By KATY GRIMES

After months of protests, lobbying and speeches, on March 31, César Chávez Day, the California Senate passed SB 104 to eliminate secret ballot elections for farm workers voting on unionization.

And Tuesday night, in a move that surprised many, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill authored by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. In his veto message, the governor wrote: “I am not yet convinced that the far reaching proposals of this bill — which alter in a significant way the guiding assumptions of the ALRA [Agricultural Labor Relations Act] — are justified. Before reconstructing California’s carefully crafted agricultural labor law, it is only right that the Legislature consider legal provisions that more faithfully track its original framework.”

Most interesting is how the bill has been presented by the media. “Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed legislation tonight that would have let farmworkers unionize more easily, despite intense pressure from fellow Democrats and labor allies who considered Brown their best chance in years to pass the bill,” one Sacramento Bee story reported.

But opponents of “card check” say it would take away numerous rights and protections currently afforded to workers at companies and businesses where unions are actively seeking to organize. And apparently Brown agreed.

This week, hundreds of farm workers and family members, including many children, shuttled to Sacramento in chartered buses. They protested at the Capitol, chanting, “¡Si, se puede!” And they held up signs demanding fair treatment.

The United Farm Workers union even put on display a chair they claimed once belonged to Chavez.

César Chávez Opposed Card Check

But never in the protests or speeches did anyone acknowledge that Chávez opposed card check, and was a supporter of the secret ballot for the farm workers’ union.

“This bill would permit agricultural employees, as an alternative procedure, to select their labor representatives by submitting a petition to the board accompanied by representation cards signed by a majority of the bargaining unit,” reads the bill.

Ironically, on the same March day that the Assembly spent honoring Chavez with lengthy speeches, the assembly members also passed ACR 12, authored by Asemblyman Tony Mendoza. It “would recognize March 31, 2011, as the anniversary of the birth of César Chávez, and would call upon all Californians to participate in appropriate observances to remember César Chávez as a symbol of hope and justice to all persons.”

However, always left out of the speeches about imposing card check rules on farm workers is the history of  Chávez supporting the secret ballot back in the 1970’s — as did Jerry Brown, who was governor at the time and had worked with Chávez to enact the Agricultural Labor Relations Act in 1975.

Under card check, secret-ballot union elections would be replaced with the “card check” system, which would allow a union to organize if a majority of employees simply sign a card. The card is then made public to the employer, the union organizers and co-workers.

But also under a card-check system, workers face intimidation from the union, management or both, which the UFW is already employing to increase UFW membership.

It it is ironic that the union that César Chávez founded and through which he fought for secret union elections for farm workers is now using intimidation and coersion to take away secret-ballot elections.

But Steinberg has argued that it is employers who do the intimidating. He even included in the bill a $20,000 fine on employers who interfere with or violate the unionization process. But no such fine was included in the bill for union violations.

Union Decline

Outside of public-employee unions, private sector labor unions have been declining in membership in California and in the rest of the country. Proponents of card check laws say that encouraging union activity and membership should occur because workers need the representation. But adulterating the election process is coming under a great deal of scrutiny; undermining the secret-ballot process sends the wrong message to new or growing businesses that could create jobs. And in California, jobs and employers are leaving the state in droves.

What was left out of most stories about the Steinberg bill was that the cards could be signed up to one year in advance and put on a shelf before ever being used. The bill’s language reads, “A representation card remains valid for 12 months after it is signed by an agricultural employee.”

And there would be no rigorous check on the employment of the card signer, leaving a potential hole in the authenticity of the election.

SB 104 was approved along party lines in both the Senate and the Assembly, as well as throughout the committee process. And while Brown’s veto surprised many, many others are not surprised and quietly say that this veto was just for show, and to plan on seeing him sign the next card check bill presented.

By KATY GRIMES

With a sucker punch from the Assembly Speaker’s office, the public notice rule for legislative hearings was suspended on Wednesday. That allowed an Assembly committee to push through a quick hearing about Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg’s card check bill.

Steinberg, a Democrat from Sacramento, was not present to discuss the bill, instead sending representative Charles Wright again in his place. “SB 104 does not eliminate the secret ballot — it just adds the new option to the secret ballot process,” Wright said.

But opponents again challenged that claim, including a representative from the California Farm Bureau who asked Wright why the union would choose to hold a secret ballot election when no election needs to take place if more than 50 percent of the cards are signed by farm workers before an election. He said that proponents of SB 104 have acknowledged that receiving 51 percent of the cards signed are enough to forgo a secret ballot election.

He also asked Wright why the Legislature’s Rule 62, requiring a four-day notice for hearings, was waived and the hearing held without public notice. Wright declined to answer.

The cards can be signed up to one year in advance before ever being used. The bill’s language reads, “A representation card remains valid for 12 months after it is signed by an agricultural employee.”

Third Attempt

In the third attempt to pass a card check bill allowing farm and agriculture workers to unionize without holding a secret ballot election, SB 104 was passed by the Senate last week and is now making its way though the Assembly.

Wednesday’s hearing in the Labor and Employment committee was a surprise to many, as it was not given the usual public notification according to Rule 62. The rules also say that the Speaker of the Assembly can suspend a rule.

Testimony in favor of the card check bill was provided by a woman who, speaking through an interpreter, said she is a single mother and has worked for Grimmway Farms for the last 17 years, making only minimum wage. “Grimmway intimidates us — they know they can get away with it,” she said, recounting an injury to her eye in 1995. She said she was not allowed to get treatment after the accident, and told to go back to work. She said she was afraid she would lose her job.

“Conditions at Grimmway have gotten worse in 15 years. We have tried several times to form a union, but Grimmway intimidates us,” she said.  But a judge threw out the results of a 2006 union election, she said. “We need fair treatment for farm workers.”

Sarah Flocks, a representative with the California Labor Federation, offered support for the bill and spoke about witnessing the deplorable conditions farm employees must endure. “I am also a former UFW staffer and have seen first hand the intimidation of workers.”

Union Intimidation

Opposition for the bill came from food growers’ associations including the California Grape and Tree Fruit League. Barry Bedwell, the league’s president, has testified before about the bill. This time he shared the same argument, “The characterization of this bill as an alternative to the secret ballot is an illusion.” He said the bill unfairly imposes hefty penalties against employers for potential intimidation. Bedwell also said that there is a need for balance regarding unfair labor practices and both sides should receive penalties if found guilty.

Bedwell told the committee that fear of intimidation doesn’t just come from employers, but also from unions. He asked that, if legislators were really interested in addressing intimidation, “Why isn’t current law addressing intimidation, instead of taking away the right of the secret ballot?”

After the last hearing, Bedwell said that his association was concerned that passage of the bill would be “a wholesale license for union intimidation.” This hearing Bedwell said the bill does not provide balance but instead gives total preference to unions. “Secret ballot and privacy is the only way to protect farm workers without being harassed by anybody.”

Additional opposition came from a man who said he had worked as a farm worker in the 1970s and had been fortunate enough to rise through the work ranks over the years. He said he knew Cesar Chavez and that Chavez supported the secret ballot back in the 1970’s — as did Jerry Brown, who was governor at the time. “There is already a way to deal with intimidation. I oppose on behalf of Mr. Chavez,” he said.

Strange Commentary

The strangest commentary of the hearing came from Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada, D-Davis, when she described seeing a lone worker on a road selling produce. “He had no shade, no place to sit — someone had just dropped him off on the side of the road and left him, as weekend warriors drove by on a country road,” Yamada said. “It is modern day indentured servitude.”

“If there is nothing to fear, why the opposition?” Yamada asked the committee. “I would think that he [Chavez] would promote these options.”

Opposition to SB 104 came from the Agricultural Council of California, the Wine Institute, the California Independent Grocers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Hotel and Lodging Association and the National Right to Work Committee.

Committee analysis states that opponents believe that majority choice elections are not real elections, are fundamentally undemocratic, open workers up to intimidation from unions in their homes and deprive farm workers of a proper debate regarding the pros and cons of union representation.  Opponents also state that the provisions for increased civil penalties are excessive, possibly unconstitutional and an undue burden on business.

Proponents state that many farm workers work in isolated areas, making inspections for labor regulations difficult.  Proponents argue that these conditions present a strong need for collective bargaining and a union presence, but this has been blocked by employers through coercion, anti-union pamphlets, and captive audience meetings that prevent fair elections from taking place.

The bill was voted on and passed, 5 to 1, and is headed to the next Assembly committee.

By KATY GRIMES

If the third time’s a charm, then Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg can look forward to passing a new “card check” bill. The bill is described as “the alternative electoral method for choosing collective bargaining representatives.”

But the bill could go down for the count, as in a boxing match.

Under “card check,” instead of voting for or against union representation in private, workers would be asked to sign union cards in front of organizers and colleagues, potentially subjecting them to harassment or intimidation. Once a majority of employees has signed cards, the union is immediately recognized.

Opponents of “card check” say it would take away numerous rights and protections currently afforded to workers at companies and businesses where unions are actively seeking to organize.

At a hearing Wednesday in the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee, Steinberg’s third attempt at “card check” legislation was presented.

The bill has very similar language to two previous “card check” bills, one of which was authored several years ago by former Sen. Carol Migden (SB 180). Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed Migden’s bill. But after she termed out of office, he appointed her to the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB).

Steinberg’s newest bill states that the purpose is to give agricultural employees “an alternative electoral method for choosing their collective bargaining representative, the majority signup election.”

Limiting Employee Rights

But opponents say that this particular bill limits employees’ right to vote using a secret ballot, as well as unfairly penalizing employers for potential violations during union organizing. And opponents are critical that unions are not penalized under this bill for the same type of potential violations during organizing.

Steinberg did not appear at the committee hearing, and instead sent representative Charles Wright in his place. “SB 104 does not eliminate the secret ballot — it just adds the new option to the secret ballot process,” Wright said.

Salinas Democratic Assemblyman Luis Alejo appeared in support of Steinberg’s bill, and said he was there “on behalf of the hard working men and women who work in the fields of California.”
 Alejo said farms in his district produce more fruits and vegetables than anywhere else in the country. With him at the hearing, Alejo had more than 25 farm workers in support of the bill.

The bill has the support of more than 20 unions and labor organizations, including the California Labor Federation, the Teamsters, the United Nurses Association and the AFL-CIO.

In addition to vetoing Migden’s bill, Schwarzenegger vetoed two similar bills. He said in one veto message, “This process fundamentally alters an employee’s right to a secret ballot election that allows the employee to choose, in the privacy of the voting booth without coercion or manipulation, whether or not to be represented… I cannot support this alteration of the secret ballot process.”

However, supporters were very confident that new Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, will not veto Steinberg’s bill.

Farmer Opposition

Opposition to the bill came primarily from farm and agricultural growers’ associations.
 “The characterization of this bill as an alternative to the secret ballot is an illusion,” said Barry Bedwell, president of the California Grape and Tree Fruit League. Bedwell said the bill unfairly imposes hefty penalties against employers for potential intimidation, “but has no mention in it about intimidation from the unions.”

Bedwell said that if legislators were really interested in addressing intimidation, “why isn’t current law addressing intimidation, instead of taking away the right of the secret ballot?” 
Bedwell added after the hearing that his association was concerned that passage of the bill would be “a wholesale license for union intimidation.”

Bill Little, another opponent of the bill with the California Farm Bureau, said his organization represents 75,000 farm families. Little said that farm bureau members employ more than 175,000 people in the state, “and up to one in five jobs are dependent on what farming does.” Little pointed out that under SB 104, card check can be used to certify an election, but not to decertify. “We prefer a remedy with a supervised, secret ballot election,” he said.

Also registering opposition to SB 104, in addition to the farm and growers associations, were the Agricultural Council of California, the Wine Institute, the California Independent Grocers Association, tje California Chamber of Commerce, the California Hotel and Lodging Association, and the National Right to Work Committee.

The Senate committee voted to pass the bill. This was just the first hearing of the bill since its introduction in January. The Labor and Industrial Relations Committee analysis of the bill is here.