Latest News

Latino Leaders: Presidential Pardon of Sheriff Arpaio an Insult and an Affront to the Latino and Immigrant Communities

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, a coalition of 45 of the nation’s preeminent Latino advocacy organizations, issued the following statement after news broke that Donald Trump had pardoned former Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

“Less than two weeks after the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., Donald Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the middle of a national emergency shows that the administration has a wanton disregard for the rule for law, and supports the extremist policies of brutality, bigotry, and racism targeting Latinos, and all immigrants communities. This is is yet another prime example of this administration’s anti-Latino, xenophobic agenda,” said Hector Sanchez, Chair of NHLA and Executive Director of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement. “The right of a presidential pardon is one that should not be taken lightly nor used as an example of discrimination against an entire community. Today’s pardon signifies to every racist that this president will forgive their actions and supports policies of police brutality, racial profiling and general lawlessness. We strongly condemn this action and move forward — with stronger resolve than ever — in our work to bring justice and fairness for our community and all who live in this nation."

“President Trump’s decision to pardon Joe Arpaio, the disgraced former Maricopa County, Arizona sheriff, is an affront to our system of laws and an insult to the thousands of Latino Arizonans who were unfairly and illegally targeted by Arpaio’s policies,” said José Calderón, Co-Chair of NHLA's Immigration Committee and President of Hispanic Federation. “This blatant disregard for the law, coupled with Arpaio’s failure to show remorse, should have been enough reason to deny him pardon. What’s more, the absence of guidance from the Department of Justice, which typically provides the President with important analysis of potential pardon cases, cast an ugly pall over President Trump’s decision today. In the absence of legitimate reasons for pardoning Arpaio, it’s clear to us that President Trump’s pardon today reflects his endorsement of the former sheriff’s campaign of racial profiling and criminalizing immigrants. This is disgraceful but unsurprising.”

"Farmworker Justice condemns President Trump's pardon of Arpaio because it is a blatant attack on the constitutional rights of Latinos and immigrants and a dangerous encouragement of lawless action that intentionally harms people of color and immigrants and promotes white supremacy. Trump's actions and statements directly affect farmworker families. The large majority of farmworkers — the people who produce our food — are ethnic and racial minorities and immigrants," said Bruce Goldstein, President, Farmworker Justice.

“In the Event of a Major Disaster Series” Available Online

Thinking of all our friends and farmworkers in Texas. We have an "In the Event of a Major Disaster Series" available online that provides information on how to access federal support. Click on the links below to directly access the information.
Housing
Income Assistance
Food Assistance

Remembering Mario Gutierrez, 1949-2017, Board Chair and Friend

Mario Gutierrez, 1949-2017

With great sadness, we report the death of Mario Francisco de la Caridad Gutierrez Garcia, on August 16. Mario Gutierrez was serving as the Chair of the Board of Directors of Farmworker Justice. He was Executive Director of the Center for Connected Health Policy, based in Sacramento. Mario died unexpectedly of complications following surgery.

The entire Farmworker Justice family has expressed its deep sorrow to Mario’s wife, Debra Johnson.

Mario joined our Board of Directors in 2009 and was elected Chair in December 2015. Farmworker Justice staff first met Mario through his work at The California Endowment where he was a leader in helping to improve California farmworkers’ health. Mario was a visionary, extraordinarily bright and creative, generous, and a joy to collaborate with. He was a nationally-recognized expert on telehealth and health in rural communities. His knowledge of philanthropy and nonprofit organizational development was immensely helpful to the Farmworker Justice Board of Directors. His passion for justice for farmworkers, their families and their communities was strong and inspiring. His death is a great loss.

A memorial service is planned at the Sierra Health Foundation in Sacramento on August 23 at 2pm.

Read the obituary in the Sacramento Bee

Farmworker Justice Condemns the Content and the Intent of the RAISE Act

Farmworker Justice opposes the proposed RAISE Act introduced by Sen. Perdue of Georgia and Sen. Cotton of Arkansas with the support of President Trump. If enacted, the bill would substantially restrict immigration and deprive families of the opportunity to be together and contribute to this nation. The underlying message of this bill is to scapegoat immigrants for the problems this country faces. Demonizing immigrants is intended to distract us from the constructive solutions that are needed.

Any immigration policy proposal needs to take into account the agricultural system’s dependence on the highly-productive, honorable labor of immigrants, a majority of whom currently lack authorized immigration status. Farmworkers possess skills and experience that our economy needs. The bill’s sponsors claim they want to focus on allowing “ultra high-skilled” people to obtain some visas, but this economy and our society benefits from immigrants in all walks of life. This bill does nothing to address the reality that hundreds of thousands of farmworkers who produce our food and contribute to rural communities are living and working under the threat of arrest, deportation and separation of their families.

Congress should ensure the stability of the farm labor force and security of our food supply by granting undocumented farmworkers the opportunity to earn immigration status and citizenship. Employers should improve wages and working conditions to attract and retain farmworkers, and some are doing so. If additional farmworkers are needed in the future for our farms and ranches to produce our food, they should have the opportunity to enter this country as immigrants and the opportunity to become citizens with economic freedom and democratic rights.

Farmworker Justice Statement on “Save Local Business Act”

Farmworker Justice opposes the “Save Local Business Act” introduced in the House today because it would remove an important mechanism to protect farmworkers and other low-wage workers from suffering violations of the minimum wage and child labor requirements.

“The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which sets minimum wage, overtime, and child labor standards, adopted a definition of employment relationships based on 50 years of experience under state laws that evolved to address employers’ efforts to evade child labor and other labor laws. This bill contravenes 130 years of experience in how to address sweatshops and other labor abuses,” said Bruce Goldstein, President of Farmworker Justice, a national advocacy organization for farmworkers. “This bill, if enacted, would result in massive violations of the minimum wage and other labor abuses in agriculture that would harm farmworkers and harm the reputation of the entire agricultural sector.”

Many agricultural workers suffer violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and other basic labor protections. Often, when such workers try to remedy illegal employment practices, they run into a problem: the farm operator that really determines their job terms and has the capacity to prevent abuses denies that it is their “employer” for purposes of the minimum wage and other labor protections. Instead, the farm operator claims that a “farm labor contractor” or other intermediary is the sole “employer” of the farmworkers on its farm.

In most such cases, the definition of employment relationships in the FLSA allows courts and the Department of Labor to consider the farm operator and the farm labor contractor to be “joint employers” and jointly responsible for complying with the law.

The so-called “Save Local Business Act” would change the definitions of employment relationships under the FLSA and the National Labor Relations Act (which does not apply to farmworkers). Because the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) refers to the definition in the Fair Labor Standards Act, the proposed law may also apply to AWPA. AWPA is the principal federal employment law for farmworkers, regulating employment contracts and the use of farm labor contractors.

This bill would make it far more difficult to hold a farm operator jointly liable for minimum wage violations. A farm operator could make major decisions about the conditions under which farmworkers are employed, but avoid “employer” status by using a farm labor contractor instead of its own supervisor to ensure that its decisions were carried out. This is an old avoidance scheme that has been the subject of numerous lawsuits in which farm operators have been held to be joint employers with their farm labor contractors. This bill seeks to reverse those holdings.

“Farm operators want to assure their profit by exerting substantial control over the work performed on their farm. They should not be able to take advantage of the benefits of their power over workers but use farm labor contracting to escape the responsibility owed to workers,” added Goldstein.

Farmworker Justice Statement on House Immigration Subcommittee Hearing addressing Agricultural Guestworkers: Congress Should Pass Immigration Reform that Respects the Contributions of Farmworkers to Our Economy and Society

Regarding today’s hearing of the House Judiciary immigration subcommittee titled “Agricultural Guestworkers: Meeting the Growing Needs of American Farmers,” Farmworker Justice President Bruce Goldstein stated: “The situation facing our nation’s farmworkers and food system is dire. At least half and likely more of our nation’s farmworkers are undocumented. These farmworkers are living and working in fear due to the Administration’s criminalization of immigrants and the increasing pace of indiscriminate arrests and deportations of immigrants. The most important step to take now is to pass legislation that gives current undocumented farmworkers and their family members the opportunity to obtain immigration status and eventual U.S. citizenship.”

This hearing is an opportunity to move forward a positive and workable solution in Congress that will meet the needs of workers, agricultural employers, and our food system. The Agricultural Worker Program Act, which was introduced in Congress by Rep. Gutierrrez and Sen. Feinstein, and cosponsors, would recognize the hard work and contributions of experienced farmworkers by providing them an opportunity to earn lawful permanent residency through continued agricultural work. This bill would benefit America by ensuring farmworkers the ability to continue working and contributing to the communities in which they have long been members; providing a stable workforce for employers; and helping to ensure a secure, safe and responsible food system for consumers.

The hearing is focused on agricultural “guestworkers.” We know from our own history and world-wide experiences that a guestworker system is not an appropriate solution to solve the current problems. We are already seeing unprecedented expansion in the H-2A program; there is no cap on the number of H-2A visas per year and many more employers are applying. We are deeply concerned about this expansion: both for our domestic labor force which may be losing access to needed farm jobs, and for H-2A workers, who are vulnerable to exploitation due to their dependent status on their employer and other structural program flaws. America is a nation of immigrants, not guestworkers. We must respect the humanity of farmworkers and treat them as we would treat others who contribute to our nation’s success, offering them the opportunity to be permanent members of our society and the communities they help build.

Farmworker Justice Condemns House Amendment to the DHS Appropriations Bill Expanding the H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program to Year-Round Jobs

The House Appropriations Committee, while voting on the spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security today, suddenly added a fundamental, substantive change to the H-2A temporary foreign agricultural worker program. The amendment would require the U.S. government to approve employers’ applications for permission to hire agricultural guestworkers for jobs that are year-round; H-2A visas could be issued without regard to whether the jobs are temporary or seasonal. The effort to change the scope of the H-2A program through an amendment on the appropriations bill was led by Rep. Newhouse (R-WA), with the support of Representatives Cuellar (D-TX) and Aguilar (D-CA).

Farmworker Justice strongly opposes this proposed change and the method by which it was adopted. Bruce Goldstein, President of Farmworker Justice, said: “Expanding the H-2A program to year-round jobs would contravene the purpose of the program and further distort the agricultural labor market. The H-2A program is premised on the idea that it may be difficult to find U.S. workers for seasonal farm jobs because they yield lower annual incomes than year-round jobs. That same logic does not apply to year-round employment. Agricultural employers with year-round jobs should do what any other employer must do to attract and retain workers: improve wages and working conditions.”

This amendment does nothing to fix the H-2A program. The H-2A program is rife with abuses resulting from unscrupulous employers that take advantage of the vulnerable guestworkers, displacing U.S. workers and undermining U.S. workers’ labor standards. Moreover, expanding the H-2A program to include year-round jobs does nothing to address the roughly one million current farmworkers who are undocumented and face the threat of detection and deportation. It makes little sense to allow employers to hire H-2A workers to displace their current undocumented farmworkers.

Farmworker Justice calls on Congress to prevent this amendment from passing and to pass legislation granting immigration status and a path to citizenship for undocumented workers and their family members. The solution to the agricultural industry’s reliance on immigrant workers must be to respect the contributions and humanity of those workers by passing comprehensive immigration reform. The Agricultural Worker Program Act would do that by providing an opportunity to move forward a positive and workable solution in Congress that will meet the needs of workers, agricultural employers, and our food system.

Farmworker Justice Opposes the Senate’s “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017”

The Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BCRA), first released on June 22 and revised on July 13, would replace and repeal key provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Similar to the House version, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), passed on May 4, 2017, the proposed Senate bill will reduce access to comprehensive health insurance for farmworkers and their families.

Our analysis of the American Health Care Act can be found here.

How is the Senate Bill (BCRA) different from the House Bill (AHCA)?

While there are many similarities between the Senate and House bills, there are important differences. Some of these differences include:

Immigrant eligibility for marketplace health insurance – AHCA does not change current eligibility to purchase health insurance in the marketplace. BCRA restricts marketplace eligibility to those who meet the “qualified alien” definition under section 431 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).
Income eligibility for tax credits – Tax credits under AHCA would be based primarily on age, rather than a consumer’s Federal Poverty Level (FPL). BCRA would retain ACA’s tax credit eligibility based on age and FPL.
Preexisting conditions and continuous coverage – Under AHCA, consumers with a break in coverage of more than 63 days would be penalized with a 30% increase in their premiums. These consumers would also be subject to higher premiums due to any preexisting conditions. The BCRA’s continuous coverage provision would impose a 6-month waiting period for consumers who enroll in health insurance after a break in coverage longer than 63 days.

Further analysis of the House bill and the proposed Senate bill can be found here on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities website.

How would the Senate draft reduce farmworker access to health insurance?

Change in Immigrant Eligibility for Marketplace Health Insurance and Tax Credits: Anyone who is lawfully present in the United States is currently eligible to purchase health insurance in the marketplace and qualifies for tax credits to lower the cost of health insurance. H-2A workers have gained the most from this expansion in immigrant eligibility under the ACA. The BCRA would restrict marketplace and tax credit eligibility to U.S. Citizens, nationals, and “qualified” immigrants, as defined by section 431 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).

Repeal of Employer Mandate : The BCRA, like AHCA, will repeal the employer mandate. While there are exceptions, large agricultural employers are generally liable under the employer mandate. As a result, farmworkers and their families have had new opportunities for health insurance coverage. Repealing the employer mandate will mean that fewer workers will have access to employer-provided health insurance and some may lose current coverage in future years.

Repeal of ACA’s Cost-Sharing Subsidies: Under the ACA, cost-sharing subsidies are provided to insurers to help some of their ACA customers cover deductibles and copayments. Both AHCA and the BCRA end these subsidies in 2020. The cost-sharing subsidies are crucial to ensure that health insurance is not only affordable but also functional. Cost is a major barrier to care for many farmworkers and their families. Lower co-pays and deductibles encourage utilization of health care services. Repeal of the cost-sharing subsidies will render health insurance essentially ineffective.

Waiver of Essential Health Benefits Requirement: While the BCRA keeps the ACA’s pre-existing condition requirements, it allows states to waive the ACA’s Essential Health Benefits. Essential Health Benefits coverage includes prescriptions, behavioral health, and hospital visits. Without the Essential Health Benefits requirements, workers may be subjected to more expensive but less comprehensive health insurance.

Change in Income Eligibility for Tax Credits: Farmworkers rely on tax credits to make health insurance in the marketplace affordable. The BCRA will maintain tax credit eligibility based on a consumer’s federal poverty level (FPL). However, the tax credit would be less generous than tax credits under the ACA and would only be available for those up to 350% FPL.

Remove Cap on Repayment of Tax Credits: Under the ACA, a person’s liability to repay tax credits is capped at a certain amount, depending on their FPL and filing status. The BCRA removes these caps. Workers may inadvertently receive the wrong amount in tax credits due to miscalculations of their income. Fluctuations in farmworker income are fairly common due to the seasonal nature of agricultural work. They may not necessarily report these changes in income to the marketplace, resulting in a higher tax credit than what they may be eligible. Under the BCRA, workers would be liable for the entire amount they owe, which could equal thousands of dollars.\

End of Medicaid Expansion and Restructuring of the Medicaid Program: The BCRA will not only end Medicaid expansion but will also convert Medicaid into a per-capita cap or block grant system. Under BCRA, federal payments to states that expanded their programs to low-income adults would be rolled back starting in 2021. States would be given the option of receiving a block grant from the federal government or a set payment based on the number and type of enrollees. Like AHCA, states would be able to impose work requirements on able-bodied adults as a condition for receiving benefits.

Though few adult farmworkers qualify for Medicaid, many farmworker children benefit from Medicaid/CHIP. The amount states receive from a per-capita cap or block grant would result in a substantial reduction from current federal funding levels. States could significantly cut the Medicaid benefits they offer to farmworker children and adults.

Farmworkers Need Greater, Not Reduced Access to Healthcare

Farmworkers face numerous health risks yet have few options for health insurance. Under the ACA, farmworkers and their families have made important gains in health insurance coverage. The Senate bill will undo these gains. Farmworkers need more options for health insurance coverage, not fewer. Farmworker Justice opposes any bill that will result in reduced access to health insurance and health care for farmworkers and other low-income, rural Americans.

Farmworker Justice’s Statement on Senate Health Care Bill

Farmworker Justice opposes the Senate’s Health Care Bill, released late last week. Similar to the House version, passed in May, the Senate bill would reduce access to health insurance for farmworkers and their families.

The Senate bill, called the “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017,” eliminates many of the ACA provisions that make health insurance accessible and affordable – individual and employer mandates, cost-sharing reductions, essential health benefits, and Medicaid expansion. It also fundamentally changes Medicaid, reducing federal Medicaid payments to states through a per-capita cap. Additionally, it defunds Planned Parenthood, an important safety-net provider for many women in rural communities.

Most impactful for many farmworkers and their families, the Senate bill, like the House bill, restricts immigrant eligibility for health insurance and tax credits to those who are U.S. citizens, nationals, or “qualified aliens” as defined by section 431 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). Few farmworkers are offered comprehensive health insurance by their employers. Undocumented immigrants do not benefit from Obamacare. The use of the PRWORA definition would exclude more immigrants from coverage even though they are “lawfully present.” Consequently, temporary foreign agricultural workers hired under the H-2A visa program will lose their access to affordable health insurance.

Trump EPA Faces Lawsuit For Delaying Protections From Most Toxic Pesticides

Farmworker and health organizations represented by Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Wednesday for delaying for a year implementation of the revised Certification of Pesticide Applicators (CPA) rule, which includes much needed requirements like mandatory age minimums, as well as better training for pesticide applicators to protect workers and the public from poisoning by the most toxic pesticides.

First enacted in 1974, the CPA rule ensures those who handle the most dangerous pesticides are properly trained and certified before they apply them. New common-sense protections—which have now been delayed until May 2018—require pesticide applicators to be at least 18-years-old and improve the quality of training materials. The updated CPA rule also says applicators must be able to read and write, and increases the frequency of applicator safety trainings.

According to the EPA, there are about 1 million certified applicators nationwide. Before delaying implementation, the agency said the revised rule could prevent some 1,000 acute poisonings every year.

“EPA’s mission is to protect all Americans from significant risks to human health and yet it’s delaying life-saving information and training for the workers who handle the most toxic pesticides in the country,” said Eve C. Gartner, Earthjustice attorney. “This delay jeopardizes everyone’s health and safety.”

After years of reviews, EPA published the revised CPA Rule on January 4, updating for the first time in years how applicators of restricted use pesticides, or RUPs, are certified. RUPs are the most toxic and dangerous pesticides on the market and can cause humans serious injury or death if they are improperly handled. The rule was scheduled to go into effect March 6, but the Trump Administration delayed it as it placed a mandatory freeze on all regulations coming out of federal agencies.

"It's clear that field workers need these protections now, not later. For years we’ve put mandatory age minimums on things like alcohol, or tobacco, and yet we still let minors handle the most dangerous pesticides or won’t make sure if certified applicators can read and write,” said Erik Nicholson, national vice president of the United Farm Workers. “The Trump Administration is failing to safeguard our communities from preventable risks in the benefit of corporate profit."

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, comes a month after the EPA announced a one-year delay to the rule, while offering the public just 4 days to comment on the move. Delay means minors or poorly trained applicators can continue to handle some of the most toxic pesticides in agricultural, commercial and residential settings, putting themselves and the public at risk.

"We need to do everything in our power to protect farmworkers from dangerous pesticides, the goal of this litigation is to precisely do that," said Ramon Ramirez, president of Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste.

When the EPA adopted the rule, it pointed to various tragic incidents where children died or were seriously injured when poorly trained applicators misused highly toxic pesticides. The agency concluded stronger standards for those applying RUPs will reduce risks to workers and help protect communities and the environment from toxic harms. Yet in delaying the rule, EPA refused to address these findings, and it failed to explain to the public how a delay would not cause unreasonable risks to people.

“The CPA rule provides basic, yet critical safety and training requirements for applicators. We can’t delay rules that can save lives,” said Anne Katten of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

There’s been high profile pesticide poisonings that could have been prevented by more stringent protections for public health. Just in 2015 there were two poisoning incidents, one in the U.S. Virgin Islands and another one in Palm City, Florida, which exemplify the need for the updated CPA rule. In both cases children suffered serious brain injuries stemming from the gross errors of pesticide applicators.

“When I was pregnant with my third child, I was mixing and handling pesticides in a local nursery. I was never given proper training, or personal protective equipment, nor was I under the supervision of a certified applicator,” said Yesica Ramirez of the Farmworker Association of Florida. “My baby was born with craniosynostosis, a birth defect, plus, eczema, and sleep apnea. I will never know if the pesticides caused this, but I do know that it is important to have stronger regulations for certified applicators to protect the health of our farmworkers and our families.”

"There is no doubt whatsoever that more detailed annual training is essential to provide the protections that pesticide applicators and their families need," said Margaret Reeves, senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network North America.

“There is no justification for delaying common sense measures to improve safety. Each year of delay will result in more poisonings and deaths,” said Virginia Ruiz, director of occupational and environmental health at Farmworker Justice.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Farmworker Association of Florida, United Farm Workers, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and Pesticide Action Network North America.