Volume 6, Number 2, Summer-Fall 1997
Growers have increasingly used the services of farm labor contractors (FLCs) in recent years, and reasons for those decisions have been explored (see APMP project report Directly Hiring Workers Versus Using Farm Labor Contractors, publication APMP003, by Sabrina Isé, Jeffrey M. Perloff, Stephen R. Sutter, and Suzanne Vaupel). Most workers, on the other hand, prefer to work directly for growers, despite the potential advantages of employment by FLCs, such as fewer language barriers and an opportunity for longer work seasons. A better understanding of workers' preferences could benefit both growers and FLCs who want to attract and retain a productive workforce.
Following is a condensed version of "Workers prefer growers over FLCs," originally published in California Agriculture, Volume 51, Number 1, January-February 1997. The complete article may be found on the Internet at http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/research/7rsearch.htm.
As part of a larger study about issues that concern agricultural employees, I asked 211 crew workers whether they preferred to work directly for growers or for farm labor contractors. With the consent of their supervisor or employer, I personally interviewed workers at 19 job sites in a variety of northern San Joaquin Valley orchard, vineyard, and vegetable operations in the summer of 1995. Most of the respondents were Latino, and nearly all of the interviews were conducted in Spanish. At the time of the interviews, 63% (133) of the workers were employed by FLCs, and the rest had been hired directly by growers.
Half (106) of the crew workers had been employed only by a grower or only by an FLC. I put particular effort into analyzing comments of the other 105, whose experience as employees of both growers and contractors gave them a basis for first-hand comparisons. Of those who had worked for both, 81% preferred growers as employers. Only 4% favored working for FLCs. The remaining crew workers either had no preference (14%) or said their choice would depend on other factors.
Some crew workers were vocal in denouncing FLCs, though others readily defended them. Those who had worked for both growers and FLCs were asked to give a reason for their preferences. Questions were open ended.
Preference for Growers
A total of 115 comments were offered by the 105 workers who had been employed by both at least one grower and one contractor, and 111 of them expressed a preference for growers. These comments dealt with pay (62%), treatment and working conditions, benefits, and amount of work. Crew workers felt that growers paid "a little more" than FLCs did. Some believed that FLCs were sometimes guilty of not paying what they owed, not paying without a struggle on the part of the workers, and not paying on a timely basis. A few workers said they were unhappy that part of their salary went to the FLC; others said they were not informed by FLCs whether they were working for piece rate or hourly pay. One worker was concerned that FLCs might not always pay wage-related taxes.
Thirty (27%) of the 111 comments favoring growers were related to treatment or working conditions. Fifteen (14%) indicated that workers received better, less abusive treatment by growers. Six (5%) related to being able to deal with growers directly, receiving better explanations and having fewer conflicts with growers. Some said that work for growers was slower paced and that growers were more likely to provide breaks and toilets in the fields. One said that employment by growers entailed less stoop work. Another comment was that FLCs were more likely to fire a worker "who misses a little work."
Eight comments (7%) dealt with benefits, mostly stating that fewer FLCs provided health insurance. One worker spoke of benefits in general and another mentioned grower-furnished housing.
Four comments (6%) indicated that growers were able to offer more constant work or longer hours.
Preference for FLCs
Only four comments favored FLCs over growers. Reasons given were that (1) there is no language barrier; (2) FLCs are less likely to get angry; (2) they provide better supervision; and (4) they pay better. Some of these seem to contradict comments made by those who preferred growers.
Recommendations
Although FLCs may offer their employees several advantages, including less of a language barrier and the possibility of a longer work season, the crew workers whom I interviewed overwhelmingly preferred working directly for growers. FLCs are likely to improve their image with crew workers if they (1) arrange for smoother transitions between work at one operation and the next; (2) pay workers on a timely basis (regardless of when the FLC gets paid); (3) clearly indicate pay rates ahead of time; (4) make it easy for workers to keep track of what they are earning so that pay-day discrepancies can be reduced and more easily resolved when they occur; (5) make work assignments clear; (6) provide safety training, such as instruction in safe lifting and pesticide safety (as required by the Worker Protection Standard); (7) provide breaks, toilets, and cold drinking water, as well as water, soap, and paper towels; (8) develop well-communicated reward and disciplinary procedures; and (9) seek continually to improve supervision and interpersonal relations when dealing with workers.
Some of these recommendations are simply common sense, and others are required by law. Perhaps the foremost challenge is that of pay and benefits. FLCs also need to be paid for services they contribute in recruiting and managing the workforce. Those who can provide technical expertise and supervision of such tasks as pruning, grafting, and harvesting may obtain a higher payment for their efforts.
It is hard for an FLC who offers a good salary and benefit package and complies with legal requirements to offer services at prices comparable to those who do not - for example, by paying "under the table," not paying taxes, or not providing required training. The very nature of the legal structure often does not help. Many laws extend essential benefits and protections to farm workers, but others simply add to the paperwork and stress of running a business, and enforcement is often inconsistent or nonexistent.