California can feel like a legal minefield with the potential lawsuits that almond growers can face. Knowing the latest laws and regulations, and how to be compliant with them, is more important than ever. Henderson Arreola Partner Stacy Henderson spoke with Matthew Malcolm to discuss some tactics for how growers can stay ahead of regulations. Watch this quick video and learn more in Pacific Nut Producer Magazine.
Tag: Labor Laws
-
Western Growers Board of Directors Votes Unanimously to Oppose Flawed Immigration Bill
Irvine, Calif., (March 5, 2018) – Legislation that would worsen the worker shortage crisis for farmers throughout the country has received unanimous opposition from the board of directors of Western Growers, whose members supply more than half the fresh fruits, vegetables and tree nuts, grown both conventionally and organically, in the United States.
Western Growers members are based in California, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico. Member companies have farming and other operations in 28 states. The fresh produce industry employs the largest share of agriculture workers in the nation.
The bill would force long-time existing workers in agriculture to return to their countries of origin in order to apply for a new H-2C visa or stay in the shadows. Western Growers directors believe few of their employees would leave spouses and children behind in the U.S., many subject to deportation, on the questionable assumption that the federal government will efficiently readmit them as temporary seasonal guest workers. Additionally, those who do raise their hands to return to a country they no longer know may face difficulty with reentry after so many years.
The bill also imposes an unworkable cap on new visas – effectively 410,000 the first year and 820,000 the second year for fresh produce and other sectors – which would be insufficient for the estimated need. Studies indicate that there are currently two million undocumented farm workers in the U.S., with 400,000 to 500,000 in the west alone.
Western Growers President and CEO Tom Nassif issued the following statement following the board of directors’ vote: “We will remain engaged with any and all legislators who seek workable solutions to our labor crisis, but given the harm that would come to our growers from provisions of H.R. 4760, we must oppose the bill.”
About Western Growers:
Founded in 1926, Western Growers represents local and regional family farmers growing fresh produce in Arizona, California, Colorado and New Mexico. Our members and their workers provide half the nation’s fresh fruits, vegetables and tree nuts, including half of America’s fresh organic produce. For generations we have provided variety and healthy choices to consumers. Connect with and learn more about Western Growers on our Twitter and Facebook. -
California Farm Bureau Seeks Alternative Immigration Solution
Sacramento, Calif., (February 28, 2018) – As the U.S. House of Representatives continues discussion on proposed immigration legislation, the California Farm Bureau Federation says it cannot support a part of the bill that addresses agricultural employees.
Now before Congress, H.R. 4760, the Securing America’s Future Act, would fund a border wall and address internal immigration enforcement and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It also includes an Agricultural Guestworker Act, or AG Act, which would create a new agricultural visa program.
CFBF President Jamie Johansson said the AG Act, in its current form, contains a number of features that would harm the current immigrant employees on whom California farms and ranches depend. In addition, it would mandate use of the E-Verify electronic workplace-eligibility system, which could affect a large proportion of current agricultural employees.
“As now written, the AG Act just wouldn’t work for California farms and ranches,” Johansson said. “There’s a longstanding need to create a workable temporary-visa program for agriculture that provides greater stability and opportunities for agricultural employees and their families. The AG Act would cause too much disruption for our employees and our communities.”
Johansson said CFBF and other organizations have offered a number of recommendations for creating a more practical and flexible program to allow people from other countries to enter the U.S. to work on farms and ranches.
“We know the American Farm Bureau and other national agricultural organizations have decided to support the AG Act, and they have every right to do so,” Johansson said. “But as the largest agricultural organization in the largest agricultural state, we must advocate for a solution that works for our members and their employees. For California farmers and ranchers, the combination of the AG Act and E-Verify would actually worsen chronic agricultural employee shortages. We will press for a better solution.”
-
Federal Injury And Illness Electronic Reporting Requirements Not Applicable In CA
Sacramento, Calif., (December 13, 2017) – FELS’ Sacramento office has received inquiries concerning federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations that became effective January 1, 2017. These regulations require employers in federal OSHA jurisdiction states to electronically submit Log 300 records of injuries and illnesses, with the intent of publishing these reports on OSHA’s Internet page. The new federal regulation also imposes new anti-discrimination requirements intended to prevent employers’ adoption of safety policies that could be construed to discourage reporting of workplace injuries and illness.
California is one of 26 U.S. states to exercise the option provided in the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 allowing states to establish their own regulatory plans for occupational safety and health. These plans generally call for state-plan states to establish their own regulatory agency (Cal/OSHA, in California’s case), to promulgate regulations that protect employees as effectively as federal regulations and to operate enforcement programs that are as effective as federal enforcement. States that have not done so are under the jurisdiction of federal OSHA.
Employers in state-plan states are not obliged to comply with new federal occupational safety and health rules until their state’s regulatory process establishes regulations that are comparable to federal regulations.
Since Cal/OSHA has not yet adopted a regulation to implement the federal Log 300 reporting and anti-discrimination regulation, California employers do not need to comply with the federal regulation.
This regulation is the subject of ongoing litigation and federal OSHA has indicated it is reconsidering certain aspects of the rule. FELS will inform members of future developments.
Source: FELS, eNews, December 1, 2017
-
California Supreme Court Finally Provides Guidance on Seventh Day Rest Requirement
Sacramento, Calif., (May 19, 2017) – In addition to establishing an overtime pay phase-in for wage order 14 employees, AB 1066 also eliminated other longstanding exemptions. This included eliminating the exemption to the seventh day rest requirement, which provides that employees are entitled to one day’s rest in every seven days. Under the California Labor Code, employers cannot “cause” their employees to work more than six days in every seven. However, at the time of AB 1066’s passage, there was no accepted interpretation of what “cause” meant, although the matter was before the California Supreme Court.
Just this week, on May 8, 2017, the Court, in Nordstrom v. Mendoza, finally answered that key question, finding that an employer only “causes” its employee to go without a day of rest if it “induces” the employee to do so. An employer does not violate the requirement by permitting an employee, who is fully apprised of their right to rest, to independently choose to work. Put another way, an employer does not violate the law if they tell employees they are entitled to the day of rest, and is neutral about whether the employee decides to take the day off or not. However, if an employer encourages its employee in any way to forgo that day of rest, it is actively causing the employee to go without that day of rest, in violation of the law.
In its decision, the Court also held the following: 1) The guaranteed day of rest is determined by the usual workweek and not by how many consecutive days an employee has worked; and 2) the seventh day rest requirement does not apply if an employee has worked less than 30 hours in a week and less than six hours on each day of that workweek.
The Nordstrom decision represents a rare win for employers, and especially those in the agricultural industry who rely on employees working a seventh day due the seasonal nature of their operations. Those employers who choose to permit employees to volunteer to work on a seventh day should consider the use of a voluntary employee sign-up sheet and should consult with legal counsel regarding the adoption of additional policies to ensure compliance with the law.
Written by: Anthony Oceguera & Jason Yang for The Saqui Law Group