After Tough Negotiation, Raisin Price Decided

Raisin Price Set At $1650 Per Ton

More Thompson Seedless Vineyards To Be Pushed

The Raisin Bargaining Association (RBA) announced that it has reached agreement with its signatory packers on the 2013-14 Natural Seedless raisin harvest announced field price. The price will be one thousand six hundred fifty dollars ($1,650.00) per ton or eighty-two and one half cents ($0.825) per pound. The price is calculated using the following formula:

Base price $1,457.00 $0.7285

Moisture @ 10% 80.00 .04

Maturity @ 75% 50.00 .025

Container rental 21.00 .0105

Transportation (minimum) 15.00 .0075

RAC assessment 14.00 .007

USDA inspection 13.00 .0065

2013 Announced RBA field price $1,650.00 per ton $0.825 per lb.

Raisin growers have sent a strong message to the industry that they prefer selling raisins on a 100% basis now and into the future. With that in mind, the Board of Directors of the Association worked diligently toward a compromise with their signatory packers to establish a fair price that reflects the additional California raisin production for this season.

The Raisin Administrative Committee (RAC) recently estimated the 2013 Natural Seedless raisin crop at 348,437 tons in comparison to deliveries of 311,090 tons last year. The $1,650 per ton price for the 2013 Natural Seedless raisin crop is a 13% reduction to last year but takes into account the additional crop that is estimated for production as well as the challenging market conditions that the industry will be facing.

The agreement calls for growers to be paid in three installments this year as opposed to four installments last season. 65% of the payment will be due fifteen (15) days after completion of delivery, 20% will be due to growers on or before February 28, 2014, and the final 15% will be payable on or before April 30, 2014.

In the past, grower reserve raisins generated funds to assist the industry in marketing additional production into world markets. The effort to sell this year’s additional production without reserve programs and the temporary elimination of state marketing and promotion funding are two reasons why the RAC assessment of fourteen dollars ($14) per ton has been included in the pricing formula. This will provide an opportunity for the industry to work together through the RAC in support of efforts to market 100% of each year’s crop without reserves.

As reported from the International Dried Grape Producing Countries Conference in October, there continue to be strong indicators that Turkey has a significantly smaller dried grape crop to market this coming season. California and Turkey are the two largest producers of dried grapes in the world. It was also reported that South Africa, Chile, and Argentina have suffered tremendous frost damage in their vineyards, which will severely limit their harvest, which begins in January. The ability to take full advantage of what appears to be a tremendous sales opportunity requires an announced field price.

The Raisin Bargaining Association Board of Directors understood the importance of establishing this important benchmark in a timely manner to sell the maximum amount of raisins this year. However, they are also well aware of the impact it has on the grower community. Labor, water, and energy costs have significantly increased for growers over the past twelve months further squeezing their bottom line margins. As agricultural resources in California are depleted, vineyard owners will continue to seek the best utilization of their land.

California Ag Today editors spoke with Steven Spate, an RBA Grower representative, and a raisin grower. He said: “We are witnessing a large amount of raisin grape vineyards being removed (between 8,000 and 15,000 acres) from production this year in favor of more mechanized and profitable crops such as almonds, walnuts, and citrus.”

“Time will tell what impact this acreage reduction will have on the future of the California raisin industry but taking the necessary steps to market this year’s crop was extremely important for the Raisin Bargaining Association to accomplish. We are now counting on the California raisin packers to sell this crop to provide a better future for the remaining growers in our industry,” Spate said.

Spate added that processors thought the price should have been lower, but growers generally thought that shortages in Turkey and other areas should have boosted the price. “But still, there are excess raisins on the market and it has created a downswing in price.

Growers who are pushing out vineyards say that the lower price is only one factor that is in play. Chronic labor shortages are also encouraging growers to plant a less labor-intensive crop.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-08-25T21:49:44-07:00November 26th, 2013|

Strawberry Meeting Focused on Fumigants, Pest Control

Fumigation Was Big Topic at Santa Maria Strawberry Meeting

New laws and regulations on fumigation for Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo County strawberry growers were in place for the first time this season, and growers did a good job for the most part. This and other topics were discussed at the Wednesday’s annual Strawberry Production and Pest Management Meeting in Santa Maria.

According to Lottie Martin, Ag Biologist, Santa Barbara County Ag Commissioners office, for the most part, grower chose the right tarps for the right situation. “Growers must be careful to use a 60 percent tarp when capping a fumigation with the

Surendra Dara, crop advisor, UC Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo

1,3 D,” said Martin. “Growers should plan well in advance to make sure the tarp that is needed, is available.”

Martin said mandated buffer zones were noted and documented, however operators need to do a better job with required signage.

Surendra Dara, a Strawberry and Vegetable Crops Advisor, UC Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo, spoke about re-evaluating lygus bug IPM tools in strawberries with a focus on field vacs, monitory and economic thresholds. He spoke of an experiment with softer chemistry such as well as using B. bassiana, a soil fungus that acts as a parasite to lygus. “A combination of B. bassiana and azadirachtin.

Hillary Thomas, research manager, California Strawberry Commission

Hillary Thomas, Research Manager with California Strawberry Commission in Watsonville also spoke about lygus. Her focus was third year bug vac research for lygus control.

Kirk Larson, pomologist and strawberry production specialist with the UC South Coast Research and Education Center, Irvine

Kirk Larson, Pomologist and Strawberry Production Specialist with the UC South coast Research and Education Center, Irvine spoke about advanced selections and non-chilling plug plants.

Mark Bolda, Strawberry and Caneberry Farm Advisor and County Director with UC Cooperative Extension, Santa Cruz County spoke about strawberry transplanting and the critical importance of chilling hours necessary for strawberry production.

Steve Fennimore, Cooperative Extension Specialist, UC Davis updated attendees on the use of steam to kill soil pathogens, in place of fumigants. He said work is focused on reducing the cost and outlined possible use of a prototype machine around certain higher risk areas near buffer zones on production fields.

Karen Klonsky UC Cooperative Extension specialist

Karen Klonsky, Cooperative Extension Specialist, UC Davis spokes about the economic considerations of alternatives to fumigation and producing a second year crop.

Also speaking was Thomas Flewell, Flewell Consulting, Watsonville-Salinas. His topic focused on evaluating pest management strategies with numbers. What do the numbers mean and how do we really know what we’re doing.

A more detailed report can be found in future issue of Vegetables West Magazine. Free subscription at VegetablesWest.com.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:06:02-07:00November 22nd, 2013|

Record Crowd of Tree Nut Growers in Turlock

Big Crowd in Turlock for Tree Nut and Vine Expo

More than 800 growers and PCAs were at the Stanislaus County Fairgrounds TODAY, to hear from many speakers, visit with hundreds of exhibitors, talk about tree nuts and grape vines, and enjoy breakfast and a barbeque Tri-Tip lunch.

“It was the 18thannual event and with a record crowd. All growers were upbeat following a good harvest and good nut prices. Also, both domestic and export sales are increasing,” said Patrick Cavanaugh, editor of Pacific Nut Producer magazine and co-host of the event.

Exhibitors speak with tree nut growers about products and services

“We are pleased that both the nut and grape industry are doing well in California. All we really need is a lot of rainfall this winter,” said Dan Malcolm, publisher of Pacific Nut Producer as well as American Vineyard magazine, and co-host of the show.

Crowd gathers outside to look over equipment.

Speakers came from UC Davis, Stanislaus County Ag Commissioner’s office, UC Cooperative Extension, Almond Board of California, California Walnut Board, Stanislaus County Farm Bureau, and CalAgSafety.

“We appreciate the support of the event sponsors and the record number exhibitors,” said Cavanaugh.

Ryan Genzoli with Cal Ag Safety speaks.

Sponsors Included:

Agromillora
American Ag Credit
Big Tree Organics
California Walnut Board
Compass Minerals
Dave Wilson Nursery
Diamond Foods
Fresno State Viticulture and Enology Dept.
JKB Energy
Novozymes
Principal Financial Group
Yosemite Farm Credit

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:06:02-07:00November 13th, 2013|

32ND AGRIBUSINESS CONFERENCE

Economy, Water, Trade and Labor were Big Topics at 32nd Agribusiness Conference

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Editor

The reality of the 2014 Federal water allocation, new trade agreements, and the prospects of immigration reform were some of the topics discussed at the 32^ndAgribusiness Management Conference, held at the Radisson Hotel and Conference Center in Fresno, and hosted by Mechel Paggi, Director of California State University Center for Agricultural Business.

California State University, Fresno (CSUF) President Joseph Castro

California State University, Fresno (CSUF) President Joseph Castro, the first CSUF president native to the Central Valley and close to agriculture, opened the conference. “I’m happy that our Jordon College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology has had such a tremendous impact in helping to provide a well-educated work force to serve the many facets of the agricultural industry in the valley and beyond.

“One of my highest priorities as president is to further strengthen our agricultural programs in the broadest sense. In the next week, I will formerly establish a presidential commission on the future of agriculture at Fresno State. The commission will include leaders from the campus and industry coming together to assess our programs and to think about what the needs are now and in the future,” Castro said. “I want these leaders to make recommendations on how to further strengthen our agriculture program.

Following Castro, Terry Barr, Chief Economist, CoBank, presented an economic outlook. He noted that economic decisions are not being made fast enough, because the economy is about the same as it was a year ago. “There are still many issues that are unresolved,” he said, adding, “If you don’t make decisions then you don’t move forward.”

Terry Barr, chief economist, CoBank

“We have been through a very dynamic period over the last 10 years. In the first half of that 10 year period, everyone was talking about the rising middle class in China and India and what it was doing for agricultural product demand,” said Carr. “From 2004 to 2008, we had the best of all possible worlds with strong economic growth and growth in the middle class. That was an extremely strong time for agricultural exports. In late 2008, we experienced different economic turmoil and global recession; however, agriculture was pretty well insulated,” Carr added.

“Today, demand for agricultural products remains very strong, mainly due to global shortfalls of some commodities and, of course, growth in China. Going forward in the next five years, we expect a period of continued turmoil, requiring policy changes to realign management, including budget deficits,” noted Carr.

“China is still going to be important but there will be some major geopolitical realignments globally. We are not going to see rapid growth with solid demand. As we go forward, agriculture will probably have to find the new normal,” he said.

“In the US, there is a lot of policy inaction, and there is no long term strategy to reduce the debt. The US dollar is important to agriculture in terms of our competiveness on a global basis,” Carr explained. “From 2002 to 2011, the US dollar fell in value by 38 percent, and our global competitiveness was extremely strong during that time. But we have to believe that the dollar is going to get stronger, not weaker, against most other currencies, with the exception of China.”

Carr noted that China is really driving the global economy at this point in time and what happens there has extraordinary influence on Ag pricing in the future. “They have a lot of room for stimulus, and they have $3 trillion in reserves that they are deploying both domestic and globally,” he said.

“Brazil, Russia and India are emerging markets, which have slowed since the 2004-2008 experience. However, those economies are now in a more normal growth path,” Carr said.

Paggi then spoke about two trade agreements that are on currently in the forefront, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Mechel Paggi, director of California State University Center for Agricultural Business

“Basically every commodity we work with in California, particularly from the Central Valley, has a huge stake in the export market,” said Paggi. “We produce about $44 billion worth of product and 38 percent of it moves into international trade. It’s tremendously important to us,” said Paggi.

“TTP and TTIP are the two most important preferential trade agreements to be negotiated since NAFTA,” he noted.

“Our TPP partners encompass a market of nearly 500 million consumers with a combined GDP of nearly $12 trillion,” Paggi said. Partner countries include Canada, Australia, Mexico, Malaysia, Singapore, Chile, Peru, New Zealand, Vietnam, Brunei and Japan.

“The TTIP with the EU spans 28 countries with more than 500 million consumers and a GDP of $16.5 trillion,” said Paggi.

“These agreements would give us more marketing opportunities, which at the present time are less than completely open to us, so the benefits would have tremendous potential for us,” Paggi explained.

Paggi said that there is tremendous debate on these potential agreements within the U.S. Also, farmers in the foreign countries involved are worried about opening up their market to U.S. imports.

These agreements would also help to strengthen the existing trade agreements that already are in place with many of the countries in the area.

“We also need to realize that a tremendous amount of trade among these countries is already covered in existing agreements, so what we would be doing with the TTP and TTIP is expanding the membership and bringing everyone into the same circle,” Paggi commented.

Paggi said, in summary, the U.S. has a choice to remain engaged or be left behind. None of these agreements or policy solutions is perfect, so there will have to be a pro-con compromise.

“Also, keep in mind,” Paggi continued, “that trade agreements promote economic well-being, and economic stability promotes political stability, so the benefits of these agreements often transcend simple market access and sales opportunities.”

Tom Birmingham is General Manager of Westlands Water District, an agency of 615,000 acres on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in Fresno and Kings Counties. “We are here to talk about ‘What’s on tap,’ which is a metaphor that creates an image I wish were applicable on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley,” Birmingham began, “I am not just talking about the Westlands Water District, I am talking about the west side of the San Joaquin Valley that includes the service of every agency that has an agricultural contract with the U.S.”

Tom Birmingham, general manager, Westlands Water District

“Unfortunately, and it almost brings tears to my eyes, next year, when the farmers in the Federal Water districts that use water from the Central Valley Project they open their taps, nothing is going to come. Nothing, that is, unless we have a dramatic change in the hydrology that we have been experiencing over the last year, actually the last eight months,” Birmingham warned.

“In California, water years fall in one of five classifications of hydrology; they have been classified as wet, above normal, below normal, dry or critical. If you talk about average hydrology in California, average rain, average snowpack, average runoff, it doesn’t mean a lot,” said Birmingham. “Because in fact, what is considered to be an average year, falls into a classification that is called, ‘a below-normal water year,’” he noted.

Birmingham continued, “But Westlands is projecting, and these are projections that the Bureau of Reclamation doesn’t take any issue with, that if we have average precipitation or hydrology for the rest of this water year, plus the same operational constraints the Endangered Species Act imposed in 2013 on the state water project and the Federal Central Valley project, our water supply will initially be zero. If we are lucky, we might get to 5% or 10% of our water supply.”

“So, we are facing a repeat of what we saw in 2009,” he noted, “when nearly half of the bare ground lay fallow in the Westlands Water District; where farmers over drafted the groundwater basin; where we experienced incredible unemployment; where people were forced to stand in lines to receive food, in some cases getting to the front of the line to be told the food bank had run out of food, or to get to the front of the line and be given carrots – grown in China. That, in my perspective, is a tragedy; it is unconscionable,” explained Birmingham.

“But that’s what we are faced with. It is hard to talk about these issues without talking about the Delta,” he said.

“The bad news is that in Kern County or the Friant-Kern service area, farmers and the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley, where groundwater is available, growers have been over drafting the groundwater basin,” said Birmingham.

“Westlands has one of the most sophisticated groundwater management programs that exist in the state,” explained Birmingham. “In fact, in 2009, when the state legislature adopted statutes requiring the development of groundwater management plans, Westlands was actually used as one of the examples of the types of information that could be collected.

But Westlands is projecting that in 2013, farmers in the district will use 598,000 acre feet of groundwater from the groundwater basin, compared to a safe yield of approximately 150,000 acre feet.

“The last time farmers in Westlands Water District extracted that much groundwater was in 1992, the fifth year of an extended drought,” said Birmingham.

“We have talked about subsidence and how it has historically occurred, and we are beginning to experience it in numerous places north of Fresno, Madera and Merced Counties,” he said.

“In fact, we continue to experience subsidence within the Westlands Water District. It is fascinating to drive long I-5, where it used to be perfectly flat and smooth. Today, as you drive along the Westside, there are lots of undulations. The same is true at the Three Rocks area of Fresno County. I remember highway 33 was perfectly flat, but today now there are undulations as a consequence of subsidence,” said Birmingham.

“We will continue to experience subsidence, but the rate of subsidence will accelerate. Currently the groundwater levels in Westlands are approximately 100 feet higher than in 1967 when deliveries from the Central Valley Project began. When we fall below that historic low groundwater level, we’re going to experience the types of subsidence that led to the authorization of the San Luis unit.

“Congress authorized construction of San Luis to alleviate subsidence on the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley,” said Birmingham.

“One of the things on tap is there is going to be some type of groundwater regulation. California is one of the few states that generally does not regulate the use of groundwater,” he noted.

There is a lot of groundwater monitoring in California, and in a few regions there are special groundwater management districts created by the legislature. But, generally the use of groundwater is not regulated to the same degree as surface water.

“There exists a lack of statewide effort to regulate the use of groundwater. I would suspect that all of our agencies would oppose that type of statewide legislation,” said Birmingham. “From our perspective, regulations should be made at a regional level because every groundwater basin is different and should be managed on a case-by- case basis instead of state-wide regulations.”

“But it is interesting, half of the farmers in the Westlands Water District take the historic agricultural position that groundwater is the resource available to overlying landowners, and no one has any business regulating their groundwater,” he said.

“If the other 50% of farmers in Westlands, do not become proactive in its management of ground water, as opposed to its monitoring, then the state will step in and do it on behalf of everyone in the state,” said Birmingham.

“Equally as controversial, if management is not done by regional entities like Westlands Water District, it will be regulated by county or state.”

“So, Westlands Water District is actively looking to get into the business of regulating the use of groundwater.”

Ron Jacobsma, general manager, Friant Water Authority

There is some good news, tempered with bad news. The good news is there are a lot of resources that can be reasonably and more effectively and efficiently managed.

Westlands Water District has experienced chronic water supply shortages on a regular basis since the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, and has coped using water transfer contracts based annually or on a longer-term basis with a fixed price.

Also speaking about water was Ron Jacobsma, General Manager, Friant Water Authority. He gave an interesting history of the San Joaquin River, Friant Dam, Millerton Reservoir and canal that serve 1,000s of growers on the East Side of the San Joaquin Valley from Madera to Kern County.

Brent Walthall, with the Kern Water Agency, talked about the many different and historical water districts in Kern County, as well as describing the innovative water banking that is taking place in Kern County during flood years.

Brent Walthall, Kern Water Agency

The event was sponsored by California State University’s Center for Agricultural Business, Jordon College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Zenith Insurance Company, Edgewood Partners Insurance Center, and Higgins, Marcus & Lovett.

There was also a session on Immigration Reform and its importance to the Central Valley. We will post that on Nov. 4.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:43:12-07:00November 2nd, 2013|

CENTER FOR LAND-BASED LEARNING CELEBRATES 20TH ANNIVERSARY

Happy 20^th Anniversary!

CDFA Secretary Karen Ross reported TODAY, “I had the honor and pleasure to help celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Center for Land-Based Learning, a non-profit organization in Winters started by California State Board of Food and Agriculture president, Craig McNamara, and his wife, Julie, to help connect young people with nature and agriculture.”

“In the last two decades, the Center has become a force in this state for its extremely effective youth development and beginning farmer education,” Ross continued. “I want to commend Craig for his vision, passion and commitment of resources to make the Center an entity that touches so many people in such positive ways and is absolutely contributing to a better future for California agriculture.”

“Happy 20th Anniversary, Center for Land-Based Learning!”

_______________________________________

The Center for Land-Based Learning strives to inspire and motivate people of all ages, especially youth, to promote a healthy interplay between agriculture, nature and society through their own actions and as leaders in their communities.

The Center for Land-Based Learning envisions a world where there is meaningful appreciation and respect for our natural environment and for the land that produces our food and sustains our quality of life.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:06:02-07:00October 26th, 2013|

AGRICULTURAL AWARDS – 2013 World Food Prize

2013 World Food Prize Winners

Three distinguished scientists — Marc Van Montagu of Belgium, and Americans, Mary-Dell Chilton, Founder and Distinguished Science Fellow, Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.; and Robert T. Fraley, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Monsanto—share the 2013 World Food Prize for their independent, individual breakthrough achievements in founding, developing, and applying modern agricultural biotechnology.

Their research, which makes it possible for farmers to grow crops with improved yields, resistance to insects and disease, and the ability to tolerate extreme variations in climate, can play a critical role as we face the global challenges of the 21st century of producing more food, in a sustainable way, while confronting an increasingly volatile climate. The pioneering work of these three contributed to the emergence of a new term, “agricultural biotechnology.”

With particular ties to California, Dr. Robert T. Fraley, conducted post-doctoral research in biophysics at the University of California-San Francisco. Fraley led the successful introduction of genetically engineered soybeans that were resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, commercially known as Roundup. When planting these “Roundup Ready” crops, a farmer was able to spray an entire field with glyphosate—and only the weeds would be eliminated, leaving the crop plants alive and thriving.

The World Food Prize is the foremost international award recognizing— without regard to race, religion, nationality, or political beliefs—the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world.

The Prize recognizes contributions in any field involved in the world food supply — food and agriculture science and technology, manufacturing, marketing, nutrition, economics, poverty alleviation, political leadership and the social sciences.

The World Food Prize emphasizes the importance of a nutritious and sustainable food supply for all people. By honoring those who have worked successfully toward this goal, The Prize calls attention to what has been done to improve global food security and to what can be accomplished in the future.

**************

Agriculturalist of the Year,

Fresno County

The Fresno County Farm Bureau announced that The Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce and Baker, Peterson & Franklin, CPA announced that Supervisor Phil Larson was selected as the 2013 Agriculturalist of the Year, an award given annually to individuals who exemplify leadership and integrity in the Central Valley’s agricultural business community.

Supervisor Larson, a lifelong farmer and Fresno County resident, has had a long and distinguished career with the Wilbur Ellis Company and retired in 2000. His list of community involvement is extensive and includes: President, Fresno County Farm Bureau; Charter member, California Agriculture Production Consultants; California Farm Bureau District 7 State Director; and Fresno City/County Chamber of Commerce.

**************

Baker, Peterson & Franklin Ag Business Award

The Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce and Baker, Peterson & Franklin, CPA also announced Gar Tootelian, Inc., of Reedley was awarded the 2013 Baker, Peterson & Franklin Ag Business Award, an award to a for-profit service or product-related agribusiness or farming entity headquartered in the Central San Joaquin Valley whose achievements and impact have significantly contributed to the industry and the local community.

Established in 1949, Gar Tootelian, Inc. still prospers as one of California’s oldest and largest independent agricultural chemical and fertilizer retailers. Second generation and family owned, it serves over 1,400 growers from Madera to Kern County.

Gar Tootelian provides advanced, environmentally safe, bio-technology and crop services available. Crop Life magazine recognized Gar Tootelian as the largest, single location, ag retailer in the nation, and they were named in the 10 Best Companies to work for in the Central Valley by a Business Journal survey.

At the Ag Awards Luncheon on Wednesday, November 13 at Radisson Conference Center in Fresno, the Baker, Peterson & Franklin Ag Business Award and the Fresno Chamber Agriculturist of the Year Award will be presented.

Luncheon tickets are available through the Fresno Chamber of Commerce, www.fresnochamber.com, (559) 495-4800.

Source: Fresno County Farm Bureau, CA Avocado Society

**************

Award of Honor, California

Avocado Commission

At its 98th annual meeting, the California Avocado Society (CAS) presented the 2013 “Award of Honor” to California Avocado Commission (CAC) Vice President of Marketing Jan DeLyser,CAS President.

“Jan DeLyser has specifically focused on the California avocado industry for the past 15 years. Her entry into the California avocado industry came at a difficult time, when foreign imports cast an ominous shadow over our livelihoods,” said CAS President Chris Ambuul. “In just 15 years, US consumption has increased five-fold, and we are still in business. Jan hasn’t just left a mark on our industry; she is a big reason why we are all still here.”

Ambuul noted that the CAS award recognizes outstanding contribution and dedication to the California avocado industry.

The California Avocado Society came into being on May 15, 1915 to promote efficiency of production and orderly marketing toward assuring long term profitability for the business of avocado growing.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:03:07-07:00October 18th, 2013|

INTERVIEW WITH DAN GERAWAN

UFW and ALRB Want to Impose Contract on Gerawan Employees

“The UFW won an election to represent Gerawan workers 23 years ago; but then, after only one bargaining session, the union disappeared and hasn’t been heard from in 20 years,” Gerawan Farming said in a recent statement. “Last October, the union reappeared and is using decade-old legislation to now impose a contract on the employer and the employees without a vote.”

California Ag Today associate editor Laurie Greene interviewed Dan Gerawan this week on what he is going through regarding the UFW and ALRB.

Greene: Please introduce your company’s products, # employees, etc.

Dan Gerawan: Gerawan Farming Inc., which grows and ships under the Prima label, is the world’s largest peach grower and employs about 3,000 workers. The company also farms table grapes, nectarines, and plums. We are a family-owned and operated company. Despite our size, I farm with my father, Ray, my brother, Mike, and my wife, Norma. We are very hands-on; this is what we do.

Greene: There are press reports that Gerawan is having a dispute with the UFW. What is that dispute?

Gerawan: We are not having a dispute with the UFW. Our employees are having a dispute. As a company, our dispute is with the state government that is trying to force a contract on us without giving the workers an opportunity to vote. People need to understand that this is not a normal union situation; it has to do with a law being used for something it was never meant for.

Greene: What is your stance on employees having a vote?

Gerawan: We believe the employees should have a vote, and they have made it known they want a vote. They are not saying how they will vote; they just want a vote. When they often express their opinions to us, we stop them and say, “Don’t tell us your preference; we support your right to vote, that’s enough. Everything else is your choice.”

Greene: Can you describe the chronology of your circumstances with the UFW and ALRB?

Gerawan: We lost an election with the UFW in 1990. We had our only bargaining session in 1995. There was never a contract, and the union failed to continue bargaining. The union disappeared; they abandoned our workers.

To this day, we don’t know why. They have told us, “We have no legal obligation to tell you.” We responded, “But you do have a moral obligation. How can you come back after 20 years and tell our workers that you want 3% of their money or you are going to fire them?”

The UFW wrote us a letter in October 2012 saying, “We’re ready to negotiate.” At the time, we couldn’t believe it since the employees didn’t even know they were represented by the union and had been working quite happily earning the industry’s highest wages. But then attorneys explained to us that the UFW would force us into a mandatory process where the state would actually impose the contract on us and our employees, and we would have no right to opt out.

So, the UFW pretended to negotiate for a while. After just eight brief bargaining sessions over a three-month period, during which the UFW never made an economic proposal, the UFW suddenly asked the government to step in to write and impose a contract us.

Greene: Can you explain the Mandatory Mediation Law?

Gerawan: In 2002, the state legislature passed an amendment to 1975’s Agricultural Labor Relations Act. That amendment allowed for mandatory mediation to be imposed in ag labor situations. However, ‘mediation’ is a misnomer; it is really mandatory arbitration. The legislature passed the law in response to a few employers, including one employer (not us) who supposedly dragged out negotiations for many years, 20 years in that particular case.

When the legislature passed that 2002 law, their thought was that that if an employee votes for a union, they are voting for a contract. However, in most industries, employees vote for representation and negotiation for a contract. This is not a normal situation where the union comes in to negotiate, with power, backing up the workers, and then the two parties negotiate a mutual agreement. This is the union invoking a law that allows the state to literally force a contract on the employer and employees.

Keep in mind that the law was meant to remedy dragged-out negotiations. There were no negotiations here to drag out; the union had disappeared. There is nothing in the legislative history that shows the law was to be used in these situations. The UFW’s and ALRB’s stance is basically, “The letter of the law… says if you failed to reach an ‘agreement,’ we can invoke this.” We responded, “That implies that you tried to reach an agreement. You guys never tried. You went away.” Their response, “Well the law doesn’t say we had to try, so we are using that law now to impose a contract.”

Greene: How do you respond to ALRB’s accusations of coercion and forgeries?

Gerawan: The Company has done nothing to coerce any signatures. We do not know anything about forgeries. We don’t know how many there supposedly are. We don’t know who caused those forgeries, and by that I mean I don’t know if they are saying we caused them or the union caused them.

It doesn’t take any coercion for the highest paid employees in the industry to realize that it is wrong for a union to come back after a twenty-year absence and tell them they will take 3% of their pay or fire them—without a vote. Not even a vote to ratify any contract that might happen.

After hearing this for a few months and being harassed at their homes multiple times by UFW people, the employees, on their own, began a decertification effort. They started a petition and turned it in to the ALRB. Immediately, the UFW started filing unfair labor practice charges against us saying that we were coercing our employees. That is silly.

We did not coerce, and in fact we invited ALRB to go out to our fields to make sure the workers understood they have the right to vote however they want. The ALRB did that.

We also did that. My wife, Norma, and I met with all the employees and told them, “Do whatever you want, choose however you want to choose. But congratulations on having achieved that right through your petition. We are not asking how you will vote.”

Greene: Could the signatures have been forged after you submitted them?

Gerawan: I really don’t know. All I know is thousands of signatures apparently were delivered.

Keep in mind, the union does not want the employees to have a choice, and they are fighting hard to stop the employees from having a choice, especially when the adjudicating agency has shown overwhelming bias against the employer and the employees.

The ALRB’s role, under the Agriculture Labor Relations Act, is to protect employees’ rights as a whole and to cause peace in the fields (which we had before the UFW and ALRB came into the situation). So why is the ALRB stopping the employees from having their vote just because of a relatively few questionable signatures from an unknown source?

After all, this is merely a vote.

We need to keep in mind that this is a declining union that has been gone for twenty years, has done nothing for these workers, and has returned only to pick the pockets of the industry’s highest paid workers and not even allow them to have a vote. I think it is unconscionable that the ALRB has done nothing to stop it, but in fact has taken every opportunity to accommodate this travesty.

Greene: Gerawan Farming has claimed that the ruling by Silas Shawver, regional director of ALRB, failed to provide a count of signatures filed, the number needed for a vote, and the number judged invalid.

Gerawan: This is correct. The ALRB blocked the election citing forgeries and coercion. Mr. Shawver is refusing to give out any information.

My wife and I informed our employees that the ALRB regional director in Visalia canceled their vote because supposedly we and the management of our company coerced our workers’ signatures. Our employees told me flat out that the only coercion has come from UFW and ALRB themselves.”

To continue this interview, please press “more” below!

Greene: What is behind the ALRB’s finding that Gerawan directly assisted the petitioner and others in the decertification effort?

Gerawan: We have not directly assisted the petitioner. So, what the ALRB is saying is not true. It is simply did not happen.

When the employees turned in their petition, the ALRB did not announce an election. The employees got very upset and demonstrated at the ALRB office in Visalia to demand their right to vote.

ALRB did not respond, but subsequently cancelled the vote, citing forgeries and coercion. The regional director is refusing to give out any information.

So, on September 30,over 1,500 of our employees reacted by going on strike to protest the ALRB’s and UFW’s cancellation of the vote. We thought we’d be harvesting peaches and grapes that day, but we didn’t.

Greene: Did Gerawan support the stoppage?

Gerawan: Oh no, we did not support the stoppage. We support the workers’ right to choose. But we did not want to see work stopped because we had fruit to harvest that day. But because the workers did stop, the cost for us was significant.

Greene: In a statement you said, “It is unfortunate that our employees felt they needed to take such a drastic action to have their voices heard. We are still hopeful that [the board] will protect the workers’ right to choose.” Are employees grateful for your company’s advocacy or opposed?

Gerawan: The employees have told us that they are grateful that we support their right to choose. At no time have we ever expressed a preference to them one way or the other. We want them to choose.

Greene: What rights do the UFW and ALRB have?

Gerawan: The UFW itself doesn’t have much power because they have such a small membership and are declining, but they have been handed an inordinate amount of power by the legislature. With such power, the UFW no longer needs workers’ support. They no longer need to organize the way a normal union organizes. Their members are created by legislation, not a vote.

We are about to have a contract literally written for us by a state agency and imposed on us. No one signs anything. Neither we nor our employees can opt out.

This type of ag labor unrest hasn’t happened since the 60’s and 70’s, and back then it was completely the opposite of what’s happening now. Back then, the workers wanted union and government protections. Now, the workers are fighting to be free from union coercion and government imposition. It’s hard to believe that the very law that was created to protect farm worker rights is now being used to rob those workers of their rights.

Greene: Why do you think the UFW is targeting Gerawan Farms?

Gerawan: I think they are going after the old abandoned elections.

We have the highest paid employees in the table grapes and tree fruit industry. No one disputes that, not even the union.

By the way, the union has no contracts with table grapes or stone fruit farm employees, and they have not been able to secure any. The last contract they had was with a Hanford farmer, and after a few years, those workers voted to throw the union out.

Clearly we are the biggest target, especially for a union that now is barely 3,000 members. If they prevail against our employees, this would double their size. Overnight, the majority of UFW members will be co-opted members created by legislative fiat, not by worker choice. The UFW needs this badly because their expenses exceed their income, and this is all public knowledge.

Greene: What is the employer mandated to do?

Gerawan: To live within the terms of the contract. There will be no other option. As an example of what the imposed contract will do, it will throw out our meritocracy, which has been an important part of our success, and replace it with seniority. That’s something we specifically told the ALRB arbitrator would harm us.

We made it clear to the ALRB, “Do not mess with that. We have been a shining example of success in creating high wages in an industry that has had a lot of failures. Don’t mess with our formula for success, please.” They completely ignored our plea.

Imagine any business having a contract written by the state and imposed on them–wages, working conditions and everything else. It’s hard to believe that it is actually happening, especially when we’re already paying the highest wages and benefits.

Greene: Did they have to prove any wrongdoing to do this?

Gerawan: To invoke mandatory mediation there has to be an unfair labor practice. We were found guilty of an unfair labor practice in the 1990s after the election. I think it was for laying off a crew at the end of the season.

Now that the union has come back, we have more unfair labor practice allegations. For example, for the buses to Sacramento, that we had nothing to do with, we have an unfair labor practice charge against us. For the employee walk out, that we had nothing to do with and which cost us a huge amount of money, we have an unfair labor charge against us.

Who adjudicates them? The ALRB. A charge does not mean you are truly guilty of doing something; it only means that the union has accused you of something.

Greene: What are your other unfair labor practice charges?

Gerawan: There have been many. It seems to be part of the game. For example, last October, when the union came in, we felt compelled to let our employees know about this. With our lawyers’ review, we sent our employees a letter with the facts only, but we received an unfair labor practice charge just for that.

So, because the UFW suddenly decides to reappear after being gone twenty years, we can no longer communicate with our employees?

Once the union files an unfair labor practice charge, the ALRB investigates, which takes months. Then, they will often side with the union against the employer and file official changes, which will eventually be heard by an administrative law judge. It could be a year or more before the facts come out. Meanwhile, the ALRB and UFW use those charges to damage your reputation, even though there has been no proper discovery or hearing.

Plus, if the unfair labor charge is used to block an election, and the investigation takes months, then the available time window for the election will probably lapse, and the employees’ right to a vote will be taken away from them. The system actually seems designed for that to happen.

Greene: Is there a pattern of unfair labor practices against you?

Gerawan: They come in batches. We got seven a few days ago for the bus trip, the strike, for whatever they conjure up. The unfair labor practice charges are just one or two sentences. From the union standpoint, they fill out a form, and then ALRB does the rest. ALRB sends their team of investigators out to “prove or disprove the unfair labor practice,” but I do not think they want to disprove anything. The ALRB has shown a clear pattern of wanting to rob our employees of their right to choose.

Greene: Gerawan is well known in taking good care of their employees. With this in mind, what could the UFW offer that is missing?

Gerawan: First of all, wage-wise, we are far above the rest of the industry. In fact, many in the industry have told me that they cannot believe that this is happening to the company that pays the highest wages and offers the best working conditions.

So what could the UFW possibly offer? Whatever it is that the state feels it can force the grower to pay whether or not it makes sense or is viable for the business. Again, this is not a normal situation where union organizers represent workers at the bargaining table.

Greene: What is it like for your employees?

Gerawan: The employees have told me that they cannot believe this is happening to them. They say they left Mexico because of things like this. They said, “You wait Dan, we’re going to have a vote.” I said, guys, I hope you do, but you may not have the chance. The employees said, “What do you mean? This is America! When the state hears that all we want is to vote, then they will understand.”

I had to tell them that I was sorry that this it is such a tragedy. We all assume that we will have the simple basic right to vote, but apparently that’s not how it is anymore.

Greene: You have met with Sylvia Torres-Guillén, the general counsel with the California ALRB. How did your conversation go with her?

Gerawan: Yes, my wife and I met her during one of our hearings. She was very cordial. We both had just heard my attorney tell the Judge that ALRB was so biased that it would never let our workers have a vote. We told her that we hoped that she would prove my attorney wrong because our employees need her help to protect their right to vote.

She said she would let them vote if… at which point I politely interrupted and pleaded to her that it was her responsibility to get rid of the “if,” and to make sure the rights of the workers were protected so that peace would be restored to our fields.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-10-25T21:53:22-07:00October 14th, 2013|

AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 2013

***Fresno Agribusiness Management Conference 2013* *is Oct. 31***

Leading Economist To Address Agribusiness Management Conference

Top economists will join with academic and business experts to discuss the economic outlook, global trade agreements, California’s water supply, immigration policy reform and other key issues at the 32nd Annual Agribusiness Management Conference to be held October 31, in Fresno.

Sponsored by Fresno State’s Center for Agricultural Business (CAB), Bank of America, Wells Fargo and the Zenith Insurance Company, the event will occur in partnership with supporting farm businesses, agencies and organizations. It will be held at the Radisson Hotel and Conference Center downtown.

“Our markets are subject to the trends in the general economy and the global economy as well,” according to CAB Director Dr. Mechel Paggi. “The conference will feature expert speakers who will address these issues, and participants will be provided with supporting information and outlooks on specific commodities.”

Paggi will open the half-day event with an 8:00 a.m. The official greeting will be by the new President of Fresno State, Dr. Joseph Castro.

Following the opening remarks, at 8:15 a.m. Terry Barr, chief economist for CoBank, a national cooperative bank that is part of the farm credit system, will offer insights on upcoming economic challenges and opportunities in an address titled “Economic Outlook: Traversing the Minefield.”

Adding to the economic outlook will be a presentation by John Wainio, economist with the USDA Economic Research Service, who will discuss new developments in the global trade outlook in his presentation, “New Trade Agreements: Prospects for California Agriculture.”

Following a break, a panel will address the future of California’s water supply. Panelists include Ronald Jacobsma, general manager, Friant Water Authority; Jim Beck, Kern County Water Agency; and Thomas Birmingham, general manager, Westlands Water District. The panel will be moderated by David Zoldoske, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Irrigation Technology at Fresno State.

Wrapping up the morning sessions will be a discussion of the current state of immigration reform policy and its importance to California and the Central Valley. Offering a perspective on the progress in federal legislation will be Monte Lake, of CJ Lake, LLC. Mr. Lake is a prominent Washington, DC lawyer who has provided counsel on labor and other issues facing agricultural interests in California for more than 30 years.

Following Lake, Craig Reglbrugge, co-chair of the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform, will discuss the group’s view on prospective changes to existing policies. The panel will wrap up with remarks from Fresno County Sheriff, Margret Mims, who will speak on the importance of immigration reform from the perspective of law enforcement community.

To conclude the event, Beacon Economics’ Jock O’Connell, one of California’s foremost authorities on world trade, global economic trends, and the internationalization of the Golden State’s economy, will offer his insights on the future in his presentation, “Imagining California in 2023: Economic Issues and Outlook.”

The conference is designed for farmers, farm managers, attorneys, appraisers, insurance personnel, processors, accountants, and others involved in California’s agribusiness industry.

Early registration fee is $100. Late or walk-in is $125. For more information, call 559.278.4405 or visit the CAB website at www.csufcab.com.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:44:26-07:00September 30th, 2013|

TREE NUTS, EXCEPT PECANS, REMAIN STRONG IN EXPORTS

Tree Nuts, Still the 800-Pound Gorilla

Crash of the U.S. Pecan Market a Cautionary Tale, Says Rabobank

The export market for U.S. almonds, walnuts, pistachios and pecans continued to grow in 2012, reaching $6 billion dollars and accounting for over 60 percent of U.S. production. In its most recent report, “Riding The Growth Curve – Can U.S. Tree Nut Exports Continue to Defy Gravity?,” Rabobank questions whether this growth will continue. The author of the report, Karen Halliburton Barber, senior analyst, Produce for the Rabobank Food & Agribusiness Research and Advisory Group, says that it should, but that the industry shouldn’t rest on its laurels. “Assuming water limitations will not significantly restrict U.S. production, the U.S. tree nut sector still faces the fundamental uncertainty of when supply and demand will stabilize,” said Barber. “That said, the U.S. tree nut sector is in a good competitive position given its leadership in production and trading history.”In the report, Barber examines the main commodities making up the U.S. tree nut sector:

Almonds – “Here, the U.S. is the 800-pound gorilla and accounts for over 78 percent of total global production. This is where the U.S. is clearly in a good competitive position but needs to beware of the oversupply spiral.”

Pistachios – “Iran is slowing down, but they are not out. Water scarcity and weather have caused declines in production in recent years. However, new growth areas are cropping up and competition may heat up in the medium term.”

Walnuts – “This is the only sector where the U.S. is not the predominant global supplier. Although China is a net importer because of its large domestic demand, its share of global production is greater than that of the U.S., providing competition for U.S. walnuts in the Chinese market. An added risk factor is that Chile has begun to compete with the U.S. on quality in key growth markets.”

Pecans – “This segment is the cautionary tale of the report, warning of what could happen if the right factors line up at the same time. In 2012, the U.S. pecan market crashed. Now largely dependent on the global export market, U.S. pecans were hit with competitive pressures from South Africa, while at the same time dealing with lower yields because of weather challenges. The result of these factors was a 50 percent reduction in grower prices for pecans from July 2011 to January 2013.”

The report concludes by noting that the U.S. tree nut sector’s overdependence on the Chinese market poses the greatest challenge. Yet, U.S. producers are poised for growth over the longer term—both in China and globally. The strategy employed by the almond, walnut and pistachio industries of a more balanced buyer/supplier parity approach can help continue to moderate the risk.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-08-12T18:04:52-07:00September 25th, 2013|

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OVERREACHES HUMAN RIGHTS

The Endangered Species Act Turns 40

A Statement by Rob Rivett, President, Pacific Legal Foundation.

This year the Endangered Species Act turns 40. President Richard Nixon, on December 28, 1973, signed into law one of the nation’s most powerful environmental laws. The law vested authority in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to enforce a wave of new regulations, and create a new relationship between homo sapiens and other species.

Soon after its passage, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it the most comprehensive law ever passed for the protection of species and that ESA enforcement must occur “whatever the cost.” Federal officials have used their power under the Act to regulate private property as if it were public land.

The degree to which the ESA has been successful is a matter of debate. Of the estimated $3 billion of taxpayer funds necessary to fund the annual operation of the ESA, less than 1 percent of the species in North America have been recovered out of more than 1,400 that have been listed. One undebatable fact is the law has created a flood of lawsuits, those filed to seek government acts, and those filed to limit them.

Since its founding in 1973 — the same year the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted — Pacific Legal Foundation has been America’s watchdog in the courts to check and reverse government abuse of this and other environmental laws.

PLF has enough experience with the ESA to know that a well-intentioned law can completely turn the tables on common sense, sound science, and the fundamental freedoms of people. PLF believes in responsible stewardship of our land, water, and air for the benefit of people, the environment, and the species that inhabit it. The trouble comes when a law designed to help species harms the people who care for the environment — including farmers, ranchers, and foresters — those living and working in America’s “environment.”

The protection of the environment is only one of many competing and important social values in America. In an orderly society, no single value can be exalted “whatever the cost.” Environmental laws can and must be administered so as to safeguard, and not thwart, fundamental human needs and rights. Therefore, Pacific Legal Foundation has assumed a leading role in protecting constitutionally established limits on governmental power and ensuring individual freedom.

Nearly 40 years after its enactment, the Federal Endangered Species Act remains one of the nation’s most potent threats to our constitutionally protected property rights. Crafted by the Congress with the noble goal of saving species from extinction, and helping them to return to health, the law today has led to controversy and regulatory creep across our nation’s landscape.

Because Pacific Legal Foundation supports a balanced approach to environmental regulations — like the ESA, we’re taking the opportunity in 2013 to examine aspects of the law, with particular emphasis on past and current cases we’ve litigated.

During the course of the year, this landing page will feature PLF opinion articles, videos, podcasts, and news and information about current PLF cases.  Whether you are part of the “regulated community” or just a concerned citizen who values liberty and a thriving environment, I invite you to check in regularly on this page to see our latest postings and to give us your feedback.

Of course, as a nonprofit legal charity, Pacific Legal Foundation welcomes your charitable donations.

If you believe, as we do, that in protecting our nation’s environment, our constitutional rights should not be threatened or endangered by government agencies and activist groups, I invite you to become a supporter of PLF’s legal program.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:06:03-07:00August 22nd, 2013|

Previous 656667 Next