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.)