California’s Ag Overtime Law Good Intentions, Unintended Consequences By Jason Resnick, Senior Vice President and General Counsel The enactment of AB 1066 in 2019, expanding overtime pay for agricultural workers in California, was celebrated by Labor as a progressive step toward equity in the labor market. However, the nuances and complexities of agricultural economics have rendered the law’s impact less straightforward and, in many cases, counterproductive. In her article, California’s Overtime Law for
While these strategies may address labor costs, they also introduce new challenges, including capital investment requirements for mechanization and building or otherwise providing free housing for H-2A employees. Moreover, the broader economic context cannot be ignored. California’s agricultural sector is not only competing domestically but also on a global scale, where producers often face lower wage and regulatory burdens. This global competition puts additional pressure on California farmers to maintain cost competitiveness, further exacerbating the challenges posed by AB 1066. As a result, many farmers are either moving their operations to other states and countries, or shutting down their operations, rather than saddling the next generation with an unsustainable burden of high labor costs and regulatory constraints that undermine the farm’s economic viability and the traditional family farming way of life.
Agricultural Workers: What Happened to Worker Hours and Pay? 1 , Dr. Alexandra E. Hill, assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at U.C. Berkeley, has provided empirical evidence supporting what many in the agricultural community anticipated: a reduction in weekly working hours and earnings for crop workers. This outcome underscores a fundamental misalignment between the legislation’s intentions and the realities of agricultural operations. Western Growers, alongside myriad voices within the agricultural community, sounded the clarion call, warning of the repercussions that such legislation might engender. We explained that agriculture, unlike many other industries, is inherently tied to the rhythms of nature and the seasons. Factors such as weather variability, pest pressures and the perishable nature of crops dictate work schedules that are often incompatible with
While AB 1066 was rooted in a well-intentioned desire to improve conditions for agricultural workers, its real-world implementation has resulted in precisely the opposite effect.
standard overtime regulations. Additionally, the labor-intensive nature of many agricultural tasks during peak seasons means that working hours can be long and unpredictable, necessitating a flexibility that AB 1066 does not afford. Before AB 1066, California farmworkers were entitled to overtime pay after working 10 hours in a day or 60 hours in a week. The increased labor costs resulting from the law have prompted many producers, particularly small family farmers, to seek alternatives. This has led to a surge in mechanization and reliance on the H-2A visa program for temporary agricultural workers.
The implementation of AB 1066 has had profound effects on farmworkers, impacting not just their work life but also their personal and family well- being. The reduction in hours and earnings means more than just smaller paychecks; it translates into real hardships for individuals and families reliant on these wages. Workers face increased financial stress, struggling to cover basic living expenses such as housing, food, fuel and health care. A July 2023 NPR piece says it all: “ These farmworkers thought a new overtime law would help them. Now they want it gone.” That piece tells how reduced hours
1 ( ARE Update 27(1): 1–4. U.C. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics)
8
MARCH | APRIL 2024
Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker