MRS > Migration Policy and Public Affair Office > Letter from Most Reverend Nicholas A. DiMarzio on the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999
January 24, 2000
Honorable Gordon Smith
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Smith:
I write concerning S. 1814, the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999, which you introduced October 27, 1999.
As you may know, the Catholic Church has long supported the right of workers to certain protections, including the right to a just wage, the right to organize, and the right to safe and healthy working conditions. The Church has a rich history of supporting workers, especially those who are vulnerable to exploitation or work in industries which require workers to toil in dangerous conditions. In the specific area of temporary agricultural workers, the status quo is unacceptable and serious reform is required.
The U.S. Catholic bishops have frequently highlighted the unjust working conditions of agricultural laborers in the United States, particularly migrant workers. Most recently, the U.S. Catholic bishops submitted written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration on May 12, 1999, which outlined our concerns with the current H-2A temporary agricultural worker program. It recommended several changes in the current program to better protect temporary workers, including an increase in benefits and wages, improvements in working conditions and labor protections, and the implementation of a meaningful legalization program. For your information, I have included a copy of our testimony.
S. 1814 fails to address positively these critical areas and, in certain instances, diminishes labor and wage guarantees currently provided under the H-2A program.
First, the proposed legislation lowers the level of wages required to be paid to workers. Such a diminution in basic wages would, in our view, drive workers deeper into poverty and undermine their ability to support their families.
Specifically, the legislation would replace the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), required to be paid to temporary workers by present law, with the local prevailing wage rate plus a "premium" rate of five percent. As you know, the AEWR, determined by the Department of Agriculture as the local average rate for livestock and field workers in a region or state, represents the higher wage rate in most areas of the country. Changing the current pay requirement to the prevailing wage rate plus five percent would certainly reduce the overall amount of wages paid to workers each year.
Further, S. 1814 would allow employers to use alternative forms of payment--such as piece, group, or task rates--designed to average the local prevailing wage rate for a group of workers. Under this scenario, a number of workers could earn as little as minimum wage per hour so long as some workers earn enough so that the average pay rate of an employer's workers earn the prevailing wage rate.
We find this reduction in wages in S. 1814 unacceptable. In our May 12, 1999, testimony, we called for the payment of a "living wage" to temporary agricultural workers--a wage which would lift workers and their families out of poverty. S. 1814 makes no progress toward this goal; rather, it diminishes the already inadequate pay levels in the H-2A program.
We also are concerned with the reduction in basic benefits to workers under the legislation. S. 1814 would relieve some employers of the requirement to provide housing to workers, allowing them to opt instead to provide a housing "allowance." An employer would be required to provide housing only if, after three years, the governor of a state fails to certify an adequate level of housing in the state. Unlike current law, the bill also would allow employers to charge workers for maintenance and utilities and would not require the provision of "family housing" to house non-working family members.
Our May 12,1999, testimony called for an increase in federal funding for migrant housing and an improvement in housing standards applicable to migrant housing units. S. 1814 does not adopt these recommendations.
S. 1814 also contains several exceptions to the current requirement for the reimbursement of travel costs of workers who travel beyond a commutable distance to a job site. For example, employers would not have to pay travel costs to workers who either (1) do not live in mployer-provided housing, or (2) do not reside in housing secured through a housing voucher.
Considering that employers would not have to provide housing for at least three years, and that it would be difficult to prove that a worker is living in voucher-secured housing, we believe that few workers would qualify for transportation reimbursement under this bill.
Finally, the legislation only requires employers who request H-2A workers to provide these diminished benefits to their workers. It does not apply to employers who hire labor from the state registries, leaving those workers with even lesser wage and benefit protections.
S. 1814 also does not adequately support two of our other concerns, namely the improvement of working conditions for and the extension of certain labor protections to workers. For example, S. 1814 does not guarantee overtime pay or require specific job terms for workers and even eliminates the minimum work guarantee of three-fourths of a contract period currently required under the H-2A program. In addition, there are no changes to current law which resolve the hazardous conditions under which workers currently labor, such as their exposure to dangerous pesticides and chemicals or the absence of sanitary water and toiletry facilities at many work sites. The bill also fails to establish an effective enforcement regime to uphold laws which presently exist to protect workers.
Finally, we welcome your introduction of the idea of a legalization program for undocumented farmworkers currently in the United States. It is our belief that despite their undocumented status, such workers, many of whom toil for long periods in America's agricultural fields, deserve the opportunity to adjust their status and remain in the United States legally on a permanent basis.
However, the adjustment program in S. 1814 does not meet our basic requirements for providing workers a real opportunity to obtain legal permanent residency. Consistent with our earlier testimony, any adjustment program should provide legalization opportunities to a maximum number of both undocumented and H-2A temporary agricultural workers. Additionally, under an acceptable adjustment program these workers should be permanently legalized in a reasonable period of time after they commence work.
The adjustment program in S. 1814 requires a lengthy (5-year) future work requirement which would likely be unachievable for many workers. In the unlikely event that a worker meets the future work requirement under the program, the legislation then requires that only 20 percent of those eligible become legalized in any year. Pursuant to this formula, a worker could wait at least as long as five additional years to adjust their status. In our view, a shorter work requirement and a guarantee of immediate permanent resident status constitute the basic requirements of any meaningful adjustment program.
For these reasons, we oppose S. 1814.
Despite our opposition to S. 1814 as currently written, I would reaffirm that the U.S. Catholic Conference does not support the status quo with regard to temporary and migrant farmworkers in this country. We are committed to working with you and other federal officials to reevaluate and reshape the U.S. agricultural labor system in a fashion which better protects the rights of all agricultural workers while also meeting the agricultural labor needs of the United States in the 21st century.
We believe that these goals may be achieved through serious and principled dialogue among agricultural processors and growers, farmworkers and their representatives, and government officials. The Catholic Church stands ready to assist in this important process so that meaningful reforms in the agriculture industry--and improvements in the lives of all farmworkers--may be achieved.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Most Reverend Nicholas A. DiMarzio
Bishop of Camden
Chairman, NCCB/USCC Committee on Migration