How activists are distorting the facts on guestworkers in WA
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.
|
Either Guillen is not telling the truth, or state and federal agencies, farmers and numerous news outlets all reporting on the growing labor shortage in WA farming are all engaged in an unprecedented conspiracy to fabricate the perception of a shortage. Given the many farmers across the state who have each lost many thousands--and in some cases millions--of dollars when no workers were available to pick crops, this is impossible, and Guillen’s claim doesn’t hold water.
|
“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.
|
Guillen is right that the H-2A program has extensive, detailed rules and regulations to protect workers, including many requirements above and beyond those for any other type of employment. As Guillen states, this includes significant federal and state oversight of compliance with those rules. Guillen’s suggestion that “it’s not monitored efficiently” is less clear, and seems to contradict her comment about oversight.
|
“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.
|
It is true that use of the H-2A program has been growing in Washington state, as a result of the worsening farm worker shortage. But among the H-2A program’s many regulations are specific, detailed requirements for advertising jobs and recruiting among domestic workers, not only in the local area of the farm requesting guest workers, but over the entire surrounding region. Farmers using the H-2A guest workers are required to hire any qualified domestic workers and clearly demonstrate insufficient numbers of domestic workers for their needs in order to even be considered to participate in the H-2A program.
|
“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.
|
Not only are farmers that hire H-2A guest workers saddled with a significant burden to demonstrate a shortage of domestic workers, when they do qualify for H-2A, their costs are much higher than if they had only used domestic workers. Employing H-2A workers requires they be paid a government-mandated higher minimum wage, and the farmer must also cover the cost of transportation for the workers from their home country, as well as transportation, food and housing while they are employed. Schmidt’s statement is diametrically opposed to the reality: H-2A employers are incentivized to bring in local workers.
|
“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.
|
As explained above, farmers are required to hire any qualified domestic workers before using H-2A guest workers, and guest workers mean a significant additional expense to the farmer when they are hired. This benefits domestic workers as well, since farmers are required to pay any domestic workers performing the same jobs the same higher minimum wage mandated for the guest workers. A farmer using the H-2A program results in higher minimum wages for all employees, guest and domestic. As an option of last resort, the program also allows Washington farms to remain operational rather than going out of business. If H-2A guest worker support were not available, all employment opportunities and community benefits to domestic and guest workers from those farms would be lost entirely, sending more of our food production overseas to areas with far fewer worker, environmental and community protections.
|
“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.
|
While Schmidt is correct that the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) applies only to domestic workers, and not guest workers, she fails to explain that all of the protections required under MSPA are already guaranteed for guest workers in the other rules and regulations specific to the H-2A program and worker contracts it requires. Placing H-2A guest workers under MSPA would be redundant, and very likely less protective than the current regime of oversight for these workers.
|
“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.
|
In the past, claims of retaliation have been investigated, but there is no evidence to suggest retaliation is “rampant” as Schmidt claims. She states retaliation exists because guest workers are required to work for the farmer that contracted with them. Farmers must provide extensive proof they could not find qualified domestic workers before entering this contract with guest workers. Allowing farmworkers to move from employer to employer would make this protection of domestic workers impossible, thereby causing the exact problem the activists say they’re concerned about. Farmers also must pay transportation to and from the workers’ homes and must ensure workers return to their homes to prevent illegal immigration. What Schmidt suggests would leave farmers paying for transportation for other employers’ workers and would open the door for illegal immigration. Schmidt further claims retaliation is rampant because farmers can choose to rehire workers or not. Apparently she believes that employers should not have the right to choose their own employees. In short, no proof of retaliation exists and the basis she claims is simply absurd.
|
“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 it is true that there are unique rules in the H-2A program, due to the extensive protections in place for workers in the program that Guillen referred to, it does not result in those workers being more "vulnerable to abuse". In fact, it is unlikely that any other workers in the US are subject to more legal protections and more aggressive monitoring and enforcement of the numerous laws that apply. Farmers have no incentive to use immigration documents against workers; in fact they're incentivized not to, because they ultimately need those workers return again the following season. Schmidt is inaccurately suggesting that because this element of the H-2A program is unique, it must be a risk for workers. Her claim does not stand up to the facts about the protections built into the program.
|
“ESD has to make sure that the local workers who apply get hired.”
- 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.