10 | International Union Rights | 28/2 FOCUS | A CHANGING POST-PANDEMIC WORLD FOR LABOUR Who’s ‘Taking’ From Whom? The Supreme Court’s Real Target - Farmworkers’ Organising Rights Most of the media coverage of the recent Supreme Court decision about the farmworker access rule took for granted the way growers, and the court, defined this regulation. Jess Bravin in the Wall Street Journal called it ‘a regulation giving union organisers the right to visit farmworkers’. The first line of the rightwing majority’s opinion1 called it ‘A California regulation [which] grants labour organisations a ‘right to take access’ to an agricultural employer’s property’. The court, and the growers, deliberately confuse the mechanism of the rule with rights, calling it a right of organisers or organisations. It is not. The right the rule implements is simple. When workers are protesting and organising a union in the fields, they have a right to talk to union representatives at work. It’s a right of workers, rather than a right of union representatives. Rolling back this right, and the ability of farmworkers to organise against their endemic poverty, is the main target of the Supreme Court’s attack. At Cedar Point Nursery, the grower that filed the case heard by the court, the stakes were clear. Cedar Point is a nursery growing rootstock for commercial strawberry growers in Dorris, a remote town in northern California near the Oregon border. Hundreds of workers migrate here from their homes in central and southern California every year to harvest, trim and pack the plants. In 2015 Cedar Point labourers walked out to protest conditions that included, according to worker Jessica Rodriguez2, low wages, dirty bathrooms, and harassment from supervisors. They called the United Farm Workers, which sent organisers and implemented the access rule to talk with them on the property. The strike lasted for just a day, and after the strikers returned to their jobs, the organising effort fizzled out. No election was ever held to begin the process of trying to get a contract. What happened at Cedar Point is not unusual. The following spring in McFarland, in the densely farmed San Joaquin Valley, hundreds of workers struck the blueberry fields of Gourmet Trading over similar issues. Support for the organising was overwhelming. They called the UFW after they’d struck. Once they returned to work the union filed for access, and workers held meetings after work at the ranch. They voted for the union a few days later, and today they work under a union contract. In 1996, during a huge campaign to organise the strawberry industry in Watsonville3, UFW organisers visited picking crews in dozens of fields. They taped butcher paper on the walls of the portapotties during lunchtime meetings. Strawberry workers wrote down their demands for raising some of the lowest wages in agriculture, and planned marches to the company offices to announce them. In all these cases the access rule provided a way for workers to understand the organising process and get help with it. Farmworkers need this because of the nature of the work. They are often migrants, working in a harvest in one area of California although they live in another. Cedar Point’s workers lived hundreds of miles from Dorris, and during the work season slept in motel rooms and temporary housing. At Gourmet Trading some pickers travelled an hour or more to get to the field every day. Those distances make it hard—and sometimes impossible— for people to meet with union organisers at home. According to the Handbook4 of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, which administers California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Act, ‘The access regulations ... are meant to insure that farm workers, who often may be contacted only at their work place, have an opportunity to be informed with minimal interruption of working activities’. Organising a union is a collective process. Workers need to talk with each other about it. When the Pacific Legal Foundation argued the Cedar Point case in 20175 before the Ninth District of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and lost, its attorney Wen Fa asserted, ‘All the workers live in houses or hotels. Many have cellphones’. Even if this were...
Read full abstract