LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

REPORTS ON THIS PAGE:
Breaks, lunch periods, closer than ever for farmworkers
"Collective Bargaining" HB 2351
Minimum Wage HB 2624


Breaks, Lunch periods, closer than ever for farmworkers

Since a public hearing was held in Woodburn this past summer regarding extending the right to paid breaks and lunch periods to farmworkers through an administrative rule, an advisory committee has been set up to further explore the implications of the rule. The rule would most likely have been issued in June of 2003, but the Oregon Senate Republicans stalled it by placing a rider on the budget bill for the State Bureau of Labor and Industries.

Although testimonies by farmworkers at the June 19th public hearing clearly demonstrated the importance of and the need for paid breaks for farmworkers, the agribusiness lobby and the Oregon Senate Republican Caucus have actively opposed the rule, claiming that affording farmworkers the right to two paid ten-minute breaks per day could spell disaster for the entire industry.

The advisory committee met for the second time on Dec. 15 and it is expected that Commissioner of Labor Dan Gardner will soon issue the rule.


BACK TO TOP

There was not a vacant seat at the March 19, 2003 hearing for HB 2351, which drew crowds of farmworkers and PCUN allies, as well as agribusiness representatives. The crowd, including over 100 PCUN allies, extended into two overflow rooms in addition to the hearing room. HB 2351, the so-called “collective bargaining bill for farmworkers,” was introduced by the Oregon Farm Bureau and has since been met with strong opposition from PCUN, and its members and supporters, who see the bill as it truly is: an outrageously unfair, oppressive, and thoroughly anti-worker proposal.

Agribusiness testified first; grower Pieper Sweeney made vague allegations against PCUN and claimed that she and her husband no longer grow broccoli on their farm due to fear that, if they hire unknown workers, “the union” will send someone in to cause trouble. These comments were followed by testimony from Mark Simmons, of the Oregon Association of Nurserymen, who not only suggested that HB 2351 was closely modeled on the National Labor Relations Act, but, ironically, also spoke of the need for “dignity and respect” for farmworkers. Agribusiness’ testimony concluded with Tim Bernasek, attorney for the Oregon Farm Bureau, who described the writing of HB 2351 as a “grassroots process,” (in which only agribusiness was involved) and lauded some of the most anti-worker provisions of the bill, calling the overly long waiting period for elections for seasonal workers an “expedited process.”

The union perspective was presented by Oregon AFL-CIO’s Secretary Treasurer Brad Witt, who walked legislators through the bill, pointing out the detrimental affect that many clauses would have on farmworker organizing, and where the bill proposed unprecedented anti-union stipulations. PCUN member Javier Ceja and supporter Rosa Chapina, however, delivered the most personal and impassioned testimonies in opposition to the bill, which they both saw as going against not only their rights as workers but also their rights as human beings.

“This proposal is an insult to farmworkers,” said Ceja. “It shows that growers do not take seriously the needs or interests of farmworkers.” He went on to comment on specific sections of the bill that would divide workers on the same farm into different bargaining units, making negotiating multiple contracts all the more difficult, and that would institute an overly long waiting period before elections. “If all the workers work on the same farm, there is no reason to put them in separate groups when it comes to union elections or negotiating a contract,” he said, “This is simply a management ploy to make organizing for a union election more difficult.” He also refuted Bernasek’s support of the so-called “expedited” election process, which would be at least eighteen calendar days. “It is necessary to respect the working conditions of farmworkers to create a functional law… It is important to hold elections within a week at most,… and better to hold them within three days.”

Chapina echoed many of these sentiments and also spoke about the importance of the rights to strike and boycott for farmworkers. “One sees so much injustice in the fields,” she began, then went on to speak out against the ban on harvest-season strikes that HB 2351 proposes. “Once the harvest is over, there is no point in striking because the grower already has benefited while the worker remains in the same, or possibly worse, situation.” She concluded, “taking away our rights to strike and boycott would be like cutting off our hands and feet… This is yet another example of how our rights as human beings are being trampled, which cannot continue.”

As HB 2351 progresses through the House and Senate, and as more hearings are held, we will continue to notify and mobilize support for rallies and actions. For the latest information on PCUN’s legislative work, e-mail farmworkerunion@pcun.org to sign up for our Action Alerts.

Report from March 19 minimum wage hearing on HB 2624

PCUN representatives joined other labor and social justice
organizations in opposing HB 2624, which calls for the removal of the
voter-approved indexing to Oregon's minimum wage, which was approved in
November's elections. Under this new law, Oregon's minimum wage rose to
$6.90 an hour as of January 2003 from $6.50 an hour, and is now linked to
the Consumer Price Index, meaning that it will rise in connection with the
rise in cost of living. Although an indexed minimum wage would mean that
increases would be gradual and more predictable than the forty cent rise
this year, small business owners, restaurant owners, and farmers were out in
force to support the removal of indexing, resorting to their
all-too-familiar cry that it would bring down their businesses.

PCUN and allies such as the Oregon AFL-CIO and members of the legislature
such as Diane Rosenbaum and Tony Corcoran, pointed out that rising minimum
wages have not been linked to the downfall of business or to increased
unemployment, and that minimum wage even now is insufficient to live on,
pointing out that many of Oregon's "working poor," are full-time minimum
wage earners who often must turn to food stamps or other forms of public
assistance due to the inadequacy of their wages. A child care provider and
single mother, as well as a farmworker, testified to the difficulty of
surviving on minimum wage and stressed the necessity of a fair minimum wage
that is adjusted as the cost of living rises.

BACK TO TOP