LEGISLATIVE


TOPICS ON THIS PAGE:
PCUN Calls for Mandatory Binding Arbitration
Pictsweet Workers Speak at Capitol
2003 legislative session concludes
Legislative Hearings
PCUN Press Statement on HB 2351
Higher Education Campaign - SB10
Latino youth organizers ask Oregon's state representatives to make the grade
PRESS RELEASE March 26, 2003 Collective Bargaining

PCUN Calls for Mandatory Binding Arbitration
May 3, 2004

Statement of PCUN President Ramón Ramírez on
Mandatory Binding Arbitration in Collective Bargaining

PCUN stands strongly behind the principle that farm workers deserve the right to organize and work under union contracts to ensure improved working conditions and a voice in the workplace. We have made a great deal of progress towards that goal in our nearly sixteen years of work. When we started in 1988, growers categorically refused to consider collective bargaining and most observers believed that we would never achieve it. In 2002 and 2003, the issue of collective bargaining in agriculture is now high on the public policy agenda. We perceive that much progress has been made but more work needs to be done to ensure that a collective bargaining law is fair and effective for farm workers.

As was clearly illustrated in last year’s legislative session, farm worker collective bargaining is an issue that many of us seek to address and resolve. PCUN is promoting mandatory binding arbitration as a key tool in any fair, effective collective bargaining law to ensure that farm workers who vote for a union will gain a union contract in their workplace.

When the United Farm Workers (UFW) successfully campaigned for the passage of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA) in 1975, it was seen as a milestone for farm worker organizing, as it created a system to oversee organizing and unionization campaigns for California’s farm workers. However, between 1975 and 2001, the UFW won elections on 428 farms but signed contracts on only 185.

In 2002, the California Legislature enacted an arbitration system, the first significant amendment of the ALRA since its passage in 1975. Their action was prompted by the recognition that, in hundreds of cases, a union had won a representative election but never achieved agreements with those employers. Since the passage of that law, several employers who had stalled negotiations for years have now signed agreements with the UFW. Now for the first time, a mediation/arbitration process has worked to its conclusion and the Agricultural Labor Relations Board has ordered implementation of a collective bargaining agreement at PictSweet Mushroom farm in Ventura, California. Workers voted for UFW representation 17 years ago and negotiations dragged on until now.

Mandatory binding arbitration hands the final decision on the terms of a collective bargaining agreement to a third party when labor and management cannot agree. It also discourages employers from forcing out pro-union workers, refusing to negotiate, or otherwise stalling the negotiation process. Attaining an agreement ensures that workers gain the respect, dignity, fair treatment, and enforceable rights in the workplace that a union contract provides.

Farm workers are currently exempt from the National Labor Relations Act, and routinely face poor working conditions, pesticide exposure, low wages, and lack of job security. In contrast, workers who are employed under a union contract enjoy the benefits of wages above the minimum, information regarding pesticide use, seniority and job security, and the right to file a grievance to deal with problems that arise.

As the story of the PictSweet Mushroom Farm workers illustrates, mandatory binding arbitration is vital to gaining a union contract. Without it, workers organize, campaign, vote for a union, and still do not have a contract. Workers who seek to unionize volunteer their time to organize their peers, put their jobs at risk, and endure employers’ anti-union pressure. Denying them or frustrating the protections of unionization must end, and mandatory binding arbitration is the way to end it.

BACK TO TOP

Two of over three hundred workers at the Ventura farm, Orozco and Ponce enjoy the benefits of a contract with the United Farm Workers of America (UFW) that guarantees them wages of $7.95 per hour, seniority rights, overtime pay, health insurance through the UFW’s Robert F. Kennedy Farm Workers Medical Plan, and a pension through the UFW’s Juan de la Cruz Farm Workers Pension Plan.

These benefits, however, were not won easily. Instead, they were won after seventeen years of union organizing, four years of boycotting, and, finally, thanks to a California law that calls for binding contract arbitration if the employer and union cannot reach an agreement and sign a contract within 180 days. In the case of Pictsweet, a neutral mediator drew up a contract that was agreed on by the two parties. The contract at Pictsweet is the first one that has been reached through arbitration since then-Governor Gray Davis signed it into law in 2002.

In the years leading up to this victory, Pictsweet workers endured low, piece-rate wages that did not rise with the minimum wage, dangerous working conditions, and health problems caused by the dark, humid picking rooms in which they worked, and the strain of constantly bending and leaning over to pick the mushrooms.

When the boycott of Pictsweet mushrooms went into effect, the farm’s sales were massively reduced, and with them employees hours. “They tried to drive us away by giving us only a few hours a day,” said Ponce, “but we were determined to win a contract, so we kept on working even when our weekly pay was only $100-$200.”

Workers spent their free time promoting the boycott. “We would meet in the parking lot with the UFW organizers and split up into groups to go hand out flyers and Ralph’s, Vons, and other supermarkets” recalled Ponce. “Students, churches, and other unions also supported us,” said Orozco, “they called on restaurants like Pizza Hut and Papa Johns to stop purchasing Pictsweet mushrooms.”

Despite all this mobilization and community support, however, and despite the tons of unsold mushrooms that Pictsweet was forced to dump each week, the company refused to negotiate in good faith with the workers and the UFW. “We tried to negotiate in good faith for seventeen years,” said Orozco, “but it was a waste of time. Instead of negotiating, Pictsweet just tried to frustrate our efforts and break the union. But we stayed united through this struggle and were determined to get a union contract.”

Orozco, who had been involved in the campaign to gain Davis’ support for a binding arbitration law, joined in delegations to Sacramento to meet with Davis and other legislators. “Thanks to Governor Davis,” she said, “we now have a contract.” Davis signed the bill into law following a mass mobilization by the UFW dubbed the “March for the Governor’s Signature.”

PCUN has worked extensively in the past two legislative sessions, including the special session, to promote a fair, balanced collective bargaining law for Oregon’s farm workers that includes mandatory binding arbitration, to ensure that farm workers who vote for a union win a contract in a timely manner.

BACK TO TOP

2003 Legislative session concludes with final rally
As the legislative session concluded with a last-minute attempt by growers to push a farmworker collective bargaining bill through the legislature, we responded with a quickly organized mobilization on Thursday, August 28, the day after the session ended, holding a press conference and rally to call attention to the failures of the session and the wrongness of using such means to push a bill through the legislature.
Activists from the Latino, Black, and Asian communities gathered for a press conference on the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech to discuss how King’s dream still remains to be realized, and how the 2003 legislative session further impeded its realization.
This conference was followed by a rally on the Capitol steps against SB 494-A, agribusiness’ final effort to impose an anti-union and anti-worker law on Oregon’s farmworkers. Nearly 100 farmworkers and PCUN allies marched in a picket line, rallied, and joined hands to sing “We Shall Overcome.” We were fortunate to be able to use the rally to celebrate our successes and look forward to further organization in the future.

During the 2003 legislative session, PCUN worked with numerous allies to defeat a long list of anti-farmworker, anti-immigrant bills, that could have severely limited farmworkers’ right to organize, required a valid social security number to get a drivers’ license, and allowed police officers to act as immigration officials.

We especially want to thank the following organizations: CALC, Network for Immigrant Justice, Oregon Farmworker Ministry, Farmworker Justice Coalition, CAUSA, Oregon Immigrant Rights Coalition, Campaign for Economic Justice, Jobs with Justice, LUS, ROP, Oregon Action, Salem-Keizer Coalition for Equality, SEIU, AFL-CIO, Oregon Education Association, Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, US Catholic Conference, ACLU of Oregon, 181 Coalition, Revenue Coalition, and United Labor Lobby.

Against all odds, we successfully defeated every major piece of legislation that stood to threaten the rights of Oregon’s most vulnerable populations.

BACK TO TOP


Latino youth organizers ask Oregon's state representatives to make the grade

On April 14th, 2003, and again on June 17, Latino students from around the state of Oregon gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to show community support of the Higher Education Campaign, a strategy to secure support from Oregon state representatives for legislation that would remove barriers some immigrant resident students face in obtaining a college education.

Oregon Senate Bill 10, which was sponsored by Senate President Peter Courtney would open access to colleges and universities to Oregon's resident immigrant students population by safeguarding them from out-of-state tuition. SB 10 would give immigrant students who have gone to high school in Oregon for 3 years and received a HS diploma or equivalent the right to be charged in-state tuition.

Latinos Unidos Siempre (LUS), a 500-member organization of Latino youth founded in 1996, organized the rally and worked together with other organizations to gain support from Oregon's state representatives. LUS organizers testified on behalf of immigrant students, in an effort to open all doors for higher education. They have had meetings with our delegation regarding the importance of this legislation in Oregon. LUS field organizer Jose Sandoval states, "In 1998, the Oregon Department of Employment reported that one in three new workforce entrants in this state are Latino. Latinos in the school system are the present and part of the future; without these bills many of them aren't going to have a future. We must equip them with the tools to make their dreams come true."

The press conference and rallies featured students and parents that would benefit from the legislation and representatives from organizations such as the State Commission on Hispanic Affairs, Oregon Student Association, MEChA Student Organization, Coalition for Equity, CAUSA, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, LUS, Woodburn School Board, and the Oregon Alliance for Retired Americans.

Resident immigrant students make up about two percent of high school graduates nationwide. Most of these graduates grew up here and are here to stay, but their lives are filled with uncertainty as long as they cannot secure their access to higher education. If enacted, SB-10 would recognize the untapped talent and potential that immigrant students bring to our nation.


BACK TO TOP


PRESS RELEASE March 26, 2003
PCUN Denounces Oregon Farm Bureau’s “collective bargaining” bill as anti-farmworker

PCUN, Oregon’s farmworker union rejects HB 2351, the bill just-introduced by the Oregon Farm Bureau, the Oregon Association of Nurserymen and others in agribusiness, as an outrageously unfair, oppressive, and thoroughly anti-worker proposal.. Though the agricultural lobby calls it a “collective bargaining” bill, its true purpose is to hinder and prevent collective bargaining and unionization in Oregon agriculture.

PCUN is dedicated to establishing collective bargaining for farmworkers in Oregon. In February of 2002, PCUN articulated the following five principles which any collective bargaining law or system must satisfy in order to be effective for farmworkers:
o maintain farmworkers’ bargaining power;
o include a fair, timely, and effective mechanism for enforcement and dispute resolution;
o provide an expedited and fair representation process;
o be independent from political manipulation;
o have adequate funding or resource support for implementation and enforcement.

HB 2351, however, violates each one of these principles in multiple ways. The following are just a few examples:

HB 2351 does not maintain farmworkers’ bargaining power. HB 2351 undermines workers’ bargaining power by:
· Outlawing harvest season strikes, and any other strikes called without 10 days notice of exactly where and when a strike will occur, by exempting growers from existing Oregon laws prohibiting employers’ use of professional strikebreakers and by restricting picketing activities.
· Making secondary boycotts illegal and severely limiting a union’s ability to inform and organize consumers regarding a labor dispute.
· Dividing farmworkers supplied by a labor contractor from other workers on the same farm who are employed directly by the grower. If workers on that farm seek to unionizeand bargain a contract, they must do it in separate groups. This would allow growers to manipulate elections and evade negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with workers by hiding behind labor contractors.

HB 2351 does not include a fair, timely, and effective mechanism for enforcement and dispute resolution:
· HB 2531 precludes contract arbitration, inviting employers to stall negotiations for years, long after most of the workers have left for other employment. Workers would vote for union representation but never see the benefits of a union contract.
· HB 2351 allows growers to seek immediate injunctions in court to remedy violations; workers would have to pursue their complaints through the Board's process which could take years.

HB 2351 does not provide an expedited and fair representation process:
· HB 2351 gives employers the unlimited power to determine whether employees are “regular” or “seasonal”. This affects a farmworker’s right to vote in a union election and forces “seasonal” and “regular” workers into different bargaining units with weakened bargaining power.
· Despite the seasonal and often transitory nature of farm work, HB 2351 provides that, when workers petition for a representation election, the election could be held no sooner than fourteen business days (meaning eighteen calendar days) for “seasonal” workers and no sooner than thirty business days (meaning forty calendar days) for “regular” workers. In many harvests, the workers complete work in two weeks and move on to other jobs. For more than 27 years, California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board has carried out hundreds of representation elections within seven days of receiving an election petition, regardless of whether the workers are seasonal. Growers in Oregon want a much longer waiting period before elections so that they have more time to pressure workers to vote “no union” or not vote at all.
· HB 2351 requires a “double majority” for unionization (more than half of eligible workers must vote or an election is invalid). This is a further incentive for employers and labor contractors to intimidate workers to not participate. No other workers in the U.S. face this barrier.

HB 2351 does not call for a process that is independent from political manipulation:
· HB 2351 proposes a system that would be controlled by an “Agricultural Labor Board” composed of one member elected from each of the five congressional districts in Oregon. Agribusiness would sponsor candidates and direct huge sums into their campaigns, overwhelming the under-financed campaigns of pro-farmworker candidates, thus ensuring that the entire board would always be pro-agribusiness.
· Board members must reside in a congressional district only at the time of their election, yet they remain eligible to serve even if they move after they are elected.

HB 2351 does not provide adequate funding or resource support for implementation and enforcement:
· HB 2351 does not specify how the activities of the proposed Agricultural Labor Board and its enforcement staff would be funded. It is unreasonable to expect that the state government could shoulder any additional expenditures during the current budget crisis.
· HB 2351 would take effect immediately upon enactment, but would not be operative until May of 2005. In the intervening two years, growers could use the courts to stop union strikes and boycotts but unions would have no remedies to challenge abuses such as growers’ firing and intimidating workers who organize.

As the debate on farmworker collective bargaining rights continues in the legislature, we ask legislators to support our five principles and to reject proposals, like HB 2351, which violate them.

BACK TO TOP