Philip L. Martin
Testimony presented at each hearing of the Commission on Agricultural Workers has focused on local issues and conditions, but several common themes have emerged: (1) there is currently an abundant supply of farm workers; (2) IRCA has generally not changed employment practices, pushed up wages, increased union activities, or affected U.S. competitiveness; (3) production in labor-intensive agriculture has continued to expand since 1985; and (4) IRCA's provisions may have contributed to more reliance on labor contractors and other intermediaries.
Employer representatives estimate that 20 to 40 percent of current seasonal workers are "documented illegals," that is, post-IRCA arrivals who have purchased the documents needed to satisfy Form I-9 requirements. Employers argue that if there were effective enforcement, a labor shortage would develop, and thus some type of guestworker program for agriculture is needed to insure against it. Most farmer testimony appears to indicate that the existing H-2A guestworker program, while fine for some of agriculture, is not workable for most. Employers want something other than H-2A that is more sensitive to local labor market conditions than the provisions for replenishment agricultural workers (RAWs). No one, however, has presented to the commission a clear plan for such a program.
Testimony by farm workers and their advocates tends to focus on the interconnected issues of the oversupply of workers, the rising importance of farm labor contractors, stable or falling wages, and diminished fringe benefits (especially health insurance). Housing is another concern, as farmers have taken many more of their worker facilities out of operation than they have added in recent years. It seems that the oversupply of workers is at the root of these problems, but we have heard little about how to diminish or regulate the influx. Instead, there appears to be an implicit assumption that, if IRCA could not do it, nothing can. Appeals for more labor laws and strict enforcement seem destined to fail, if even those farm labor contractors who offer minimum and sub-minimum terms of employment can get all the workers they want.
Witnesses before the commission have expressed two major requests of government that should be articulated further. If farmers want a non-H-2A alien worker insurance program and the RAW program is inadequate, they need to spell out what the program should look like. If farm workers want limits on the post-IRCA influx of workers that is keeping wages down and encouraging the use of labor contractors, they should explain how the influx can be limited. If farm workers argue that control over the influx is secondary to labor law enforcement within the United States, it seems important to explore how such enforcement might occur.
As the commission moves closer to the deadline for its report to Congress, it will seek to formulate positive conclusions and recommendations regarding policy choices. One such choice might be to reinvigorate the employment service in some manner (not yet suggested) to match seasonal workers and jobs and thus make farm labor contractors less vital. Exploring the current employment system and possible alternatives raises questions about responsibility for labor matters. How much responsibility does a grower who plants labor-intensive crops have to secure a workforce? Should the U.S. government ensure that labor will be available at the minimum wage by making foreign workers available? If so, then under what terms and conditions should employers have access to such workers?
From the testimony thus far, mostly negative lessons have been learned. Simply legalizing farm workers, for example, has apparently not set in motion gradual farm labor market adjustments that encourage employers to plan for a predominantly legal, less vulnerable, probably higher wage workforce. By implication, if Congress were to enact another version of IRCA's agricultural provisions, it would once again fail to bring about changes in farm management and improved conditions for farm workers.
Witnesses in future hearings may address these issues by suggesting what sorts of programs might work for a particular commodity and area, as well as the probable effects on the area's agriculture and farm workers. A greater emphasis on public interest testimony may be needed to obtain a broad new look at the future of labor-intensive U.S. agriculture.
Back to: Contents | LMD Main Page | APMP Home