Farm worker OT bill awaits verdict from Gov. Brown

Good morning. Happy Tuesday. But more importantly, happy second-to-last day of the legislative session.

A big ticket item was crossed off the list Monday when a bill expanding overtime pay for farm workers passed the Assembly. It now heads to the governor for a final verdict.

The bill would, over the course of a few years, bring the overtime structure for farm workers in line with that of many other professions by giving overtime past eight hours in a day, where currently the threshold is at 10 hours, and over 40 hours in a week, where it’s currently at 60 hours.

Some members opposed on procedural grounds. Assembly rules prohibit a measure from being reintroduced if it had already been defeated during that legislative session — the same measure was defeated in the Assembly earlier this year.

CalWatchdog has more.

In other news:

• “An Aug. 17 California appeals court ruling rejected a public employee union’s claim that its members had a right to “pension spiking,” which the court described as “various stratagems and ploys to inflate their income and retirement benefits.” Public employees often will pad their final salary total with vacation leave, bonuses and “special pay” categories to inflate the pension benefits they receive for the rest of their lives,” reports CalWatchdog.
• “State lawmakers passed a bill Monday to add mandatory prison sentences for certain sexual assaults – a measure inspired by a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge’s decision not to sentence a Stanford University student to prison in a high-profile case this year,” writes the Los Angeles Times.
• “California lawmakers’ response to the controversial series of videos that purported to show Planned Parenthood breaking the law has alienated some liberal allies of the organization, which is now negotiating changes to save its bill in the final days of the session,” writes The Sacramento Bee.
• “The state’s plan to build an initial stretch of high-speed rail line, from San Jose to a map point in the midst of Central Valley farmland, came under renewed attack at an oversight hearing Monday,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

• Who will Gov. Jerry Brown believe: the Mothers Against Drunk Driving or his own Department of Motor Vehicles? Brown will have to choose when deciding whether to sign Senate Bill 1046, a measure that would require drivers convicted of DUI to purchase and install “ignition interlock” devices in their vehicles. CalWatchdog has more.

Assembly:

• In at 10 a.m.

Senate:

• In at 2 p.m.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced for today. Will attend 20th Annual Lake Tahoe Summit on Wednesday.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @elmayedda

An order issued by a Sacramento Superior Court judge on Nov. 27 ruled Gerawan Framing did not have to enter into collective bargaining while preparing an appeal. The UFW didn’t even mention this setback on its website.

UFW jumps the gun

While Gerawan Farming was awaiting the results of the Nov. 5 Gerawan employee election to decertify the UFW, the UFW requested a temporary restraining order Nov. 22 to force Gerawan into collective bargaining anyway. This attempt to force unionization on the Gerawan employees was helped along by the  California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, which ordered the collective bargaining, while the Board simultaneously has been sitting on the employee election results.

Gerawan Farming refused to enter into the collective bargaining process pending the allotted 30-days to prepare an appeal. The company has since filed a complaint with the with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District in Fresno, against the ALRB’s invocation of the California’s Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation Statute.

The UFW tried to get the state court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Gerawan Farming from refusing to abide by the ALRB’s collective bargaining order. The UFW argued, “Otherwise the UFW and the workers will suffer irreparable harm from precisely the automatic stay that the Legislature declined to enact.”

(All of the documents in this case, including the UFW complaint and judge’s order, can be found here. Case number 2013-00153803)

Judge Brown’s explanation

Superior Court Judge David Brown explained in his Nov. 27 decision:

“The review by the court shall not extend further than to determine, on the basis of the entire record, whether any of the following occurred:

“(1) The board acted without, or in excess of, its powers or jurisdiction.

“(2) The board has not proceeded in the manner required by law.

“(3) The order or decision of the board was procured by fraud or was an abuse of discretion.

“(4) The order or decision of the board violates any right of the petitioner under the Constitution of the United States or the California Constitution.”

Legal cherry-picking

The UFW argued that the language within the state law compels the result they were seeking. “They assert the Legislature’s deliberate creation a narrow framework for review of a Mediator’s report by the Board (ALRB), demonstrates a desire to provide farm workers with the benefit of a collective bargaining agreement,” the judge wrote.

The UFW argued that the language of the statute provided that no final order of the Board should be stayed on appeal unless the appellant shows irreparable harm, and a likelihood of success on appeal shows an explicit intent to provide a collective bargaining agreement to agricultural workers without delay.

But the judge didn’t buy the UFW’s legal argument.

“Unfortunately, there are no provisions of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act governing the Mandatory Mediation Process that permit the Agriculture Labor Relations Board to seek temporary relief during the pendency of the 30-day period for seeking appellate review,” the judge said, quoting from a similar 2012 case, Ace Tomato Company Inc., v. United Farm Workers.

Judge Brown explained:

“In Ace, following a Board Decision affirming the mediator’s report, the UFW filed a request for agency action to enforce the anti-stay provision in the Mandatory Mediation Law, alleging that Ace had failed to implement the CBA as ordered, and requesting that the Board go to court to enforce its decision (under Lab. Code § 1164.3(f), either party or the Board may file an action to enforce the Order of the Board),” the Judge wrote. “Immediately thereafter, the Board issued an Administrative Order requesting that Ace provide a response to the UFW’s request for enforcement. Ace provided a response indicating that it intended to file a petition for review in the Court of Appeal of the Board’s decision affirming the mediator, but did not indicate whether it had implemented the agreement. Shortly thereafter, the Board issued another Administrative Order, ordering Ace to state whether it had in fact implemented the CBA.”

“As in unfair labor practice proceedings, the Board’s decisions are not self-enforcing,” the judge said. “Rather, in order to enforce its decisions, the Board must first obtain a judgement.” And judgments are obtained through the Superior Court.

Legislative intent

The judge explained legislative intent should be gathered from the whole legislative act, rather than cherry-picking a few words or isolated parts. He wrote, “Courts should thus construe all provisions of a statute together,… significance being given when possible to each word, phrase, sentence, and part of the act in pursuance of the legislative purpose.”

In other words, the judge told the UFW that words matter, especially in context. “The meaning of a statute may not be determined from a single word or sentence. Its words must be construed in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute where they so as to make sense of the entire statutory scheme,” the judge said.

The judge added there was “no legal mechanism by which the UFW could seek to enforce the collective bargaining agreement” at that time.

Judge Brown ruled: “The application is DENIED.”

On Dec. 16, Gerawan filed a constitutional challenge against the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, with the United Farm Workers of America as a “Real Party of Interest.” It was filed with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District in Fresno, against the ALRB’s invocation of the California’s Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation Statute. The statute was signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis in 2002.

This was part of wrangling with the United Farm Workers Union that began in Oct. 2012, when the union insisted that a collective bargaining agreement covering Gerawan workers be reactivated — even though there had been no union involvement with the workers since 1995. Some of the workers then began a process for a vote to decertify the union.

A vote on the decertification was held on Nov. 5, 2013. But On Nov. 19, 2013, the results of the vote were held up by the ALRB, which claimed a large number of the ballots were ineligible. In an email to CalWatchdog.com, ALRB Executive Director J. Antonio Barbosa also charged “misconduct, that allegedly affected the outcome of the election.”

The ALRB chose an arbitrator to decide the matter, leading to Gerawan’s court filing.

Pleading

In its court pleading, Gerawan charged:

“MMC is a compulsory arbitration process under which a mediator acting as an arbitrator dictates the terms of a CBA [collective bargaining agreement] between a grower and a union. The MMC Statute authorizes the Board to adopt the mediator’s report as a final order. The employer has no right to opt-out of this process. The employees have no right to ratify or reject the ‘contract’ imposed upon them, which here would require them to pay union dues or fees or lose their jobs. 

“The MMC Statute empowers one man – here, labor mediator Matthew Goldberg – to write a complex and massive ‘agreement’ between two private parties that would let it have the force of law….“

“This procedure has no counterpart under federal labor law, which expressly forbids the imposition of contractual terms or concessions upon a private employer or a labor organization.”

Overall dispute with the ALRB

Silvia Lopez is a quiet, thoughtful 15-year Gerawan Farming employee, and the de facto leader of thousands of Central Valley farm workers who have been protesting for nearly a year to oust the United Farm Workers union from the farming company.

Seven hundred Gerawan farm workers took a day off without pay and descended on Sacramento Wednesday to attend a meeting at the Agricultural Labor Relations Board.  Then they walked to the State Capitol to meet Gov. Jerry Brown.

Six of the farm workers tried to ask Brown to intervene with the ALRB to allow them to vote on whether to keep or oust the UFW from Gerawan Farming.

“Jerry Brown, we want an election at Gerawan Farming,” Lopez said, as she approached the governor’s office.

While waiting in the Capitol hallway outside, one of Brown’s employees poked her head out and asked, “Are you guys with the UFW?”

“No, we are against the UFW,” Lopez said. “We are farm workers with Gerawan Farming. And I am Silvia Lopez.”

But the governor didn’t respond. Instead, to talk with the workers, he sent Martha Guzman-Aceves, the Deputy Legislative Secretary for agriculture, environment and natural resources.

From Guzman-Aceves, Brown's negative message was loud and clear. She is a former Legislative Coordinator for the United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO. She was co-founder of three non-profit organizations under the name, the Communities for a New California. It describes itself as “committed to empowering underrepresented communities in California’s Central Coast, San Joaquin Valley and South East Desert. CNC works to promote economic prosperity, community health, and accessible and accountable government with election and policy campaigns. CNC organizes communities around the issues that matter most to them through localized direct education activities, earned media, and training.”

Meeting

The meeting with Guzman-Aceves lasted 45 minutes, during which Lopez told the story reiterating that the workers don’t want and don’t need the UFW at Gerawan Farming. She told Guzman-Aceves how she personally collected 90 percent of the workers’ signatures, but they were rejected by the ALRB.

The workers recounted the UFW harassment, and showed Guzman-Aceves Lopez’s swollen wrist.

Guzman-Aceves said she would call the ALRB area representative in Visalia. But Lopez said that would do nothing, as ALRB’s Visalia regional director, Silas M. Shawver, is the official who rejected the signatures, and has fought them every step of the way.

“Would you not like me to call him?” Guzman-Aceves asked.

Lopez explained again that they were there seeking intervention from the governor. “There’s no recourse for us. That’s why we are here,” she said. “We just want an election.”

But as Guzman-Aceves stood up to indicate the end of the meeting, Silvia Lopez shook her head and said, “Jerry Brown is not coming.”

UFW response

“The ALRB issued a 12-page report which dismissed the workers' petition,” said UFW communications director, Maria Machuca, when I called her. “It was just a small group, the petition, and included forgeries and company involvement, which is illegal.”

“The ALRB invalidated the Gerawan decertification petition based on illegal employer involvement,” Machuca added in an email following my call. “In its review of the petitions signed by employees, the ALRB found a substantial number of forged signatures.  Nothing demonstrates more disrespect for employees than forging their signatures on a legal document.”

The ALRB decision Machuca referred to was issued Sept. 25. “This Petition is invalid because is has not been accompanied by an adequate showing of interest,” the decision said. “In addition, the Petition is being dismissed because there is no reasonable cause to find the Petition presents a genuine question of representation.”

Ironically, because the workers were not represented by a union, they could not petition to get rid of the union.

Coming to Sacramento

Earler in the day, Lopez led 700 polite workers holding signs that said, “No UFW,” “Our Jobs, Our Choice,” and “Let us Vote.”

Despite the calm crowd, Lopez pointed out UFW infiltrators. Lopez told me she had an encounter with a couple of UFW representatives as the group’s seven buses arrived and parked on 10th Street in front of the Capitol. One of the UFW men grabbed and twisted her wrist and demanded to know who paid for the buses.

Lopez said the UFW men then tried to get the bus drivers to tell them who paid for the buses. Getting nowhere, they called some of the workers — excuse the word, but it's important to quote it directly — “wetbacks,” and threatened to call immigration law enforcement.

Despite the aggression, Lopez welcomed the men to join her should they change their minds about the UFW.

As to the buses, Lopez told me that they were paid for by a generous donor after he heard her interview on the Ray Appleton radio talk show Tuesday. The buses carried the 700 protesters from the Fresno area to Sacramento.

Agricultural Labor Relations Board

The hundreds of farm workers assembled in front of the Sacramento Convention Center on J Street while Lopez and others met with a representative from the ALRB, located across the street. Lopez said they would not let her into the ALRB board meeting in progress, and instead had her communicate through an ALRB employee.

“The UFW is not offering anything,” Lopez said. “The ALRB is the same — they are just up there,” she said, gesturing 20-story building across the street (pictured nearby).

Lopez was only asking for the opportunity to vote on whether the Gerawan employees would allow the UFW to represent them, or not. The ALRB has denied this request, despite the 3,000 signatures Lopez collected for a petition to decertify the union and allow them to continue working as non-union employees.

UFW and ALRB

In order to breathe new life into the moribund union, many in the farming community claim the ALRB and UFW have joined forces to boost the union by targeting one of the biggest non-union farming operations in the state. Should they succeed in unionizing Gerawan Farming employees, adding the 5,000 farmworkers would double union membership, and certainly boost the ALRB’s status.

The UFW is a shadow of what it once was. With approximately only 3,300 union members, the UFW needs money and members to survive. Earlier in the year, I wrote about Senate Bill 25, a bill by Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, targeting six of the largest non-union farming operations in the state.

Gerawan Farming’s story depicts a state government seeking to encroach on private sector business. Owner Dan Gerawan told me in August, if SB25 was signed into law, he could lose his business and thousands of his workers could lose their jobs.

He said the real motive behind SB25 was to target his 5,000 workers, as well as other large farming companies’ workers, to force them into the UFW in order to immediately double the union’s size. SB25 was not passed this year, but will be taken up next year.

Gerawan Farming

The UFW won an election to represent Gerawan Farming's workers 23 years ago. But after only one bargaining session, the union disappeared and wasn’t heard from for more than 20 years.

Last October, the union reappeared to impose a contract on Gerawan Farming and its employees — without a new vote of the workers.

Every Gerawan worker said the company offers the highest paying employment package in the industry; the workers don’t need or want the union.

Belen Lopez, Silvia’s daughter, said she goes to college and was working as a cashier for $8.00 per hour. But she quit that job and went to work in quality control at Gerawan Farming, starting at $10.00. Belen said Gerawan pays bonuses and allows her a flexibility to meet her school schedule. She and the other workers said Gerawan Farming allows all the time off they need, and allows the workers to decide among themselves who works, as long as the production needs are met.

The right to vote

“Government, we are here of our own free will,” yelled one farm worker as he stood in front of the ALRB building, looking up to the 19th floor. “We are here and we want the right to vote!”

“We don’t want the union — we want the right to vote. We want to be heard!” Silvia Lopez yelled into the microphone.

Lopez said she personally gathered more than 1,100 workers’ signatures in only three days. And it’s not an easy task. Signature gatherers must wait until workers are on break to even approach them, and use the time to explain the petition and get signatures. She eventually gathered more than 2,800 signatures, but the ALRB denied most of them, claiming the signatures were forged, as I wrote in “Farm workers fight UFW unionization.”

The labor union boasted 50,000 members by the end of the 1970s. But according to the UFW’s last Labor Organization Annual Report filed with the U.S. Department of Labor, as of Dec. 31, 2012 the union had only 4,443 members. So it has declined by more than 90 percent. By contrast, today the California Teachers Association lists 325,000 members.

In order to breathe new life into the union, many in the farming community claim the ALRB and UFW appear to have joined forces to reverse their misfortune by targeting one of the biggest non-union farming operations in the state. Should they succeed in unionizing Gerawan Farming employees, adding the 5,000 farmworkers would double union membership, and certainly boost the ALRB’s status.

Gerawan Farming

The UFW won an election to represent Gerawan Farming’s workers 23 years ago. But after only one bargaining session, the union disappeared and wasn’t heard from for more than 20 years.

Last October, the union reappeared to impose a contract on Gerawan Farming and its employees — without a vote of the workers.

Silvia Lopez

“We don’t want the union,” said Silvia Lopez in a recent radio interview on Fresno’s KMJ radio station with host Ray Appleton. “Why is that so hard to get?”

Lopez, a 15-year employee of Gerawan Farming, is one of hundreds of farm workers who protested the ALRB and United Farm Workers recently.

Lopez said their primary issue with the United Farm Workers union is the 3 percent deduction the union will take out of their paychecks for dues. For a majority of the Gerawan Farming workers, union dues have never been taken out of their paychecks before. Lopez said the union is coming after them because of the union agreement in 1990, but she said a contract was never drawn up.

“The union just came in and said they would charge us to represent us,” Lopez told Appleton. “I was worried. Where have you been?” she said she asked. “We don’t need them. We are waiting for someone to help. No one is helping. Where is Jerry Brown? Who is going to defend our rights?”

Lopez said she collected the workers’ signatures herself, crew by crew, as she counted the employees. “I wrote down everything. I know the employees of Gerawan,” Lopez said.

When the ALRB said the signatures were no good, Lopez said she was angry. “That’s a lie. I know ALRB and they’re lying,” Lopez said. “I counted those signatures. I know I turned in 90 percent of the signatures. If the union comes into our company, we are going to quit. We won’t pay 3 percent to the UFW. I don’t like the UFW. They don’t offer the benefits they promise.”

Lopez added, “Why are they scared of an election?”

Help farm workers

Farm employees from Gerawan Farming have been trying to get out the UFW since October 2012. The employees recently petitioned the ALRB for a vote, but it sided with the UFW to block the employees from even being able to vote on keeping or booting the UFW.

After circulating a petition collecting workers’ signatures to decertify the UFW, the ALRB rejected workers’ petition last week. The ALRB claimed the workers’ petition lacked valid signatures and even accused  the workers who organized the petition of forging signatures.

“What Would You Do?” the Help Farm Workers website asks. “What would you do if representation were forced on you without your right to vote on it? What if that representation carried with it a dues tax on every dollar you earned?

“This is what faces the workers at Gerawan Farms unless the California ALRB honors their right to a fair and free election.”

ALRB

Adding insult to injury, ALRB’s Visalia regional director Silas M. Shawver has accused Gerawan Farming of circulating the petition seeking the decertification election, according to the Fresno Bee.

” ‘There is no doubt that there are Gerawan workers who genuinely want to decertify the union at their workplace,’ the ruling states,” reported the Bee. “However, ‘the evidence shows that a majority of the current employees at Gerawan have not expressed interest in decertifying the union.’”

The recent ruling came following Gerawan employees’ rallies in front of ALRB offices in Visalia and Kerman, demanding, “Let us Vote.”

“In a letter to Silas Shawver, regional director of the ALRB, Gerawan noted that Shawver’s math just doesn’t add up: more than 2,000 signatures from Gerawan employees were filed asking for a decertification vote, yet only 1,300 were needed and just 100 were deemed invalid,” the Help Farm Workers website said.

A Gerawan Farming statement on the Help Farm Workers website explained:

“We believe the Petitioner and the potential voters have a right to know the signature count. Otherwise, it appears that the decision about whether to dismiss or not dismiss a petition is an arbitrary one not based on a fair and careful assessment of whether there is reasonable cause to believe there is a bona fide question of representation,” the statement said.

“Gerawan reminded the ALRB that, at Gerawan’s request, the agency officials personally met with over 2,100 Gerawan employees before the election. The Board’s agents, including Mr. Shawver, visited the farm so they could inform the workers of their right to ask for an election. “When the ALRB hides the actual signature count, as you have done, it certainly creates reason for suspicion that something is just not right.”

The bill would put farm workers under the state’s Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation law. Under that law, the California Agriculture Labor Relations Board could impose wages, terms and conditions of employment on the farm workers and the company itself. The terms of an agreement would decided by a single arbitrator/mediator, who meets with the employer and the union separately, and drafts the contract. Workers never would get to vote on the contract (as they do with collective-bargaining agreements).

The bill is sponsored by the United Farm Workers labor union, which has come under hard times since legendary co-founder Cesar Chavez died in 1993. As the Nation magazine reported in 2012, mismanagement has caused the union’s membership to nosedive from a peak of 50,000 to about 6,000 today.

Steinberg, a former labor union lawyer, is not only carrying the legislation, but using his considerable influence to get the bill signed into law.  SB 25  passed both houses of the Legislature and awaits a decision by Gov. Jerry Brown on whether to sign it.

Targeting successful agriculture

Farm owner Dan Gerawan calls Steinberg’s bill a “surgical strike against the industry.” SB 25 could wipe out Gerawan’s family-owned farm, currently employing 5,000 workers, as well as six other targeted farming businesses.

Farmers and growers could be forced into fast track mandatory binding mediation with a collective bargaining agreement. This would severely limit any due process an employer may have to appeal a mediator’s order to a court.

SB 25 would expand the use of mandatory mediation under California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, and would remove the current requirement that the employer must have committed an Unfair Labor Practice prior to mandatory mediation. SB 25 seeks to shorten the length of time it takes for a mediation decision to become binding, as well as reduce the number of negotiations that qualify for the process.

Dan Gerawan’s story depicts a state government seeking to encroach on private sector business. Gerawan says that, if SB 25 is signed into law, he could lose his business and thousands of his workers could lose their jobs.

He believes the real motive behind SB 25 targets his 5,000 workers, as well as other large farming companies’ workers. Forcing Gerawan’s workers into the UFW would almost double the union’s size — assuming the workers didn’t lose their jobs.

Back to the future

The UFW won an election to organize Gerawan Farming more than 20 years ago. The election was certified by the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board in 1990. The UFW held only one meeting a couple of years later, then abandoned the farm due to lack of worker support, according to Gerawan. There was never a contract.

Gerawan has testified at each legislative committee hearing for SB 25 that his company offers the highest paying employment package in the industry; his workers don’t need or want the union.

“After campaigning to represent those workers over 20 years ago and being certified as their exclusive bargaining agent in 1992, the UFW did essentially nothing to represent those workers,” Gerawan said.

Then, without warning, the UFW union reentered the scene in late 2012, claiming it represented Gerawan’s workers.

“To our knowledge, the UFW has never asserted, as a justification for its failure to do anything, an alleged statement by us that we would not sign a contract,” Gerawan explained. “They didn’t file unfair labor practice charges, or even send us a letter, or call us in 20 years.”

The UFW recently invoked the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, and the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board compelled Gerawan Farming into Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation.

The UFW has invoked the law only a few times since 1975 because the union cannot use mediation until it gains contracts. According to Gerawan, the union has been largely unsuccessful in its attempts to organize workers in the last two decades. “The UFW is so inept,” Gerawan said. “They abandoned the workers, and now they are back to pick the pockets of the highest paid workers in the industry.”

 Legislative target

“The UFW won a contested election at my family’s company 23 years ago,” Gerawan first told me in June. “But after only one bargaining session, they disappeared. The UFW completely abandoned the workers. We have no right to opt-out. Neither do our workers. They won’t be asked to ratify this contract. They won’t be asked to authorize the UFW to negotiate. They are not given that choice.”

SB 25 would be a weapon so powerful there would no longer be a need to negotiate with the UFW, only to capitulate to union demands, according to Gerawan.

Card-check

In 2011, Steinberg authored SB 104, which sought to give the UFW the ability to organize farm workers by using a card-check system. Card-check allows 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. It’s easy to intimidate workers into signing because there’s no secret  ballot.

Brown vetoed SB 104 and said he wasn’t convinced the ALRA needed the drastic changes to the law. Brown signed California’s 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act into law during his first stint as governor. The ALRA provides many of the worker protections that previously needed to be negotiated in union contracts.

Political pressure

Simultaneously, while Steinberg is losing no time pushing SB 25 through the Legislature, the UFW and ALRB mandatory mediation is speeding toward a board-ordered contract, according to Gerawan.

Gerawan was in the Capitol on August 15 with a large group of farm workers who also oppose SB 25, meeting with lawmakers about the ramifications of SB 25.

“No staff or member argued that there was anything fair about the bill,” Gerawan said. “They all agreed it sounded unfair. Many Democrats seemed actually outraged over it.” However, Gerawan said there is tremendous political pressure on lawmakers from Steinberg.

Gerawan said he’s not giving up the fight. “SB 25 will put us out of business,” Gerawan said. “Out of earshot of my employees, I stepped back into the legislators’ offices when I was at the Capitol last week, and told lawmakers this.”

Gerawan said he is hopeful for a veto from Brown.

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — If a labor union-friendly bill currently working through the California Legislature is signed into law, the United Farm Workers labor union stands to triple in size.

According to peach and wine grape grower Dan Gerawan of Gerawan Farms, SB 25, by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, would forcibly unionize his 5,000 employees along with other farm employees. And it would make the workers surrender 3 percent of their paycheck as dues to the UFW — or the workers would be fired.

Steinberg’s bill was heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee Tuesday. Sponsored by the UFW, SB 25 is an attempt by the UFW to force the Agricultural Labor Relations Board to put its decisions into immediate effect, rather than allow an employer the right to an appeal in order to stay the decision.

According to Steinberg, SB 25 is needed because some farm employers are exploiting loopholes in the farm labor law to delay enacting contracts with unionized farm workers.

But SB 25 appears to be a direct assault on large farming operations in California. Of the 86,000 farms in the state, Steinberg said, SB 25 “will impact only about a half dozen.” And small farms of less than 25 employees would be exempted altogether.

This explains how the UFW stands to triple in size.

According to many of the state’s agriculture employers, Steinberg’s bill would allow unions to bypass the bargaining process, and  move immediately to mandatory mediation, where a state arbitrator would make all decisions.

“Not all employers are bad,” Steinberg said at the hearing.

Mandatory binding mediation

By Katy Grimes

Without SB 25, the United Farm Workers union is going to need to make tough reforms to survive. By state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, the bill would grant the UFW advantages that no other union in California has, such as forcing employers into repeated mediation. And this is a very union-friendly state.

Opponents say California’s 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act, signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown during his first stint as governor, remains adequate. It granted broad new rights to laborers and has stood the test of time.

In a way, the UFW is a victim of its own success. The years of suffering and protesting under legendary founder Cesar Chavez, who now has a state holiday honoring him on March 31, paid off with the ALRA. It provides many of the worker protections that previously needed to be negotiated in union contracts.

To succeed, Chavez needed only the ALRA, not SB 25.

Chavez died in 1993. And as often happens after a charismatic leader departs, the organization he animated struggles to remain relevant. According to the UFW’s Form LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report filed with the U.S. Department of Labor on April 10, 2013, as of Dec. 31, 2012 the union had only 4,443 members.

According to a January 2012 article in The Nation magazine, “Cesar Chavez and the Farmworkers: What Went Wrong?,” the union boasted “50,000 members at the end of the 1970s.” So it has declined by more than 90 percent. By contrast, today the California Teachers Association lists 325,000 members. 

The article in The Nation, a liberal magazine, quoted Frank Bardacke, the author of a recent book on Chavez and the UFW. “The UFW had no locals,” he said of the union’s problems. “That was a tremendous mistake. There’s no substitute for face to face debate, people having direct control over their local union affairs. That’s the way you build strength.”

SB 25 detailss

Sponsored by the UAW itself, SB 25 would let the union continue its complacency while artificially boosting its numbers. It passed the state Senate on May 6. But last week the bill was killed by the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee because it could not get enough votes to pass.

Committee Chairman Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina, allowed reconsideration of the bill. It will be heard Wednesday, June 26, in that committee.

SB 25 proposes to make dramatic changes to the mandatory mediation process added in 2002 as amendments to the ALRA. Among other things, it would:

* Force privately owned and family farms to fire farm workers who fail or refuse to pay union dues for jobs they’ve held for years.

* Remove the one-time limit on mandatory mediation when there is a labor dispute. Doing so would allow unlimited demands for mediation that would have to be met. Here’s the specific wording in SB 25, “Deletes the requirement of existing law that, for labor organizations certified after January 1, 2003, the mandatory mediation process would only apply for an initial request to bargain.” (Underline in original.)

“This bill would close legal loopholes and stop cynical games growers play to deny their farm workers the life-changing protections of union contract [sic],” said the UFW on its Website.

Opponents of SB 25 say the perpetual mediation would be a weapon so powerful that there would no longer be a need to negotiate with the UFW, only capitulate.

Democratic doubts

Many Democrats from agricultural districts are beginning to have doubts about a bill that likely would kill jobs in there areas. Unlike prosperous Sacramento and Silicon Valley, California’s farm belt only now is beginning to recover from the Great Recession.

These Democratic doubts have alarmed the UFW. “Democratic members of that committee—Assemblymembers Chris Holden and Luis Alejo—chose not to vote for SB 25!” the UFW exclaimed on its Website. “Assemblymember Holden has said he will vote for it next week when the bill will be heard again on June 26, but Assemblymember Alejo still has not responded.” Holden represents Pasadena.

Alejo did not vote on the bill, which caused quite an uproar in Salinas, his home turf. And as I reported Monday, Alejo has clashed with the union over attempts by its own workers to negotiate better labor contracts.

Alejo told the Salinas Californian he had concerns about SB 25 and had reached out to the union prior to the hearing. “We had a meeting set up for Tuesday [June 18, prior to the bill vote] and [the UFW] canceled,” Alejo said. Shortly after the vote, the UFW was protesting at Alejo’s Capitol office.

Affect on farmers

“Once a contract is imposed on our workers, it will double or even triple the size of the UFW’s current membership,” Dan Gerawan told me; he’s the president of Gerawan Farming, a family-owned business in Reedley which employs more than 5,000 farm workers. “So, more than half of the UFW’s membership will never have been given the opportunity to express whether they even want the UFW to represent them.”

He said the timing of SB 25 is not a coincidence. If his workers are forcibly organized under SB 25, the union’s current membership of 4,443 would more than double, to more than 9,443.

“And with perpetual mediation being a possibility under SB 25, my employees may never have that opportunity to vote, yet will have to pay 3 percent of their wages [as dues] or lose their jobs.”

Gerawan said the UFW tried to organize his workers 23 years ago. After only one bargaining session, the UFW abandoned the workers and the process.

Gerawan said that recent amendments to SB 25 have not changed the essential part that the UFW never has to bargain in good faith, or even bargain at all, before it makes the demand to negotiate. “The amendment does nothing to make it so workers have an opportunity to ratify or reject a contract, despite the fact the contracts will require them to pay dues or lose their jobs,” Gerawan said.

“This is just plain wrong,” he testified recently before the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee. “We aren’t talking about a few dozen workers. We’re talking about thousands of the industry’s highest paid, happiest employees having a union forced on them without ever getting the chance to vote.”

Gerawan said his farming company pays high wages and benefits, including retirement, vacation pay and even the tuition for the workers’ children at the local Catholic St. La Salle School. (YouTube of Sr. Lucy, the principal, below.)

By Katy Grimes

What would Cesar Chavez say? The iconic co-founder of the United Farm Workers union organized across California to improve farm laborers’ pay, benefits and working conditions. Cesar Chavez Day is a state holiday on March 31.

Now the UFW is resisting its own employees’ efforts to improve their situation. In the middle proudly stands longtime UFW ally, Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, who has tried to intervene and mediate for the two sides. But the union bosses are rebuffing his attempts to mediate another neutrality agreement.

UFW split

Last month, farm workers in the Salinas and Watsonville area protested in front of the UFW’s Salinas headquarters over the firing of several organizers, and charged that farm workers were inadequately represented. Joining the protest were some UFW employees, who charged the UFW management and bosses with preventing the employees from forming or belonging to their own union separate from the UFW. For now, the protesters have no official organization or Web site.

Claiming that some of the UFW employees (not the protesters) had been threatened and harassed, the UFW asked a judge to put a halt to such protests. The UFW successfully filed a restraining order on its own employees to keep them from protesting in front of the UFW office, and from organizing, according to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. It took an appeal by the UFW employees for the restraining order to be overturned by a higher judge.

Luis Alejo

I talked with Alejo about the union split and whether he would intervene. The son of Salinas farm workers, while giving speeches and in Assembly floor debates Alejo expresses impassioned concern for farm workers and their families.

Alejo told me he had been asked by both sides of the UFW to mediate for them last fall. He said he mediated 11 hours one day, 14 hours the next, and helped the two sides hammer out a neutrality agreement. That’s a contract between a union and an employer under which the employer agrees to support a union’s attempt to organize its workforce. In this case, the contract involved the UFW and its employees.

UFW employees speak

The road to organization within the United Farm Workers union has been wrought with obstacles and roadblocks for the UFW employees.

I interviewed two of the organizing UFW employees. Both said they had been so harassed by the UFW for participating in the organizing that they would not allow their names to be used in the story out of fear of future targeted harassment. One of the UFW employees said that, after months of harassment and trumped up workplace discipline, he was fired by the UFW. The second employee still works for the union and fears for her job.

The first employee did not speak English, and used a translator for our discussions. He said he was a field worker for many years, and worked for many good employers, but the UFW was not one of the good ones.

He said the fight between UFW management and UFW employees was only because the employees wanted their own union contract. But the request was met with so much vehemence, the 33 original UFW employees who requested the union contract have been whittled down to 21. Twelve have been terminated or felt they were forced out.

On October 12, 2012, the 33 UFW employees approached three UFW board members after a board meeting, and told them they wanted a union contract.

“We were told, ‘We are the employer, you are the workers,'” the second UFW employees told me. “We thought the union had an understanding of our rights to want a contract,” she said. “They have done this for 50 years [negotiating with large food companies employing farm laborers]; they should have known better.”

Alejo now a ‘contra’

UFW employees heard one UFW director tell Alejo, “I’d tell you to go f*** yourself if you weren’t a legislator.”

“They no longer care about the worker; they are blinded by greed and power,” she added.

“Luis’s role is pro-worker,” she said, referring to Alejo. “He has seen the injustice we’ve gone through. He has been neutral, but stands up for the worker. The UFW now looks at him as a ‘contra.‘ In the eyes of the UFW, he’s the enemy.”

Capitol politics

In a surprising turn of events, earlier this month a controversial labor union bill, SB 25, by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, was killed in the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee. Usually, the Senate leader’s bills sail into passage.

Sponsored by the UFW, SB 25 would make numerous and dramatic changes to the mandatory mediation process added to the Agricultural Labor Relations Act in 2002. It would have permitted an agricultural union to serve a request for mandatory mediation upon an agriculture employer to demand bargaining immediately, and forego existing requirements in the law currently used to invoke the mandatory mediation process.

In other words, the UFW would have been granted rights no other labor union has.

Alejo did not vote on the bill, which caused quite an uproar in the already split UFW in Salinas, Alejo’s home turf.

Alejo told the Salinas Californian he had concerns about the bill and had reached out to the union prior to the hearing. “We had a meeting set up for Tuesday [prior to the vote] and [the UFW] canceled,” Alejo said. Shortly after the vote, the UFW was protesting at Alejo’s Capitol office.

UFW bosses’ salaries

The ironic battle between the UFW management and its employees is at the heart of the legal challenges. The UFW employees said Cesar Chavez was a volunteer, and only received a stipend for expenses. But today’s UFW Board of Directors are paid generous salaries.

“UFW President Arturo Rodriguez is paid $105,000 a year,” the UFW employees told me. “Sergio Guzman, the union secretary, makes even more — $110,000 a year.” The UFW offices would not confirm the salaries.

But I was able to independently confirm the UFW Salinas salaries through the California Office of Labor. And UnionFacts reports Rodriguez made $88,379 in 2012. But in 2010 he was paid $125,000, and $105,000 in 2011.

Guzman was paid $105,000 in 2010, and $110,000 in 2011. In 2012, Guzman was paid $85,661.

Union vs. employees

Patrick Semmens with the National Right to Work Committee said it’s not all that uncommon to see a union turn against its own employees when they want to organize. “It shows the hypocrisy that goes on,” Semmens said. “Any possible opposition or skepticism of unions is seen as union busting. But when the shoe is on the other foot, they are the ones calling the horrible names.”

Semmens said unions demonize employers and talk about employee choice, but finds it hypocritical that the UFW won’t let its own employees organize. “This shows they are really only after the dues,” Semmens said.

“They’ve lost focus,” the two UFW employees from Salinas told me. “UFW workers used to do the jobs for the injustice — for farm workers. Now it’s big business.”