Bill Would Close Loopholes in Hiring of Migrant Workers

Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) introduced a bill this week to plug loopholes in migrant farm worker laws that allow growers to sidestep regulations by using contractors to supply field workers.

Citing lax enforcement by previous administrations, the bill would tighten definitions and help eliminate ambiguities that have led to abuses by growers, Miller said. The proposed legislation would hold growers responsible for meeting all local, state and federal health and safety laws. And growers who employ more than 25 workers would have to supply child-care facilities.

“The growers and contractors have had the chance to end their abusive practices on their own, and with few exceptions they have failed,” Miller said. “Now they will abide by the law or they will pay dearly.”

Congress in 1983 passed legislation sponsored by Miller to broaden the rights of migrant workers, but he and farm worker groups say that growers found ways to avoid the law.

Since the mid-1980s, growers have increasingly relied on farm labor contractors, known as “crew leaders,” who are paid to hire, transport and house migrant laborers. Farm worker groups say that enforcement of existing laws has bogged down over uncertainty about who is legally responsible to protect laborers’ rights.

“This bill would end the charade” of growers denying their responsibility for the workers, said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), who is a co-sponsor of the legislation. “It would end the artificial barrier between growers and farm labor contractors.”

The bill would also require crew leaders to post a performance bond to ensure that farm workers get paid, and it would tighten requirements for becoming a labor contractor.

A farm industry spokesman said the new law is unnecessary.

“Noncompliance is the exception not the rule,” said Carl Borden, associate counsel for the California Farm Bureau Federation.

The bureau also objects to making growers “automatically liable” for actions taken by crew leaders. Existing law “already provides the ability to prove that on a case by case basis,” said Borden. “We don’t think we should be subject to special rules that force an automatic conclusion.”