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