This story is fairly balanced in its coverage of the most hotly debated agricultural issue in New York this year. But it should be made clear: farmworkers in New York already enjoy a tremendous amount of protections and benefits.

More so than farmworkers in any other state. On average, farmworkers in New York make approximately $15 per hour, and receive free housing, transportation, child care and many other perks. Also, there are a bevy of local, state and federal laws that regulate the workplace environment, ensuring that workers are employed in safe and comfortable conditions. And, contrary to your story, farmers are already required to pay workers comp and medium sized farms with year-round operations and all larger farms must pay unemployment insurance on their farmworkers.

While on the surface, it may seem perfectly reasonable to legislate mandated overtime pay and the right to strike, in reality, it would cost our industry upwards of $200 million per year. That is a sum that we cannot absorb when commodity prices are at record lows. It would also put us at a huge competitive disadvantage with farmers from other states and countries.

If metro New York consumers want to continue to enjoy local food from local farmers, then they must consider the financial realities of our enterprise.

Dean Norton, President
New York Farm Bureau

I see the reporter has a link to the NY Times piece by Bob Herbert last year and lazily relied on it for their facts. You should do a bit more checking and not rely on a single sided, spoon fed source. My local paper also ran Herbert's piece and then ran my response to it which you can read below. Also, The Farmworker Fair Labor Practices Act has not passed this year and as I have pointed out frequently RMM acts as self-appointed advocates. The overwhelming majority of farmworkers in NYS have nothing to do with them, do not attend their meetings and only attend their annual lobbying days in Albany because they are paid by RMM to participate. This is something RMM Executive Director Witt admitted when he was deposed by the NYS Lobby Commission in the course of their investigation for his gross violations of NYS lobby laws. The organization was fined and forced to register.

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090611/OPINION/906110301

My View: Vast majority of New York farms pay and treat their workers well

Published: 2:00 AM - 06/11/09

It is painfully obvious that Bob Herbert in his recent column relied on a single, one-sided source for this piece, Rural and Migrant Ministry and its executive director, Richard Witt. Did Herbert bother to verify or cross-check anything he was told by Witt with any of the regulators assigned to enforce the myriad state laws associated with farmworkers?

Further, he has taken the one bad example, the duck operation in Sullivan County, and extrapolated it out to apply to all agriculture in New York. This is something Witt has done with this duck farm before.

Hours and the conditions as described in the piece are not typical. And the fact is that the overwhelming majority of farmworkers in New York have nothing to do with Witt, his organization or its agenda. This is being driven by very large and very hypocritical religious organizations that have appointed themselves to speak and act in behalf of people that clearly haven't asked them to do so.

This piece distorts the facts regarding the laws. There are roughly a dozen or more federal, state and local governmental agencies overseeing a plethora of laws that regulate the living and working conditions of farmworkers in New York. These laws include the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, specific federal legislation that applies only to farmworkers.

In New York, farmworkers earn, on average, more than $10 an hour. Most also receive free housing and all that entails, including heat, electric and utilities. Many receive free cable or satellite television. Farmworkers in New York benefit from a number of governmentally funded social service programs that, in many cases, exist only for their benefit, including their own free government-funded health clinics, day-care centers for their children (now 14 throughout the state) and federally funded migrant education programs.

We are talking about a literal handful of exemptions. These exemptions, like the one for overtime pay, exist because of the production and marketing realities associated with food production, and I have no problem defending each and every one in that contextual reality. But I can't, because the self-appointed advocates state "there can be no justification for this unequal treatment. Attempts at justification of this exclusion are offensive."

Who assigned these organizations with the authority to be the final arbiter of which exemptions to our laws are "just"? And many of these same exemptions that apply to farmworkers, like overtime pay, also apply to the employees of nonprofits and religious organizations and the staff of the state Legislature. Yes, the very same people who are pointing their finger at agriculture saying our exemptions are "unjust" happily "exclude" their own workers from receiving overtime.

A number of farms in Orange County the last few years have switched from mono-cropping onions to growing a variety of vegetables. These are the farms that supply the local farmers markets and the green markets in New York City. To grow those greens, they have had to rely on a much bigger labor force. End the overtime exemption and they will be unable to afford their labor bill and they will have to go back to mono-cropping onions, if they can continue to farm at all. You can kiss that local fresh produce goodbye, as New York farmers will be unable to compete with farmers in New Jersey or Pennsylvania who don't have to pay overtime. And the farmworkers will lose their jobs.

Good public policy is crafted within the framework of the contextual realities we dwell in, not in a vacuum. And it should be based on facts, not emotion or misinformation.

Chris Pawelski is a fourth-generation onion farmer in the Black Dirt region and serves on the New York Farm Bureau's labor task force.

"The Rev. Richard Witt, who regularly ministers to migrants upstate and in the Hudson Valley, said that it was a moral issue."

Yes, and for years his organization claimed the bulk of their expenditures were for "Accompaniment - To provide for the religious needs of the migrant farmworker community in the Mid-Hudson as they work to improve their living and working conditions."

In 2004 this figure alone totaled $216,788. They have claimed to have spent, from 1996 through 2004, $1,084,989 on providing for the "religious needs of the migrant farmworker community."

I challenge Richard Witt to substantiate these claims and produce tangible evidence that he or his organization provided any programs that can even be remotely misconstrued to be of a "religious" nature. A single program. I have the literature of his organization going back to the mid 1990's and I can't find a single example. In fact I can only find references made by Witt where he dismisses or mocks religious based or centered programs.

What is it called when you claim to spend money or resources on one thing but in fact spend it on something else? And what is it called when you do it on a tax return?

Further, Gray and Witt consistently throw out the allegation that farmworkers are routinely "exploited" but it is quite funny that they can never substantiate those claims. Ever. Ever. This is something Fred Dicker took note of recently in one of his radio programs: http://www.talk1300.com/CMT/podcast/FredsPodcastMondayMarch012010.mp3 Well, it would be funny if sweeping, unsubstantiated smears of an entire industry were funny.

Maggie Gray, the long time RMM Board member is an apologist and an enabler and a mediocre cartoon writer who tries to pass herself as a serious academician. That cover is blown once her work is read by someone with a 5th grade education or better. But with Andy and CUNY alum strategically placed to help her out her academic career will continue to flounder along.

Witt says:

“For me, it’s not about good farmers and bad farmers,” said Witt. “It’s about the law.”

Amen brother. Then let's start with the myriad of exemptions that the religious non-profit world or what I term the "Amen Industry" benefit from, including various labor laws and tax laws. Let's eliminate all of those exemptions too. Then you can point the finger at my industry and dictate what I should be doing, hypocrite. In the meantime I urge all to read up on this issue. The blatant hypocrisy of these religious and quasi-religious organizations, that want to impose rules and laws on other industries they don’t often want applied to themselves and who benefit from a number of labor law and tax “exclusions” is fully detailed in the excellent 5 part series “In God’s Name” by Diana B. Henriques that ran in October of 2006 in the New York Times:

IN GOD’S NAME: As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/08relig ious.html?pagewanted=all

IN GOD’S NAME: Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/business/09relig ious.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all

IN GOD’S NAME: Religious Programs Expand, So Do Tax Breaks http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/business/10relig ious.html?pagewanted=all

IN GOD’S NAME: Religion-Based Tax Breaks: Housing to Paychecks to Books http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/business/11relig ious.html?pagewanted=all

IN GOD’S NAME: Ministry’s Medical Program Is Not Regulated http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/business/20relig ion.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all

These articles are quite illuminating and the hypocrisy they expose are equal parts nauseating and appalling.

Back a few years ago I contacted the various religious orgs that fund Rural and Migrant Ministry (the organization driving this faux movement) and asked them where they stood on their workers being allowed to collectively bargain.

Check out this link for more details: http://rochester.indymedia.org/newswire/display/23 93/index.php

Two years ago the PBS program “Religion and Ethics Newsweekly” aired the following segment:

Catholic Church and Labor————————————————————————————-
The Church has had a long history of defending the rights of workers dating back 100 years to Pope Leo XIII. But recently, Catholic Bishops and Catholic school teachers across the nation have been fighting over union representation. In the Diocese of Scranton, Bishop Joseph Martino refused to recognize a Catholic teachers union representing one-third of its teachers for more than 30 years. Instead, he formed one of his own designed to serve teachers and Diocesan employees. The Bishop’s decision caused an uproar in Scranton’s heavily unionized Catholic community and reignited the national debate over union protection under state law for teachers in religious schools of all faiths.

Lucky Severson travels to Scranton for a closer look at this controversy. According to Michael Milz, president of the Scranton Diocese Association of Catholic Teachers, “We’re not used to those kind of tactics coming from the Catholic Church. How can you not say it’s hypocrisy when . . . they urge other employers to allow their workers to have the right to organize, yet deny it to your own workers?” However, Professor Brian Benestad, who teaches theology at the University of Scranton, argues “If the Catholic schools are required to recognize the union, then you’re going to have government . . . intervening in the school, making decisions about whether the bishops’ invocation of doctrine is really genuine.”

It seems to me that if you are going to aggressively lobby for certain laws or conditions for workers outside of your industry, then you should be leading by example for employees in your own industry. If religious institutions are so keen on unionizing workers why don’t they start by unionizing the workers that work for their various organizations and affiliated institutions (churches, schools, hospitals, etc…)? It should be emphasized that religious based institutions, including their private schools and hospitals, have a long, rich tradition of being anti-union. Or should I say, they are pro-union, unless it is people that happen to work for them, that is. From the National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice (NICWJ) website:

“Engages Religious Employers: Religiously-affiliated non-profit institutions, such as hospitals and nursing homes, should model the highest standard of employer-employee relations. Unfortunately some religious institutions hire union-busting ‘consultants’ and engage in unethical, and sometimes illegal behavior toward workers when they attempt to form a union. NICWJ has developed resources to educate people of faith about this issue.” (http://www.iwj.org/template/page.cfm?id=91)

To emphasize, religious organizations have a long rich history of being anti-union and employing union-busting tactics when those union workers happen to be their own employees. One example being the Roman Catholic Diocese of NY in connection with the local Catholic high school John S. Burke; see letter entitled “Union Breaking Tactics: http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090222/OPINION/902220304 (for another example of Catholic intimidation regarding unionization of employees at a local hospital see: http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081024/BIZ/810240363).

They are so big on removing the "exclusions" or exemptions found in our laws. Great. Then let them lead by example by removing theirs, including the overtime "exclusion" they benefit from. Or one of the biggest, most egregious exemptions found in our laws, the tax exclusions that these religious organizations benefit so greatly from.

Again, the hypocrisy of these people is so appalling it is disgusting. It is only matched by their smug self-righteousness. Spare me.

Go to this link and read the comments I posted in connection with the video of the hearing held back on March 1st:

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=pu0ov9EduC4&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3Dpu0ov9EduC4

Go to this link and read the comments I posted in connection with the video of the NYS Senate Ag Committee vote held back on April 20th:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHToHTzXiVA

Go to this link to learn a bit more about the organizations pushing this legislation. My article starts on page 10:

http://www.turnpagepro.com/doc/Columbia-Publishing/OWJulyAug09/2009070101/?lang=en

Here are a few other links:

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=814533
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=896400
http://lancasterfarming.com/node/2053
http://www.lancasterfarming.com/node/2967
http://www.vegetablegrowersnews.com/newsroom.html?ns=2568

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMWTHBkUuHk

Watch the video and read the materials found under my username under the more info section. The only facts uttered by by the Executive Director of RMM during this piece that are true is that the road is busy and the boy died. The rest is all a lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUH-YTSobS8

Watch the video and read my comments on the more info section to see the details regarding their actions and how it conflicts with the tax code for organizations that file as a 501(c)3.

"But many of us don’t know, however, that New York State has few labor protections for those who work on farms."

That statement is, quite simply, bullsh*t. Plain and simple.

The following is an op-ed I wrote for HV Biz on this issue that ran on February 12, 2010. It provides a bit of info, context and facts regarding this legislation:

http://www.westfaironline.com/hudson-valley-biz/article/7015-dont-apply-factory-work-rules-to-farmworkers.html?tmpl=component&print=1

There is a bill before the state Legislature titled “The Farmworkers Fair Labor Practices Act” (S. 2247-B; A. 1867-A). There is a great deal of misinformation surrounding this bill as well as the issue of agricultural labor. Allow me to address a few of these issues.

The primary proponent of this bill is a religious nonprofit organization called Rural and Migrant Ministry (RMM). The ministry acts as a self-appointed farmworker advocate organization because the overwhelming majority of farmworkers in New York state have neither elected nor chosen this organization or its designated leaders to represent them or speak on their behalf. Farmworkers do not attend their board or planning meetings and the handful that attend RMM’s annual Albany lobby day event are paid by RMM to be there. These facts were admitted by RMM Executive Director Rev. Richard Witt during his sworn testimony before the state Lobby Commission in 2001.

RMM and its allies consistently claim that there are virtually no laws protecting farmworkers and they are “invisible” and ignored by society. The truth is there are roughly a dozen local, state and federal governmental agencies that enforce a plethora of laws that govern both the living and the working conditions of farmworkers in the state.

Some of these laws, like the federal Migrant and Seasonal Protection Act (MSPA) only apply to farmworkers. Farmworkers are one of if not the most protected work force in the state. New York farmworkers earn, on average, more than $10 an hour. Most also receive free housing and all that it entails, including heat, electric and utilities. Many receive free cable or satellite television. Farmworkers in the state also benefit from a number of governmentally funded social-service programs that, in many cases, only exist for their benefit, including their own free government-funded health clinics, free day-care centers for their children (now 14 throughout the state) free child and adult migrant education programs, as well as their own free government-funded law firm which works only in their behalf. How does a farmworker compare with an urban resident working on the same wage tier when it comes to protections and programs?

What we are talking about are five or six exemptions to state labor law. These exemptions, like the one for overtime pay, exist because of the production and marketing realities associated with farming. Farming does not take place in an enclosed building with a regulated environment. We have a limited time to plant and harvest. If overtime is enacted, farmers will have to cut hours during the growing season so as to afford the overtime at planting and harvest time which can’t be avoided. This may mean fewer overall hours and take home pay for farmworkers. And farmers do not control the prices we receive and cannot pass on increased costs. We absorb it or go out of business. Because of pricing and weather disasters, much of New York’s agriculture is reeling. In four of the past five years, my farm income was below the federal poverty line for a family of four. In 2009, my employees earned more than I did. Where would these self-appointed advocates and legislators who support them like the money to come from to pay for these mandates?

I have no problem defending each and every one of the exemptions within the real world context of agriculture’s production and marketing realities. But I can’t, because the self-appointed advocates’ mantra is that these exemptions are “immoral” and “unjust.” They state that “there can be no justification for this unequal treatment. Attempts at justification of this exclusion are offensive.” Who assigned these organizations the authority to decide which exemptions are “just?” And many of these same exemptions that apply to farmworkers, like overtime pay, also apply to the employees of nonprofits and religious organizations. Yes, the very same organizations that are pointing their fingers at agriculture can legally “exclude” their own workers from receiving overtime. State legislative staffers also are exempt. Yes, the people who work for the people who want to end our exemption are exempt from overtime. The level of hypocrisy is astounding and they don’t have a leg to stand on to play the “moral” card.

A number of farms in Orange County have switched from mono-cropping onions to growing a variety of vegetables. These farms supply the local farmers’ markets and the green markets in New York City. To grow those vegetables they have had to rely on a much bigger labor force than needed for the more mechanized onion farming. End the overtime exemption and they will be unable to afford their labor bill. They will go back to mono-cropping onions, if they can continue to farm at all. New York state’s unemployment and overtime exemptions for agriculture match the federal standard, making us competitive with neighboring states. If overtime is enacted you can kiss that local fresh produce goodbye as New York farmers will be unable to compete with New Jersey or Pennsylvania farmers who don’t have to pay it. And many farmworkers will lose their jobs. That will be the real world consequences of this legislation.

The people who travel so far up the migrant labor stream, many year after year to the same farms, come here to work as many hours as possible to provide for themselves and their families back home. If the self-appointed advocates ever actually talked to farmworkers they would learn a common complaint is they aren’t receiving enough hours versus working too many. No one forces a person to work on a farm. If someone wants the benefits associated with factory work, they are welcome to work in a factory. But to attempt to apply the rules associated with factory work to agriculture is foolish public policy. Enactment of this legislation will undoubtedly lead to less locally produced food for our markets and a severely impacted upstate economy that is already hurting considerably.

Christopher Pawelski is a fourth generation onion farmer in Orange County and is a member of the New York Farm Bureau’s labor task force. He can be reached at evep@warwick.net .