Down-to-Earth Arbitration

The right to unionize and bargain collectively with employers came late to farm laborers in California, in 1975. In that same year, the state formed its Agricultural Labor Relations Board, to protect the interests of both sides.

The reality of the ALRB has not always lived up to its promise. For instance, despite the fact that workers have voted in 428 elections since 1975 to affiliate with the United Farm Workers union, only 185 contracts have been signed between the UFW, which is the chief agricultural union, and farmers.

Growers can drag their feet for years without having to negotiate a final contract with the UFW or any other labor union that might win a representation election. It is tough for agricultural workers to press their case because of the transience and seasonality of their work.

Of course, this sort of impasse is not unique to farm labor. Workers trying to get their first contract in other industries fail almost half the time. But farm workers in California were never covered by federal labor law, and it is easier to change state law.

Powerful unions like the Teamsters avoid contract arbitration because they can get more by striking, or by threatening to do so. But for a union with the built-in disadvantages of farm labor, arbitration is a way out of deadlock.

Growers argue that there are remedies in state law, that workers are entitled to monetary damages if state investigators determine growers have negotiated in bad faith. The problem with this provision, as Genevieve A. Shiroma, chairwoman of the agriculture board, recently spelled out in a letter to state Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden), is that “because the (1975) act itself contains neither standards for imposing make-whole nor precise measures for calculating it,” litigation and delays are inevitable.

That is where a bill working its way through the Legislature comes in. SB 1736, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco), calls for binding arbitration to resolve deadlocked farm labor negotiations. It is modeled on legislation enacted last year to cover the horse-racing industry, which Gov. Gray Davis supported. It has been approved in the Senate and is expected to clear the Assembly this week.

California agribusiness is an important source of campaign funds for the governor in an election year. But a measure like this equalizes power and avoids, for both sides, the prospect of costly, acrimonious litigation. Davis should sign it.