Farm Field Employees Often Get Notices of Social Security Mismatch
By Anthony P. Raimondo
Much has been made in the media of late regarding the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) push to address wages reported under names and Social Security Numbers that do not match the numbers in the SSA’s database.
These notices used to be quite common but were suspended by the Obama administration in 2012. In the last few years, these notices have begun to go out, and a recent increase in the notices has caught the attention of media and politicians. Employers must understand their legal obligations when they receive such a notice, and media commentators and politicians are poor sources.
What is new is that the notices no longer provide a list of employees with mismatches. Instead, employers must log on to a web site to get the names of the mismatched employees. Employers should follow the instructions carefully. Employers are not required to sign up for the Social Security Verification system in order to get the information, and should only enroll in that program if they wish to verify all employee Social Security Numbers.
The first thing to understand is that a mismatch notice is not an immigration problem. The SSA does not enforce immigration law, and is prohibited from sharing mismatch information with ICE. There are many reasons a mismatch may occur, and an immigration issue is only one of them. Never presume that an employee is undocumented, and never fire a worker simply because you receive a mismatch notice. Primarily, the notice is a payroll tax issue, as IRS regulations require employers to use reasonable diligence to obtain the correct wage reporting information from employees.
The initial step for an employer who receives a mismatch notice is to check whether there was a clerical or other error on the part of the employer that triggered the mismatch. If so, the error should be corrected, with the proper forms filed with the IRS. If there is no error, the employer should next check the employee’s I-9.
If the employee used the questionable Social Security card as a List C document to show employment authorization, then the employer must reverify the employee’s authorization to work in the United States in Section 3 of the I-9. The employee should be given 3 business days to present another List C document (such as a certified birth certificate) or a List A document (such as a US Passport or Permanent Resident Alien card). If the employee did not present a Social Security card to demonstrate his or her authorization to work, then there is no immigration issue, only a payroll tax issue.
In order to resolve the payroll tax issue, the employer must notify the employee in writing that the notice was received. The employee should be directed to resolve the issue and report the correction to the employer. The letters ask for correction within 60 days, but this is not a firm legal deadline. Generally, employers set a deadline of somewhere between 60 and 120 days to give the employee time to solve the problem. The employee should also be given a blank W-4. Some do not give a deadline and simply send a W-4 annually, although this author does not recommend that approach.
In these politically volatile times, it is important for employers to cut through the noise and understand their actual legal obligations. This way, we can avoid needless employee anxiety, needless employer stress, and we can promote smooth running operations where all involved prosper.
The goal of this article is to provide employers with current labor and employment law information. The contents should not be interpreted or construed as legal advice or opinion. For individual responses to questions or concerns regarding any given situation, the reader should consult with Anthony Raimondo at Raimondo & Associates in Fresno, at (559)432-3000.
TODAY, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) officially certified that a majority of the valid ballots from the November 5, 2013, election that were counted five years later in Fresno on September 18 were cast as “No Union.” In addition, the ALRB concluded that “the United Farm Workers of America thereby lost its prior status as the exclusive representative of the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining.”
Silvia Lopez, a Gerawan employee at the time, filed the petition on October 25, 2013, to decertify the UFW as the bargaining representative of the agricultural employees of Gerawan Farming, Inc., which led to the sanctioned decertification election a few weeks later. Today, Lopez commented, “I cannot believe what just happened today. The ALRB certified our votes and results. I am speechless and beyond excited and happy because justice was finally done.”
Said attorney Anthony Raimondo, “This is a great day for farm workers all across the state of California who can finally celebrate the fact that they wll be the ones who decide their future, not a government agency or a politically connected union. The workers will rest easy tonight knowing that their wages belong to them and will not be taken from them by the United Farm Workers union.”
“We are grateful that the ALRB has recognized the undeniable truth of the workers’ will as expressed in the vote,” Raimondo continued, “and relieved that the agency has decided to abandon its alliance with the UFW and work for the rights of California farmworkers rather than the financial health of a failing union.”
Jesse Rojas, spokesperson for Pick Justice, stated, “Pick Justice was started because of the courage, strength and determination of thousands of farmworkers who simply wanted the right to choose and to be treated equally like every other worker in the state and country. We are thankful that the ALRB finally did the right thing after 5 years of suppressing workers’ rights. Today is a historic and huge victory for the Gerawan farmworkers. Pick Justice is just getting started and will continue to advocate for what is right.”
Link: To review the ALRB Certification of the November 2013 Election to Decertify UFW issued TODAY, September 27, 2109, click on 44 ALRB No. 10.
Gerawan Workers Will See Vote Counted After 4.5 Years of Seeking Justice
By Laurie Greene, Founding Editor
Following the Nov. 5, 2013 Gerawan Farming, Inc. employees’ legally unresolved election to decertify the United Farm Workers (UFW) as their collective bargaining representative, the employees’ message has been simple: Count the votes!
Yesterday, California’s 5th District Court of Appeals—in a 3-0 decision—ordered the California Agriculture Labor Relations Board (ALRB) to unseal the ballots, count them and issue an official tally.
Dan Gerawan, who co-owns Gerawan Farming, Inc. with his brother Mike and father Ray, said “This is a victory for our employees who never gave up the struggle to achieve the same rights that all other workers have. And we never wavered from our support of their right to choose.”
“I have no clue when the votes are to be counted,” Gerawan explained. “The ARLB and UFW are going to appeal this decision to the California Supreme Court. I do not know if the California Supreme Court will take it.
“But I’m certain that ARLB and UFW are going to try to get the California Supreme Court to take it because the last thing they want is for our employees to have a choice. They want this unionization forced on them against their will,” Gerawan said.
“This is a huge victory and well deserved to these thousands of Latino immigrant farmworkers who have been fighting and sacrificing their time and families’ future to simply have the right to choose and vote in America,” Jesse Rojas, Spokesperson for Pick Justice, an advocacy group for Gerawan farm employees.
“The ALRB and UFW clearly continue to show that they are afraid to let workers vote and show what they want and what is better for their families. After glancing through the Fifth District Court of Appeals decision, I find the attached highlighted screenshots worth noting,” said Rojas.
Anthony Raimondo, president of Fresno-based Raimondo & Associates, is the attorney for Gerawan Farms employee Silvia Lopez, who started the petition and campaign to oust the UFW when they returned to the farm following 20 years of absence. The UFW never successfully represented the employees in reaching a contract with their employer, nor did it ever collect union dues from employees.
“The Court of Appeal is very clear,” said Raimondo. “It just says, ‘You’ve got to count the ballots.’”
“The first thing that Silvia said to me was how happy she is to get this decision from the Court,” Raimondo continued. “This is a vindication of what the workers have been fighting for, for more than five years now, since they first began this effort to expel the union. They aimed to protect their income from going to fund the UFW’s efforts,” Raimondo stated.
“The workers have been ignored. Their rights have been trampled on by the ALRB. The ALRB has disregarded them. They were told that they didn’t matter. They were told that their voice would never be heard, but they never gave up,” Raimondo said. “They never stopped fighting. This decision is a vindication of the fact that justice can be done and that the right thing can happen when people remain committed to it. I can’t say enough about the commitment these workers have shown to this effort.”
“This is a huge victory for these farm employees,” said California Assemblymember Jim Patterson who represents the 23rd Assembly District that covers parts of Fresno and Tulare Counties.
“I’m happy for them. Justice is being done, although it is taking a long, long time. It’s another indication of just how far off base the ALRB is. Primarily, the ALRB is a tool for the UFW to force the Gerawan field employees into contracts that they do not want, cannot approve, and did not vote for. So it’s a very good decision for these workers to have the kinds of freedoms that everybody else has.”
Patterson emphasized that the ALRB’s goal is to take those kinds of freedoms away. “The vote count will probably go forward. My guess is ALRB will try to drag their feet. But I think this is a solid [Court] opinion. And now we wait and see if the ALRB considers themselves to be above and beyond the law, or whether they recognize that they have gone far afield, and they’re going to have to correct some very, very illegal behavior,” Patterson said.
Raimondo explained, “There is no substantive history in the record that demonstrates that the ALRB had any jurisdiction or any legal standing to take those ballots and stash them away for all of these years. It was a blatant effort to stifle their votes to do the bidding of the UFW. They have gotten caught at it, and now they’re going to have to correct their illegal activity. If they don’t, I think they are going to suffer some severe decisions with these Courts. I think if they don’t comply, they’re going to get very close to breaking Court orders and breaking the law.”
Gerawan added, “Don’t forget, fifteen million taxpayer dollars have been spent to suppress those ballots. That kind of money spent by anyone, even the government, could [indicate] a lot of fraud took place with that ballot box.”
Raimondo claimed, “It is clear that the Gerawan farm employees are not cynical. They believe in the promise of America. They believe in our system of justice. That’s why they have continued to fight. It’s why they have continued to protest. It’s why they have continued to assert their voice in Court.”
“They knew from the very beginning that this was an injustice,” Raimondo continued..”They knew that the ALRB was mistreating them. They knew that they were treated like second-class citizens, but they also believed that if they continued to fight and to do things the right way—through peaceful protest and by asserting their positions in Court—that the right thing would happen. The workers had faith that the system works, that judges would ultimately hear their voices and that justice would be done.”
“The reality here, I believe, and the Gerawan workers believe, is that in the end, justice will prevail. We believe we will be heard and corruption will not win. The workers’ voice is going to win here. Democracy is going to win here. Those votes will be counted,” Raimondo said.
CA Supreme Court Hears Case of Gerawan Farming, Inc. vs. UFW/ ALRB
By Laurie Greene, Founding Editor
A significant labor hearing occurred at the California Supreme Court (Court) in San Francisco yesterday, the day after Labor Day, between the team of the United Farm Workers (UFW) and the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB or Board) versus Fresno County-based Gerawan Farming, Inc. over self-determination. At stake is the right of farm workers to determine if they want to be represented by the union or not. Under scrutiny is the Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation (MMC) provision of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act that paves the road for the UFW to force unionization on all farm workers.
“Although Gerawan farm workers attempted to participate in this hearing, as well as other hearings, they were denied legal participation in the trial by the state of California and by the UFW,” according to Anthony Raimondo, of Fresno-based Raimondo & Associates and lawyer for Gerawan farm worker spokesperson, Silvia Lopez. Nevertheless, hundreds of Gerawan employees in blue t-shirts attended the proceedings and protested outside the courthouse, lending their voices, exercising their free speech and showing their legitimate Gerawan company ID cards and payroll stubs.
Dan Gerawan, who co-owns Gerawan Farming, Inc., with his brother Mike and father Ray, commented on the court hearing just after it ended. “It is frightening to see the deference that the Court gives to the ALRB. Everyone in our industry and all farm workers should be scared by the deference this Court gives to a Board that is clearly not interested in the employees’ best interests.” Describing his perceptions in the courtroom, Gerawan said, “It was Orwellian to hear the government attorneys argue that they are defending self-determination, when in fact, what they are doing is the exact opposite.”
“That said,” he continued, “I am encouraged by the questions I heard from the Court. They obviously are taking this very seriously, and I’m hopeful that they will side with our employees and us.”
Members of the UFW were also present at the Court in red t-shirts, though only one person claimed to be a Gerawan employee. Marc Grossman, spokesperson for the United Farm Workers of America and communications director of the Cesar Chavez Foundation, said that the Gerawan operation should be unionized because the UFW was elected in 1990 by Gerawan farm workers and certified in 1992 by the ALRB.
However, the UFW did not successfully reach a contract for the Gerawan farm workers, and therefore did not collect dues. Furthermore, the UFW abandoned the Gerawan farm workers for nearly 20 years.
Grossman said the Court discussed today the long-standing principle that a union is certified until it is decertified. Workers have a right to decertify the union but it has to be the workers—not the company. It is patently illegal for an employer to have anything to do with determining union representation by his or her employees.
When asked to account for UFW abandonment of Gerawan farm workers, Grossman said, “Bogus issue! The UFW never abandoned the workers at Gerawan. It repeatedly attempted to negotiate with Gerawan. At every step, it was met with virulent resistance by the company. It became apparent that only a law that would allow neutral state mediators to be brought in to hammer out a union agreement when the grower refused to do so would be the only course, and we followed it.”
Grossman asked us to read the September 5 ‘News from UFW’ press release he provided, entitled, “Giant grower challenging law giving farm workers the union contracts they voted for already owes its workers $10 million under a state-imposed union contract.” Here are excerpts:
What about Gerawan’s claim the union “abandoned” the workers for 20 years?
Even before the Mandatory Mediation statute was adopted in 2002, the ALRB and the courts consistently rejected employer claims that unions should not be deemed workers’ bargaining representatives if they allegedly “abandoned” them. It is long-established law that a union remains certified as bargaining representative until workers—and only workers—vote to decertify it. At the time of the law’s passage in 2002, Gerawan was one of the 243 companies where farm workers voted for the UFW but the companies never agreed to contracts. (See UFW-Gerawan chronology)
1995-2002: Gerawan workers and the UFW continued working to improve conditions while the ALRB stopped enforcing the farm labor law under Republican political appointees.
2002: The Mandatory Media law was enacted. The agricultural industry mounted a major constitutional challenge.
2006: The Third District Court of Appeals in Sacramento upheld the Mandatory Mediation law. The industry appealed to the state Supreme Court, which refused to take the case. The industry declined an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court—and the law’s constitutionality was settled.
2012: The UFW sent a new negotiations request to Gerawan. At least 10 bargaining sessions failed to produce a union contract.
March 2013: The UFW requested mandatory mediation at Gerawan with the ALRB.
The above chronology vaguely refers to UFW involvement between 1995 and 2002 that remains unsubstantiated. UFW contact with Gerawan farm workers appears to have been reestablished in 2012.
The ALRB did supervise a sanctioned election for Gerawan farm workers to decertify the UFW on November 5, 2013; however, the ballots were collected, sealed and never counted.
When told that UFW representative Grossman said they never walked away, Gerawan asked, “If they didn’t abandon, then where were they for almost two decades? They did not phone us or send us a fax. They did not show up on our property. They did not inquire on behalf any of our employees. They did not file an unfair labor practice. They did nothing during that time. They abandoned our employees.”
One of Gerawan’s attorneys, Ron Barsamian, managing shareholder of Fresno-based Barsamian & Moody, stated, “I’m very encouraged. I think the Justices’ questions indicated that they understood the issue we were raising. I think they certainly read the briefs. I think they understand the difficulty in how locked-in workers, such as the [Gerawan] ones behind us, can be under the way this law works: if you have an MMC contract, [the workers] never have an opportunity to decertify the union. Even the questions asked by the justices that we expected to be against us were great, and I certainly loved the answers that Mr. Schwartz gave.”
Barsamian was referring to another Gerawan attorney, David Schwarz, from the law firm, Irell & Manella, who addressed the central issues of the case: “I think it was a full and fair hearing. I think the Court—all members—are deeply concerned about the unaccounted for two-decade [UFW] absence, an unaccountable power given to a mediator [ALRB], and uncheckable power given to the union [UFW] to compel one grower and one group of employees into this process. Ultimately, I think the justices were very much focused on and troubled by the inability of the [ALRB] agency to step in in a situation of gross abandonment where a contract is being imposed by that agency.”
The California Supreme Court typically releases it decisions and commentaries after 90 days.
The Necessity of Keeping the California Dairy Industry Competitive
By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster
Anthony Raimondo, an attorney with 15 years of experience working with farmers and farm labor contractors, is concerned the California government is placing the state’s agricultural industry at an economic disadvantage compared to other states. Raimondo used the California dairy industry as a prime example in which arbitrary in-state legislation is giving other states an advantage.
“The state government tells the dairy farmer how much they get to charge for milk,” explained Raimondo. “They have now raised minimum wage and overtime, with AB-1066 becoming law, but they do not tie any of that [added cost] to the milk price. Farmers will lose money,” he said.
“The California dairy industry is still fighting to be a part of the USDA’s Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO),” Raimondo continued. “But until that happens, the added costs are causing many California dairymen to weigh their options.”
Increasing government regulation is making it difficult for California dairies to compete with other states, Wisconsin in particular. Raimondo elaborated, “For many years, Wisconsin’s milk production was on the decline and California’s milk production was on the rise; that trend has now reversed. Wisconsin is now on the rise again and California is on the decline because our dairies can’t make it with the level of regulation and the level of cost,” he said.
“Some dairies have reduced hours to keep costs low,” said Raimondo. “Other dairies are closing either because they are going out of business or because they are moving to places like Idaho and Texas where the milk price is better and the cost profile is more favorable.”
The move to a FMMO would help even the playing field for California dairies. Raimondo warned there is a lot at stake if nothing is done to lower milk production costs in the number one Ag state. “We are going to lose a segment of agriculture that is 100% family farms. Family farming is one of those things that is precious to our state, and it can’t be brought back once it’s gone,” Raimondo said.
By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director and Brian German, Associate Broadcaster
California ag leaders hoped that Governor Brown would see how the AB 1066 overtime bill would actually hurt farmworkers and veto it. Now that the Governor has signed it, the following ag leaders weigh in on AB 1066 consequences: Norm Groot, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau; Bryan Van Groningen, field manager for Van Groningen & Sons Farms; and Anthony Raimondo, a Fresno-based attorney who has been representing farmers and farm labor contractors for over 15 years, among them.
Norm Groot anticipated, “The end result of AB 1066 is a big move to mechanized harvesting, which probably means a change in some of the crops that we’re growing here simply because currently we can’t harvest lettuce or strawberries or some of the other vegetable crops by mechanized means. Lawmakers are forcing the hand of the growers to move into crops that are less labor intensive and thus, save the [labor] cost,” said Groot.
Groot noted the inaccurate AB 1066 assumption—that an increase in overtime hours and pay will result from its passage. “We will probably see their hours cut back to the eight hours a day and forty hours per week,” he explained, as stipulated in the law. “Growers will adjust their planning schedules to the amount of laborers that they think they have available for harvest. It’s not an automatic given that we’re going to see all these paychecks increase, simply because we’re putting overtime at more than eight hours a day or after forty hours a week,” Groot said.
Groot added that farmworkers are not in favor of losing 33% of their income at this point. “I think overall, the unions have been supportive of this particular change, but the unions do not represent the majority of the laborers or field workers at this point,” he said.
“I think if you were to ask the average field worker whether he wants to work ten hours a day and sixty hours a week, he would probably say yes. Field workers want that income. They know they work in a seasonal business; they have to earn their income when they can,” he explained.
Bryan Van Groningen
“Our farmworkers, our employees, love to put in the extra hours because this is the time that they’re making wages. Our company is accustomed to paying overtime if that’s what it requires,” said Van Groningen, “and the majority of our workers are already satisfied with the existing compensation structure.”
But Van Groningen noted the problem lies in what is considered overtime. With a shorter workday, overtime compensation rates will kick in much earlier than in the past, which will end up being a tremendous cost to the employer. “That’s going to cause our farm to mechanize a little bit more to try to get through the harvest more bit quickly because [the cost] is going to become too big of a burden,” he said.
Growers want to help their employees as best they can, but Van Groningen predicts reduced hours may become a necessity. “It’s just smart business. We don’t want to cut hours, but if we’re forced to because our bottom line is starting to become an issue, that’s what we’ll have to seriously consider,” he said.
Anthony Raimondo foresaw the effects of AB 1066 could put California at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. “At the very least,” Raimondo said, “employers will be forced to evaluate where they can cut production costs.”
“The increased overtime in some industries is going to drive automation,” said Raimondo. “So you are going to lose jobs because now it’s worth it for people to do the research and development to have more automation, more machine-harvested crops and less labor.”
Raimondo also expects some employers to add more H-2A temporary agricultural guest workers to make sure hours stay low enough to prevent their costs from increasing. “In the end, this is really going to cost farmworkers in terms of their real wages and it creates a massive economic disadvantage for California’s agricultural industry,” he said.
Policies like AB 1066 become increasingly problematic as the global agricultural industry continues to become more competitive. “Increasingly, agriculture has become a global marketplace in which we compete against countries that do not maintain the same labor standards nor the same environmental standards that we maintain, so our agricultural industry continues to remain at an economic disadvantage with the rest of the world,” noted Raimondo.
Featured photo: Norm Groot, Monterey County Farm Bureau executive director
In an exclusive interview with Fresno attorney Anthony Raimondo, California Ag Today’s Patrick Cavanaugh discussed the significance to farmworkers of yesterday’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) decisionto “set aside” Gerawan farmworker votes from the ALRB-sanctioned November 2013 election to decertify the UFW. Raimondo is the attorney for the UFW union decertification petitioner, Silvia Lopez, an employee of Gerawan Farming, a Fresno County diversified tree fruit operation.
California Ag Today: The central California agricultural industry is flabbergasted this week following the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board’s decision to set aside—and not count—the ballots of 2,600 Gerawan farmworkers cast in 2013. What is your take on this decision?
Raimondo: It is unfair because from the outset, we have argued all along that this entire process has been unfair and has denied the workers their “day in court” and their due process. From the first day that Silvia Lopez walked into the ALRB office in Visalia, the greatest opposition to her filing for an election has been the ALRB itself.
We had a judge who couldn’t stay awake for the hearing. We have board members who are—shall we say at the least—biased. In the case of ALRB board member, Genevieve Shiroma, we have a person whose entire career is intertwined with the UFW’s primary paid lobbyist. There’s no way these folks can be objective in a case that has this kind of stakes in the UFW.
And this case is all about money. If they can get a contract with Gerawan, the UFW will essentially double its revenue and double its membership overnight.
California Ag Today: What is at stake for the UFW?
Raimondo: There is a clear reason why the State would end up spending $10 million on this case: They want to silence these workers and save the UFW. There is no union organizing in the field; the UFW has abandoned organizing. They’re not out there getting the workers to support and join the union.
They’re in the courtroom and in the back halls of Sacramento, making deals to take control of these workers’ future, whether the workers want it or not.
California Ag Today: In denying the ballot votes to be counted, the ALRB said it was unfair that the employer—Gerawan in this case—gave the workers a pay raise without permission of the state government or the UFW.
Raimondo: But even with this illegitimate process, the only thing that the Board actually found was that the employer violated the law—not the workers.
So the Board is going to punish the employees by destroying their ballots, like some sort of third-world dictator. What control does the farmworker have over what the company does? What can the workers do to protect their right to vote if their right to vote can be thwarted by what a third party—the company—does?
The workers’ right to vote shouldn’t be in the hands of the company, or of the union, or of anybody else. The California Constitution says that when people cast votes in our state, those votes must be counted. That’s apparently true, unless you’re a farmworker.
California Ag Today: And the agricultural industry is asking, “How can the State of California and the state ALRB get away with this?”
Raimondo: It’s appalling what they’ve done here. It really is appalling. They’ve decided that the best way to control the behavior of an employer is to punish the workers who have no control over that employer.
You know there’s no reason that, if they believe that that election was tainted, they can’t run another election. I’ve spoken to Silvia, and Silvia’s not afraid of letting the people vote. I wonder if the UFW is as brave.
Let the people vote.
California Ag Today: Is the ALRB and the UFW requesting a new vote?
Raimondo: No, they want the farmworkers to stand off to the side and be quiet while the UFW makes the deal through political moves to take their money.
California Ag Today: What’s next?
Raimondo: We are planning, on Silvia’s behalf, to file briefs in the ongoing mandatory arbitration case that is sitting before the California Supreme Court. The UFW has a brief due and the Court has not yet set a hearing date.
We’re hoping that the Supreme Court will be kind enough to give us the opportunity to speak in that case, as the Court of Appeal did. So that case still provides us with a very real chance to vindicate the workers’ rights.
In the election case that was just decided, we are planning on filing a petition for reconsideration with the Board. We think that they need to think twice before they destroy people’s ballots.
California Ag Today: The ballots have not been destroyed at this point, right?
Raimondo: We don’t know. That’s a question only the ALRB can answer.
From my view, I would hope that they were not rushing to have a bonfire today.
I would think that because these votes are precious and irreplaceable, the Board would show the restraint to withhold taking any action on the ballots until the parties have had the opportunity to pursue the various legal options that we have to challenge this decision and make sure they are doing the right thing.
Challenge to Farmworker Piece-Rate Pay May Actually Depress Wages
By Brian German, Associate Editor
Assembly Bill No. 1513 requires employees who are paid on a piece-rate basis to be compensated separately for rest and recovery breaks, and to be paid an hourly wage for non-productive time under the employer’s control, according to Anthony Raimondo, a Fresno-based attorney who has represented farmers and farm labor contractors since 2001.
Raimondo contends that while the bill was designed with the best intentions, its application may be detrimental to farmworkers. “The State of California believes that if piece-rate workers are not paid additional hourly wages for their ten minute breaks, they are being cheated,” Raimondo explained, “even though, every single day, every worker in California on a-piece rate basis always makes above minimum wage for the hours they work on that day.”
Raimondo, who has assisted employers with strategic planning and labor relations and who regularly defends wage claims before the California Labor Commission, elaborated on why farmworkers prefer piece-rate compensation. “You won’t see a day in our fields where a worker on piece-rate’s total earnings total less than what he would have made hourly on a minimum wage. That is why the unintended consequences of these laws will be to depress worker’s wages,” said Raimondo.
“It is why workers demand piece-rate from us; they don’t want hourly wages. Because we work in market-based commodities, the more the employer can tie earnings to production, the higher the wages that employer can deliver to the worker. They are both benefitting from an economic bargain that generates revenue through the ranch for both the employer and the employee. When compensation is tied to production, everybody makes more money,” he noted.