U.S. Department of Labor Report to Congress:
The Agricultural Labor Market – Status and
Recommendations
December 2000
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Labor-Intensive Agriculture................................................................................................................................ 5
The Farm Labor Market: Demographic and Economic Trends..................................................... 10
Farm Worker Wages, Earnings, and Poverty Trends: 1989-1998................................................... 16
Employment and Demographic Characteristics: 1989-1998............................................................ 18
The H-2A Temporary Foreign Farm Worker Program......................................................................... 19
Administration Steps............................................................................................................................................... 21
Policy Recommendations...................................................................................................................................... 22
Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................... 23
This report provides a picture of trends in the agricultural economy and suggests ways to stabilize the agricultural labor market. Fewer farms and large farms are producing a greater share of labor-intensive agricultural commodities (tobacco, vegetables, fruits, nuts and berries, and horticulture and greenhouse commodities) to meet the demand of U.S. and foreign consumers. These large farms, that are fewer in number, account for the majority of the production and market value growth in these important commodities.
While labor-intensive agriculture is growing, the benefits of that growth have not been shared with the farm workers. The number of farm workers employed and the wages paid to farm workers have remained relatively stagnant. Based on National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) data, farm workers are working fewer weeks per year (an annual average of 29.3 weeks of farm work in 1989 – 1990 declined to just 24.9 weeks in 1997 – 1998) and earn an average nominal wage of just $6.18 per hour. The demographics of the workforce are also changing. The workforce is increasingly young, male and migrant with less experience in and intention of staying in the agricultural labor market. There has been a trend toward greater reliance on undocumented workers, as U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents are displaced from or leave the agricultural labor market for higher paying, more stable employment elsewhere.
All of these trends point to an over supply of agricultural labor though with a larger proportion of undocumented workers. The report concludes with recommendations for stabilizing this workforce, including:
· Raise the minimum wage.
· Increase resources for stronger enforcement of U.S. labor laws.
· Congress should continue to fund “AgWork,” an Internet-based, on-line job matching system to help connect agricultural employers and workers.
· Encourage use of available verification systems for agricultural employers to verify the legal status of workers they hire.
· Complete current efforts and continue to streamline the H-2A temporary nonimmigrant agricultural guestworker program without weakening protections for U.S. and foreign workers.
· Pursue bi-lateral and (under the terms of the NAFTA labor side agreement) tri-lateral discussions with countries that send farm workers to the U. S. to explore ways in which their legal rights can be better protected.
The Conference Report for the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act (House Report 106-479) for Fiscal Year 2000 directs the U.S. Department of Labor (“the Department”) to prepare a report presenting “options to promote a legal domestic workforce in the agricultural sector; provide for improved compensation and benefits, improved living conditions and better transportation between jobs; and address other issues related to agricultural labor that the Secretary of Labor determines to be necessary.”
In response, this report:
·
Describes
relevant current trends in the labor-intensive segments of the agricultural
economy over the last decade (from 1988 to 1998)[1];
·
Describes
demographics, characteristics and trends affecting the farm labor force[2] during the same period;
·
Outlines
the current temporary foreign agricultural worker (“H-2A”[3]) program, and steps the
Department of Labor has taken to streamline the H-2A certification process and
improve its operational effectiveness; and,
·
Recommends
steps to stabilize the agricultural labor market while simultaneously improving
the lives of the nation’s agricultural workers.
The Department supports policies that will reduce inefficiencies in the agricultural labor market; promote greater predictability and reliability in both the labor supply and availability of work; improve farm workers’ wages, working and living conditions; better connect authorized workers to employment opportunities; increase the number of weeks farm workers are employed each year; and, in turn, increase farm workers’ earnings. More predictable and longer-term (or better-linked) employment opportunities, improved working conditions and increased wages should help agriculture attract and retain authorized workers and bring greater stability to a labor market increasingly characterized by its instability.
Numerous institutions, commissions, and task forces have studied the U.S. agricultural labor market over the last half-century. This report relies on the insights of the experts responsible for those studies, and reaffirms the pervasive and persistent problems which continue to beset farm workers. The report also recognizes that stabilizing the agricultural labor market is in the interest of the industry, farm workers and the country.
Recent research reports on agricultural labor indicate that that the total number of hired and contract farm workers in the U.S. decreased slightly between 1990 and 1998,[4] but while agriculture’s use of hired labor has remained relatively constant over the last ten years – at an estimated 1.8 million workers – the industry’s ability to retain workers has dwindled. The agriculture sector has replaced many authorized workers, who are increasingly leaving the agricultural labor force, with unauthorized workers, almost exclusively undocumented immigrants from Mexico. Today, only about half of the agricultural labor force is authorized to work in the U.S. Congress, agricultural worker advocates, and growers all agree that the status quo is untenable.
Labor-intensive agriculture in the U.S. is harvesting more crops than ever before. It has realized sales and productivity gains that typically would lead to increased earnings for workers in any other industry.[5] Agricultural worker earnings, however, have decreased over the last ten years – between 1989 and 1998, agricultural workers’ hourly earnings fell in real terms (in 1998 dollars) from $6.89 to $6.18.[6] This report presents additional data on agricultural workers’ difficult working conditions and lack of access to basic services. According to most experts, these adverse conditions are largely a result of a surplus of agricultural workers,[7] exacerbated by an increase in the number and usage of farm labor contractors.[8]
This report also demonstrates that U.S. agriculture is benefiting economically from increased access to global markets but agricultural workers are not sharing in the benefits of the expanding agricultural economy. Production of fruits and vegetables has increased and global demand for American produce continues to grow, but agricultural worker earnings and working conditions are either stagnant or in decline.
In proper context, it is also necessary to recognize that farm workers have historically been treated quite differently under a wide array of worker protection laws. Agricultural workers were originally excluded from the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and were only brought under its minimum wage protections in 1966. But even then an array of exemptions were enacted in the law that, among other things, exclude some agricultural workers from minimum wage protection[9] and deny most farm workers the right to overtime pay, regardless of how many hours they labor in the fields.
Other employment-related protections also exclude farm workers. The National Labor Relations Act, which grants workers the right to organize and bargain collectively, excludes farm workers from its protections. Most farms are exempt from the obligation to provide workers with potable drinking water, toilets, and hand-washing facilities.[10] Many farm workers are ineligible for unemployment benefits and the protections of workers’ compensation insurance, despite the fact that farm workers routinely experience periods of unemployment and work in one of the Nation’s most hazardous industries. These exclusions from legal protections have a negative impact on farm workers and contribute to the factors that discourage farm workers from staying in the industry or others from seeking work in agriculture.
The policy options and recommendations that conclude this report would help ensure that agricultural workers share more equitably in the bounties of their labor. The Department believes that if Congress wants to address this challenge, it will have to pursue a comprehensive solution that implements policies that address the known problems in the labor market and begin to explore additional steps, including normalizing worker protections and working conditions for farm workers. Agricultural industry modernization and incentives to reduce its labor needs and recruit and retain authorized workers through requiring higher skills with better working conditions and increased wages need to be a part of the solution.
Labor-intensive agriculture in the United
States – defined for purposes of this report as tobacco, vegetables, fruits,
nuts, berries, horticultural and greenhouse commodities – continues to undergo
a dramatic transformation.
U.S. farm receipts for fruit and horticultural specialty crops have more than doubled – and, for vegetables, more than tripled – during the last two decades.[11] The increased production is concentrated in fewer and larger farms. While the total number of hired and contract farm workers is believed to have slightly decreased from 1989 to 1998, the share of farm workers employed in labor-intensive agriculture may have increased.[12] This is particularly true in California – where the production of vegetables, fruits, nuts and berries continues to shift and where some evidence indicates that both farm labor use and intensity have increased since 1986. Nonetheless, the significant growth in output is apparently being accomplished without any appreciable commensurate growth in the workforce. But while the labor-intensive commodities experience dramatic output and sales growth, hired and contract labor is not sharing in the rewards of increased growth through increased wages. Wages have been stagnant and, in real terms, have even seen significant decline.
The U.S.
labor-intensive agricultural industry underwent explosive growth between 1987
and 1997. Domestic and foreign demand
for labor-intensive commodities has increased substantially, and technological
developments in transportation and storage along with changes in consumer
tastes and preferences that favor fruits and vegetables have facilitated the
expansion.[13]
This market expansion has been accompanied by changes in the structure of the labor-intensive agricultural sector. Fewer and fewer farms are growing these commodities on more and more acreage. Acreage producing labor-intensive commodities has substantially increased over the last decade.[14] While acreage and production are up, the number of farms engaged in labor-intensive agriculture is sharply down. Between 1987 and 1997, the number of tobacco farms declined 34.4 percent; vegetable farms by 11.7 percent; and, fruit, nut and berry farms by 11.3 percent.[15] Only the number of farms producing nursery and greenhouse commodities increased – from 37,298 to 67,816 farms, or by 81.8 percent.[16] See Table 1.
Table 1 – Comparison of Acreage and Farms,
1987 to 1997
|
Labor-Intensive
Commodity |
1997 ACREAGE |
Percent Change: 1987 to 1997 |
1997 FARMS |
Percent Change: 1987 to1997 |
|
Tobacco |
838,530 |
+32.4% |
89,706 |
-34.4% |
|
Vegetables |
3,539,670 |
+8.4% |
53,727 |
-11.7% |
|
Fruits,
Nuts, Berries |
5,158,064 |
+13.1% |
85,973 |
-11.3% |
|
Nursery
& Greenhouse |
-- |
-- |
67,816 |
+81.8% |
|
Nursery |
1,234,510 |
+113.2% |
-- |
-- |
|
Greenhouse (sq.ft.) |
1,027 mill. sq. ft. |
+34.8% |
-- |
-- |
While the overall number of farms that engaged in labor-intensive agriculture has declined, the size of those farms has increased. Between 1987 and 1997, the average tobacco
farm increased its acreage by over 100 percent[17]; vegetable farm by 23.2 percent[18]; and, orchard by 28.4 percent.[19]
Market sales of labor-intensive
commodities increased significantly between 1987 and 1997 – the value of market
sales of:
·
tobacco
rose 60 percent;
·
vegetables
rose 79 percent;
·
fruits,
nuts and berries rose 79 percent; and,
· nursery and greenhouse products rose 90 percent.[20]
The concentration of production illustrated in Table 1 (above) is also reflected in the concentration of sales in the hands of a few large producers. As Table 2 shows, a small portion of farms accounts for the bulk of sales in each of these labor-intensive commodities.[21] The growing labor-intensive agricultural industry, whether measured by the number of farms or sales, is increasingly concentrated in a relatively small number of farms.
Table 2 – Labor-Intensive Commodities by Concentration of Market Sales
|
Commodity |
Number of Farms Producing Commodity--1997[22] |
Farms Producing 50% of Market Sales |
Farms Producing 75% of Market Sales |
|
Tobacco |
89,544 |
1,524
(1.7%) |
5,923
(6.7%) |
|
Vegetables |
53,641 |
4,597
(8.5%) |
11,415
(21.3%) |
|
Fruits, Nuts, Berries |
85,973 |
4,764
(5.5%) |
12,461
(14.5%) |
|
Nursery
& Greenhouse |
67,816 |
3,459
(5.1%) |
8,602
(12.7%) |
The concentration of production of labor-intensive crops is also reflected in the distribution among farms that hire labor. In California,[23] Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington — all major producers of labor-intensive commodities — the overwhelming majority of workers are employed by a small proportion of farms in those States. For instance, only 13 percent of California farms employed 85 percent of that State’s hired farm workers. In Florida, a major citrus, vegetable, and horticultural producer, only 7 percent of farms employed 78 percent of the State’s hired farm workers. Similarly, in Oregon, 7 percent of farms employ 75 percent of that State’s hired farm workers. This is true in the other States which produce large amounts of labor-intensive commodities as well.[24] Both production and the employment of hired farm workers are concentrated in the hands of a relatively few large producers. See Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3--Use of Hired Labor, By Number of
Farms
|
State |
Farms in State |
Farms with
no employees |
Farms with 1-4 jobs |
Farms with 5-9 jobs |
Farms with10+ jobs |
|
California |
74,126 |
37,676
(51%) |
21,060
(28%) |
5,841 (8%) |
9,549 (13%) |
|
Florida |
34,799 |
22,600
(65%) |
8,666 (25%) |
1,605 (5%) |
1,928 (
6%) |
|
Georgia |
40,334 |
28,067
(70%) |
9,334 (23%) |
1,563 (4%) |
1,370 (
3%) |
|
N.
Carolina |
49,406 |
30,419
(62%) |
11,658
(24%) |
3,872 (8%) |
3,454 (
7%) |
|
Oregon |
34,030 |
21,232
(62%) |
8,556 (25%) |
1,897 (6%) |
2,345 (
7%) |
|
Washington |
29,011 |
15,413
(53%) |
7,318 (25%) |
2,134 (7%) |
4,146
(14%) |
|
Labor-Intensive
Agricultural States |
Number of Jobs 1997 |
Number of Farms With 10+ Jobs |
Number of Workers on Farm With 10+ Jobs |
Percentage
of Jobs On Farms With 10+ Jobs |
|
California |
549,265 |
9,549
(13%) |
465,227 |
85% |
|
Florida |
124,969 |
1,928
( 6%) |
97,036 |
78% |
|
Georgia |
66,310 |
1,370
( 3%) |
37,454 |
56% |
|
North
Carolina |
126,934 |
3,454
( 7%) |
76,203 |
60% |
|
Oregon |
124,420 |
2,345
( 7%) |
93,517 |
75% |
|
Washington |
251,395 |
4,146
(14%) |
221,350 |
88% |
While overall production of labor-intensive agricultural commodities is up – as measured by acreage, production, and the market value of sales – the number of employed farm workers has remained relatively stable at about 1.8 million. Labor in these agricultural sectors has become more productive, growing more vegetables, fruit, nuts, berries and horticultural commodities with little change in labor inputs.[25] But this increased productivity did not, as one
would expect, result in higher wages. According to both the NAWS and the NASS data, farm worker wages increased nominally but lost value in real terms.[26]
The increased output was apparently accomplished with little help from technological changes in labor-intensive agriculture. Research and development on mechanical devices used to harvest and handle fruits and vegetables in the field have been in a lull for the last two decades. USDA’s Agricultural Research Service had 23 engineers investigating mechanical methods for deciduous tree fruit in 1971; today only one remains doing such work. Citrus and vegetable research has also declined dramatically. This is in marked contrast to the 1960s, in the period after the end of the Bracero program, when intensive research efforts resulted in effective mechanical harvesters for processing tomatoes, cling peaches and other crops. But with the continued supply of cheap labor, research and development of capital-intensive but labor-saving devices slowed and, in some cases, reversed the use of mechanical aids in labor-intensive agriculture.[27] Thus, impressive productivity gains in labor-intensive agriculture apparently have been accomplished with little help from mechanical labor-saving devices.
Of course,
labor-intensive crops obviously use a disproportionate share of hired and
contract labor. Tobacco, vegetables,
fruit and tree nuts, greenhouses and nurseries account for only one-fifth (20.4
percent) of the 877,532 U.S. farms reporting direct hire or contract labor
expenses during 1997, and only 9.3 percent of all farms. However, this relatively small percentage of
farms incurred more than half (52 percent) of the cost of such labor – these
labor-intensive commodities incurred 48.4 percent of all hired farm worker
costs and fully 70.5 percent of all contract labor costs.[28]
Just as the production of labor-intensive agricultural commodities has undergone substantial changes during the last decade, those who work in this sector have also experienced significant changes in wages, working conditions, employment, and stability. By most objective measures, workers who cultivate and harvest these labor-intensive commodities are faring substantially worse than in 1988 when the National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) began collecting data on a wide range of economic and demographic trends in labor-intensive agriculture.
A census (or “head”) count of agricultural workers generally – and labor-intensive agricultural workers specifically – does not yet exist. Based on a number of different data sources, the Commission on Agricultural Workers in 1992 reported that the number of individuals employed for wages on U.S. farms sometime during the year was approximately 2.5 million.[29] According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture,[30] the level of employment in agriculture did not change significantly from the 1992 level.[31] Approximately 72 percent, or 1.8 million, of these workers are employed on crop farms.[32] The NAWS surveys these hired crop workers and periodically reports on economic and demographic characteristics of this workforce.[33]
While the level of employment in agric