Report
On The Mt. Olive Pickle Boycott By The Farm Labor Organizing Committee
And
Migrant Farm Worker Conditions In North Carolina And In the United
States
FARM WORKER CONDITIONS
The United States
boasts of having the cheapest food supply in the world available to its consumers. While
this might be true on the surface, it comes at a cost. This cost can be measured in the
poverty and misery that result from a system that legally allows exploitation of those who
produce this food. This cost often falls on the shoulders of farm workers who labor in the
fields to provide the high quality, cheap foods we enjoy and boast about. The fact is that
farm workers living in poverty subsidize food prices. It is an irony that those who labor
to put food on our tables cannot themselves afford to buy that food, cheap as it is
trumpeted to be.
The 1960 CBS documentary “Harvest
of Shame” exposed to the Nation and the world, the deplorable and often
inhumane conditions under which agricultural migrant workers labored to bring food to
American tables. The years immediately following the exposure of the practices of
exploitation saw improvements in the living and working conditions of migrant farm
workers, largely through the efforts of the United Farm Workers of America, a California
based labor union representing the interests of farm workers. But by most accounts, the
gains of the past decades have been lost and conditions of these workers have
deteriorated, hidden from public view in the fields, orchards and labor camps of the rural
landscape.
Over the past
twenty years the wages of the more than two million farm workers in the US have failed to
keep pace with inflation, making it difficult and often impossible to afford the basic
necessities of housing, food, health care and education for their children. Agricultural
economists and industry surveys found that wages have fallen by as much as twenty per cent
in the past two decades, after adjusting for inflation, while a USDA survey estimated a
seven per cent decline for the same period (New York Times, March 31, 1997.) Industry supporters argue that while it
is true that wages of farm workers have fallen, the rate of decline is less than it is in
the non-farm sector. However, this argument is of little comfort when one considers that
the wages of farm workers have been about half that of non-farm workers. In addition to this inequality, farm workers do
not normally receive such benefits as health insurance, pension plans and paid vacation or
even overtime pay for working more than eight hours per day.
One important
reason for the decline in wages and other living conditions is the large surplus of labor
in the farm sector. Other factors include the decline in the membership of the UFW and the
rapid rise in the use of labor contractors by growers. With the huge surplus of labor, the
UFW found it hard to be effective especially in states with right to work laws. After a
decline in membership in recent years, enrollment in the union is again on the increase.
Despite the immigration laws, there is a continuous flow of immigrants, both documented
and undocumented, into this sector resulting in a large labor surplus that places a
downward pressure on wages. Farm labor advocates charge that despite public statements to
the contrary, national and local political leaders are reluctant to stem the flow of
migrants because to do so would place an upward pressure on wages. The 1986 immigration
legislation has not slowed the flow of immigrants as intended, and no new legislation has
been initiated. Instead of hiring farm
workers directly, many growers are now using farm labor contractors. The labor contractors
contract with the growers and find and hire the labor to do the specified work. This
relieves the grower of the responsibility of hiring and paying individual workers, of
determining immigration status and of withholding and paying statutory deductions to the
government. However, contractors usually take twenty percent of the workers wages as
commission and exert a great deal of influence and control over the workers they hire.
Immigrant farm
workers do back breaking manual labor that Americans are reluctant to do even in times of
high unemployment. In these times with unemployment at its lowest in several decades, this
is even more true. The vast majority of farm workers are from Mexico and Central America
where conditions of extreme poverty drives people to suffer the hardships of American
farms in silence. Most estimates place the Mexican and Central American farm worker
population at over 90% of all farm workers in the US. While most speak only Spanish, there
is an increasing number who speak neither Spanish nor English but rather the native
languages of the region from which they came. The fact that the vast majority of farm
workers are non-white adds a dimension of racial and ethnic discrimination against them;
not only in terms of employment practices but also in the relationships within the
established communities in which they work.
Economic
Conditions
Their exclusion
from federal and state legislation that protect other workers against exploitation and
unfair labor practices is one of the reasons contributing to the low wages paid to farm
workers. Many of the federal labor policies, enacted in the 1930’s, were promulgated
at a time when the family farm was the predominant production unit and family members
provided the labor. While the family farm is no longer the predominant production
structure, large corporate controlled farms that employ large numbers of migrant workers
currently benefit from these policies at the expense of workers.
The National
Labor Relations Act (NRLA) of 1935 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 imposed
limits on the exploitation of labor. The NRLA guarantees workers the right to organize and
join labor unions while the FLSA sets minimum standards for wages, overtime provisions and
child labor laws. However, both acts excluded farm workers (the largest category excluded)
from protections they provided for other workers. The FLSA was amended in 1966 to cover
farm workers but excluded small farms from the minimum wage provisions. Other pieces of
legislation also exclude farm workers from pension plans, unemployment insurance and
workers’ compensation.
The severe
economic conditions of farm workers is reflected in the following facts:
· The reported
average hourly wage of farm workers nationally is about $6.17, which is 7 per cent less
than in 1977, after inflation (New York Times) (However,
many farm worker advocates contend that this figure is very misleading and is actually
much lower. Farm workers work as many as 12 to 14 hours per day, but a workday of 8 hours
is used to calculate the hourly wage.)
· In the peak
season farm workers work as much as 12 to 14 hours per day, six or seven days per week but
no overtime is paid.
· The average
annual income of farm workers is between $7,000.00 and $8,000.00. This is lowest of all
wage and salary workers in the US.
· The number of
farm workers living in poverty is increasing. In 1994-95, sixty one per cent of farm
workers lived in poverty compared to fifty per cent in 1990.
In North Carolina:
The average
hourly wage for farm workers is $6.14 (This is disputed as noted above)
An exemption
allows small farms to pay below minimum wage levels. This exemption applies to farms
employing 500 or less man-days per quarter - the equivalent of about 7 - 8 workers 5 days
per week.
Eight per cent
of food dollar goes to pay farm workers. This is one of the lowest among agricultural
states. In California where workers are organized, this figure is 18%. (Commission on Agriculture (CAW), 1993. Reported by
Smith-Nonini.)
Farm
owners’ share of profits was the second highest in the country in 1989 - the fifth
straight year of increase (CAW, 1993)
It is estimated
that each farm worker’s labor contributes over $12,000 annually in profits to
agriculture industry in North Carolina (Sutter,
Steve; North Carolina State University, 1988. Reported by NC Farmworkers Health Alliance,
March 1996. )
Health and Other
Social Conditions:
Low wages and
harsh working conditions are the major causes of the wide range of social ills that affect
migrant farm workers and their families. Again, exemption from rules that protect workers
in other sectors and poor enforcement of existing rules leave farm workers vulnerable and
without legal recourse.
Growers have
traditionally provided housing during the working season as a way of attracting workers.
This housing was often substandard and isolated. The poor housing conditions led to
tightened federal standards enacted in 1986. While the standards resulted in improvements,
they meet the bare minimum for human habitation and enforcement is weak and spotty. The
Housing Assistance Council estimates that some 800,000 farm workers lack adequate housing
in the US.
The North
Carolina law requiring that all growers providing farm worker housing be registered with
and inspected by the state prior to occupancy is often ignored. The North Carolina
Department of Labor estimates that less than half the state’s 22,000 farms providing
housing are not registered and thus not inspected. This is not surprising given the fact
that there are only four full time and four seasonal inspectors and calls into question
the states’ commitment to enforcing its own minimal standards. The defiance of the
law is predictable given that the force of the law is almost never applied to violators.
After mining,
farming is the second most dangerous occupation in the US. The use of hazardous equipment
and machinery and exposure to pesticides are the main factors contributing to injury and
sickness among farm workers. Pesticide exposures pose one of the most insidious threats to
farm worker health. In most instances workers are often not adequately informed of the
dangers of exposure nor are they provided with safety equipment although these are
requirements of federal and state law. Pesticide poisoning often occurs gradually and
causes lingering health conditions including allergies, respiratory problems, skin rashes
and nervous system disorders and the early symptoms are often confused with fatigue or the
flu.
While only a
small percentage of pesticide related illnesses are reported to the government, the
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 300,000 farm workers suffer pesticide
poisoning each year. Again, the weakness in the system is not necessarily in the laws but
in their enforcement and the application of the penalties. Fines for violations are often
less expensive than correcting the problem, thus undermining the intent of the law. The
average fine for pesticide violations on the farms is a measly $370.00. While homeowners
face a maximum fine of $5000.00 for misuse of pesticides in North Carolina, growers in the
state face a maximum annual fine of only $500 (Smith-Nonini,
Sandy; 1999).
Poor
sanitation, hazardous working conditions, pesticide exposure and poisoning and a lack of
health care result in the situation where the life expectancy of farm workers is 49 years
(25 years below the national average) and where infant mortality rates in that population
is 125 per cent higher than in the general population (Smith-Nonini, 1999)
In North
Carolina:
· Of the growers
provided housing submitted to water testing, 44 per cent had contaminated water (University of North Carolina. Reported by
Smith-Nonini.)
· One wash tub
per 30 workers meets the state’s requirements.
· In 1986, of
farm workers tested, 86 per cent had intestinal parasites - a reflection of poor
sanitation and contaminated water (University of
North Carolina. Reported by Smith-Nonini.)
· Despite a legal
requirement, a survey found that only 4 per cent of farm workers had access to drinking
water, toilets and hand washing facilities in the fields. (Human Rights Watch)
· There are four
federally funded clinics that serve farm workers where patients pay on a sliding scale
according to income. However, more than 60 per cent of the migrant farm worker population
live in counties outside the service area of a migrant health center. (NC Farmworker Health Alliance, March 1996)
· The state
provides limited funds for migrant health services. These funds provide reimbursements for
doctors, dentists, clinics and pharmacies for care to farm workers and their dependents
who have been employed in the state within the past 24 months. (NC Farmworker Health Alliance, March 1996)
Child Labor:
“Laws
governing child labor in agriculture are inadequate and out of date, enforcement is lax,
and sanctions against violators are insignificant. The differential treatment of children
working in agriculture as opposed to children working in other occupations is indefensible
and discriminatory.” (Human Rights Watch, 2000)
No one knows
how many children labor in the fields of the United States and estimates vary widely. The
General Accounting Office estimates that there are 300,000 fifteen to seventeen year olds
working in agriculture, while acknowledging that is probably a low estimate. The United
Farm Workers Union put the figure at about 800,000.
For the sake of
this debate the numbers hardly matter – United States and International law considers
all persons under seventeen years old to be children and are entitled to certain
protections and rights. These rights and protections are consistently (and legally) denied
child farm workers in the United States. A 1997 study by the School of Public Health at
UCLA Berkeley reported that age thirteen to fifteen as the most common ages at which
children begin agricultural work.
Despite the
fact that agriculture is the most hazardous and physically taxing area of work in which
children are allowed, it is the least regulated and offers the least protection. Children
are subject to the same or worse discrimination that adults face with respect to laws and
their enforcement (or lack thereof) when working in agriculture. But the impacts of
working long hours in dangerous situations have more lasting and negative consequences for
children who are still developing physically, mentally and emotionally. Twelve-hour days
are the norm. These long hours interfere with schooling as child farm workers do not
attend school or are too tired to learn if they are enrolled in school. The system perpetuates the cycle of poverty that
plagues farm worker families.
The parents of
child farm workers are themselves farm workers. The below poverty wages and other
conditions make it very difficult for farm workers to afford to send their children to
school and children are forced to work to assist the family to meet immediate survival
needs. Families are thus trapped in a cycle of poverty. Migrant farm worker families are
particularly affected as their transitory life styles make it difficult for children to
attend school regularly.
Child farm
workers are twice denied. The poverty their families suffer and which forces them to work
denies them the joys of childhood. The opportunities for education and learning denied
them during childhood also rob them of a future in which they can fully realize their
potentials as human beings.
Under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), children working on farms are provided less protection than
their counterparts working in less hazardous jobs. FLSA allows children working on farms
to be employed at a younger age, for longer hours with no overtime pay and in more
dangerous circumstances. In addition to the failure of the FLSA to protect child farm
workers, the United States Congress exempts all farms with fewer than eleven employees
from enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations.
The laws
allowing discrimination against child farm workers are in contravention of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child and other international laws that prohibit the exploitation of
children and their exposure to work that is harmful to them. Human Rights Watch reports
that “the United States appears to be headed
toward non-compliance with the 1999 International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Worst
Forms of Child Labor Convention, which will enter into force in the US in December 2000.
In the United
States:
· Only 55 per
cent of farm worker children will graduate from high school. (Human Rights Watch)
· The drop out
rate for farm worker youth is 45 percent, compared to 29 per cent in the non-farm worker
population (General Accounting Office)
· Only 10 per
cent of migrant farm workers finish high school (Sandy
Smith-Nonini, University of North Carolina)
· Eighty per cent
of adult migrant farm workers function at the 5th grade literacy level or less
(Human Rights Watch)
· There is no
limit on the number of hours per day a child can be required to work in agriculture. In
all other occupations, children under seventeen are limited to three hours of work per day
when school is in session.
· Children may
engage in hazardous work at the age of sixteen in agriculture. In other occupations, the
minimum age for hazardous work is eighteen
· It is estimated
that there are over one million violations related to child labor in US agriculture each
year (Human Rights Watch)
· North Carolina
is one of eighteen states that have no minimum legal age requirement for children working
in agriculture (The Child Labor Coalition, reported
by Human Rights Watch.)