states, again without any substantiation, that the guest worker program makes workers “uniquely vulnerable.” This contradicts Ms. Guillen’s testimony which recognizes the fact of numerous laws, rules, regulations and monitoring. It is unlikely that any worker working in the US is subject to more legal protections and more aggressive monitoring and enforcement of the numerous laws that apply.
Ms. Schmitt’s primary focus appears to be retaliation against workers which she claims, again without any substantiation, is rampant. She explains workers are vulnerable to retaliation for two reasons: 1) workers cannot leave the employment of one farm to go to work for another or presumably take a job in another industry such as construction, and 2) farmers have full control over who they choose to hire. What Ms. Schmitt apparently misses in this explanation that the farmer must prove to the federal Department of Labor with great detail their efforts to employ domestic workers, and show how those efforts have not succeeded in securing the needed workers. The farm then enters a contract that requires them to pay for all transportation, housing and numerous other requirements. The farm contract also makes the farm or farm labor employer responsible for the return of the worker home to prevent the program becoming an avenue for illegal immigration. If workers can move to farm to farm at their whim, who will pay the transportation costs? Who will ensure their return home?
Ms. Schmitt takes issue with farmer’s right to choose who their employees will be. This allows them, she suggests, to retaliate against workers who have proven to be troublesome. Would Ms. Schmitt also want to give this right to non-farm employees? Should any employer be forced to rehire a worker with a proven record of abuse, theft or troublemaking? What apparently makes guest workers “uniquely vulnerable” in Ms. Schmitt’s view simply amount to reasonable, widely-acceptable hiring practices.
Summary
The credibility of the witnesses providing testimony is crucial. Good policy decisions should be based on facts, not unsupported assertions and outright fabrications. Farm workers are highly valued, much needed and strongly protected by current laws, regulations and enforcement, which even the activists concede. No additional oversight is needed. If the state needs additional funds to compensate for its work required related to a federal program, that funding needs to come from the federal government. Adding further costs on farmers already struggling to find labor and pay the high costs of the guest worker program will result in accelerated food imports, food safety problems, loss of valuable jobs, and loss of farms to other states and nations.
Those trying to keep guest workers from having these high value jobs are hurting more than workers and farmers. We are now importing 20% of our food with major increases in food illnesses and pesticide residue. One big reason is the huge gap between what our farmers pay for labor vs. foreign farmers. Our farmers pay 20 times more than foreign competitors and our farmers are losing out. If you care about safe food made in Washington and want to make sure that farm workers are well paid protected, then help us spread the word.
We're importing more food than ever. With it, more pesticides and illnesses.
Rising labor costs in part caused by union activists are making it harder and harder for Washington's family farms to compete.
Report shows how shortage of farm workers leads to increase in imported food
Report shows how shortage of farm workers leads to increase in imported food
Union activists are causing more imported food and causing harm to consumers
 We are importing 20% of our food from foreign producers The problem is that with that increase comes an increase in food borne illnesses. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), "the number of outbreaks associated with an imported food increased from an average of 3 per year during 1996-2000 to an average of 18 per year during 2009–2014." Another issue is pesticide residue. The Food and Drug Administration reports that imported food is five times more likely to have pesticide residue above violation level than domestic food.  |  Worker shortage and high labor costs result in more imported food Farmers are struggling to find the workers needed to harvest crops and do other farm work. The number of undocumented immigrants has declined significantly since 2009 causing a severe shortage of farm workers. Washington farmers pay workers about $20 per hour with many earning more because of incentive pay. This is over 20 times more than most of their foreign competitors. Mexican minimum wage is $11 per day with other countries paying even less. Guest workers are also provided transportation and housing that must meet federal standards. Numerous labor laws protect farm workers – likely more than any other worker. These add about $1200 in costs per worker for a season. |
Union organizers work to prevent farmers from using the guest worker program
Washington farmers hired 20,000 guest workers, mostly from Mexico, during the 2020 season. Before being allowed to bring these workers in with legal visas, the farms had to prove they had exhausted all efforts to hire domestic workers.
Union organizers, like Community to Community, fight against guest workers thinking the severe worker shortage provides opportunity to impose unions.
In doing so, they harm workers who value these jobs. Washington guest workers returned $288 million to their families in Mexico in 2017 alone.
Taking these jobs takes food off the table of those who very much need it.
To stop guest workers, the activists attack farmers who hire them with vicious false accusations, file lawsuits and boycott major brands using the farms' products.
They continue to insist a Sumas berry farm caused the death of a worker in 2017 when in-depth investigation by Labor & Industries and the Medical Examiner declared he died of natural causes unrelated to any working conditions.
Union organizers, like Community to Community, fight against guest workers thinking the severe worker shortage provides opportunity to impose unions.
In doing so, they harm workers who value these jobs. Washington guest workers returned $288 million to their families in Mexico in 2017 alone.
Taking these jobs takes food off the table of those who very much need it.
To stop guest workers, the activists attack farmers who hire them with vicious false accusations, file lawsuits and boycott major brands using the farms' products.
They continue to insist a Sumas berry farm caused the death of a worker in 2017 when in-depth investigation by Labor & Industries and the Medical Examiner declared he died of natural causes unrelated to any working conditions.
Help us protect the right of workers to enjoy good jobs – and protect consumers at the same time
Farmworkers need your help to keep these high value jobs. Learn about the guest worker program, also called "H2A" for the legal visa these workers receive. Helping our family farmers secure the workers needed to produce our local, domestic food is in everyone's best interests.
Please consider joining our effort.
Please consider joining our effort.
Archives
May 2021
February 2021
February 2019
August 2018
June 2018
March 2018
RSS Feed