Compromise Brings New Hope on Farmworkers Rights Bill

What good is this bill now? (0.00 / 0)

The farm labor bill was incredibly weak before these compromises; most of these changes will make things worse.

The overtime provision would have resulted in a lower base rate, meaning that farmers would not have had to pay more in total wages.  Now, it's basically going away, for all practical purposes.

The day off per week was voluntary, and any union member knows what happens with "voluntary" provisions -- they don't happen.  Actually, if I read your post correctly, the compromise might actually make the day off per week a reality, thus strengthening the bill in that one area.

Unemployment rules were easily avoided.  Now, farmers will get a big tax break while workers will get nothing.

As far as I can tell, workers comp and housing rules would have been tightened, to the benefit of workers, which is why I was willing to support the bill even though it was mostly worthless.  But it appears that workers comp, at least, will be sacrificed, so farm workers who can't work because of work-related injuries will be completely out of luck -- no income, no unemployment, no workers comp ... no hope.

What good is this bill now?

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 12:22:23 PM CST

Another urban activist speaking up for people he never met? (0.00 / 0)

Immigrants suffer mightily under current conditions, no question.

But, the way in which this bill has been promoted works against actually accomplishing much.  For instance, the prominence of Rev. Witt is a problem for more reasons than I can go into in this space.  The "day off" provisions are widely believed, by farmers and farmworkers alike, to be rooted in the desire of churchy people to make sure that hardworking people-- who mostly want to make as much money as possible in as short a time as possible, and then go back to their families and communities-- have enough time to go to their churches.

Cows need milking every damn day, twice a day, and many family farmers haven't had a day off in years.  Which is not to say it is good or right.... but, the characterization of these folks as evildoers by the moralists ("..will now act in good faith..") is rankling.

Me, and most of the farmers I know, support most of the provisions that actually protect workers.  We would really appreciate support from NYC people in backing immigration reform, the Ag Jobs bill, and curtailing ICE harassment of Hispanic workers and insensitivity to farm employers' needs-- such as removing the entire workforce of a dairy before milking time to a remote location for "questioning."

But, the hypocrisy of this campaign is not easy to overlook.  Why is it that they are so worked up about the conditions immigrants labor under in the ag sector, but completely unconcerned about the abuses in the restaurant and construction sectors, which mostly happen in urban areas?  Many, many immigrants labor without days off or overtime pay as construction "subcontractors;"  plenty of immigrants are virtual slaves working below minimum wage long hours in restaurants.  Most ag workers make well above minimum wage.  MANY restaurant workers don't-- tips supposedly make up the difference.  When urban activists start working as hard to prevent the abuse of immigrants in their own jurisdictions as they do in areas whose industries they don't understand very well, we will believe that they are acting in good faith.

For folks who don't know, the average NYS dairy farmer right now is paying more in operational costs than s/he is receiving in payments for milk-- including government subsidies.  Another approach might be to look at improving the economics of farming, so the choice was not between having farm labor work the same long hours farmers do and going out of business.  Maybe paying a bit more for milk-- and a bit less for fancy churches and restaurants-- would help?

---

by: robinia @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 12:51:03 PM CST

What about this bill (0.00 / 0)

An excellent comment.  The part regarding church interference in standard farming practices is especially fascinating.

It makes me think about how much of an "urban activist" I am -- my experience in farming is extremely limited, directly to what amounted to a garden (I estimate about 1/4 acre) when I was in summer camp in Michigan for a few summers in the early 1970s.  I try and get as much information as I can before commenting, but it's certain that I am missing important items.

I believe that the main bill is S.2247, the latest publicly available version of which is here.  I'd love to hear your take on it.

One of the main reasons that the voluntary "day off" won't work, and that I forgot to mention in my earlier comment, is that workers won't want to take it off, for the very reason you mention -- thank you for bringing that up.

I have long had a problem with milk pricing -- the government subsidizes farmers for the milk their dairy cows produce, in exchange for capping prices.  In theory, this is designed to make milk affordable for low-income, inner-city children.  The first problem is that cow milk isn't nearly as good for people, and what benefits it has are not nearly as necessary for anyone over the age of three, as the industry likes to claim.  The second problem, based on your statement, seems to be that the formula for determining subsidies vs. price controls hurts small dairy farmers, at least in upstate New York -- while most likely benefiting larger dairy farmers in Wisconsin.

The entire price-support/subsidy system is seriously flawed, being designed primarily to benefit large, corporate-owned farms and hurt everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) else.  Even underdeveloped countries are hurt by our system, as subsidized grain is shipped to those countries, which prevents local people from farming as they cannot compete in the marketplace with U.S.-subsidized grain.  We should end the subsidy for grain, which can be grown in large amounts and harvested using enormous machines, and subsidize produce, which requires far more labor to harvest.  The result would be higher wages and benefits for farm workers (especially in New York) without cutting into farmers' ability to feed their own families.

Immigration -- this is another tangled issue.  Too many people (who said "Steve Levy"?  I was only thinking of Lou Dobbs -- really I was!) claim they want to rid the U.S. of illegal immigrants (meaning all immigrants), but they want to benefit from the lower prices they pay due in large part to immigrant labor.  In addition, our longstanding national policy regarding international trade has sent manufacturing jobs overseas, perhaps permanently, while condemning many people in developing countries (China and Indonesia, for example) to lives of relative squalor in order to benefit WalMart.  One serious problem, which you pointed out, is that ICE is about as rotten an agency as we have inside the U.S. (Blackwater ... excuse me, "Xe," being the rotten example operating abroad).

I don't have a solution, but if the Ag Jobs bill you mention (please send me a copy or a link to it) helps, I'm all for it.  ICE needs to be revamped as well -- they are just as disgusting here in the big city as they are on the farm.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 13:20:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Certainly understand these concerns (0.00 / 0)

Personally speaking I'm very concerned about the issues you brought up andI work from time to time with friends involved in restaurant and construction worker advocacy.  I also try to shop organic and farmers market and I'm happy to pay a higher price for milk to make sure farmers are getting a fair price for their product.

As far as the bill goes, the concerns you have for small farmers have been taken into account as outlined above.  I think it's important to balance the need to protect small farmers and protect workers rights.  My line at good faith was not a shot at them at all but rather the concern that the Farm Bureau will never find a way to compromise with worker advocates.  I want to see a bill pass and I think the compromises outlined here go a long way to reaching that goal.

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority."


-William Jennings Bryan

---

by: BingChester @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 13:51:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

NOFA (0.00 / 0)

NOFA, the organization that represents the organic farmers you purchase from, opposes this bill.

---

by: CPawelski @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 17:32:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yup. (0.00 / 0)

I'm on their policy committee-- we are, though, working in very good faith to come up with workable solutions.

What is important is that people work in their own areas, with issues they know.  It is very hard for Long Island clerics to legislate effectively "on behalf" of agricultural workers from Mexico who work in Genessee County.  Too much distance and difference to make the best spokespeople.

This will be going in a good direction when it isn't driven by Rev. Witt, but by farmworkers themselves.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 21:44:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Witt (0.00 / 0)

This entire "movement" is bs. It has always been top down driven, by hypocritical religious organizations that oppose for their own employees what they want to dictate for ours. As I call it, it is "concrete painted green." Farmworkers do not now nor ever had anything to do with Witt, his organization or its agenda. As I said in an op-ed I wrote a few years ago that appeared in the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle:

"Rank-and-file, genuine farmworkers have not elected or designated either RMM or CITA to represent them. Virtually no farmworkers participate in these organizations' planning activities or events. When pressed as to why a scant few farmworkers participate in their activities, RMM will state, as they did in the Democrat and Chronicle story, that 'many do not speak up because of fear.'' These self-appointed advocates paint a picture of naïve, childlike waifs, constantly in fear. The inference is that they need (even though they may not realize it yet) groups like RMM to 'take care of them.' The individuals who cross our borders, navigate through a different culture, find and maintain employment, and support not only themselves but also family members back in their home countries, do not need RMM or anyone else to take care of them. I find this contention to be patronizing, condescending, and borderline racist. Maybe, just maybe, the overwhelming majority of farmworkers in New York are not pushing RMM's legislative lobbying agenda because RMM and the others don't represent real farmworkers' issues, needs and concerns."

Let me add a little context. I've been dealing with this organization (RMM) and its operatives for roughly 15 years. 15 years. Witt, RMM and their created sub-organization CITA were all at one time based in the lower Hudson Valley. For 15 years I have been asking the same questions and making the same points and I've seen Witt and his organization, for the most part (there have been some exceptions, especially with newspapers near me and some trade publications) get a virtual free pass from the media. It's infuriating. And I've dealt with the often used slavery comparisons and really offensive rhetoric generated by them, along with lies and total misinformation (see these videos for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... & http://blip.tv/file/705987 ).

Back in 1996 CBS News national did a story, prompted by Witt/RMM, a story on the changes to the housing code in connection with farmworker housing. I was the farmer they interviewed.

see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I was able to point out to them that Orange County had an outstanding farmworker housing improvement program. This program is still in operation in Orange County and has been duplicated in many other parts of NYS and other states as well. I also had a number of conversations with the producer and was able to counter a ton of lies and distortions told by Witt and his people in respect to the laws, conditions, etc ....

Many people upstate have dealt with this issue and people for roughly 9 months. I've watched the pattern before where Witt and his operatives get this free ride and are never questioned as to their legitimacy in the perch they have placed themselves in or the outrageous hypocrisy in that they and their industry don't do for their employees what they dictate for ag.

Have you noticed they never address or answer my questions? I follow them everywhere, like here.

Now, they can choose to ignore me and my questions, which I totally expect, I mean, what can they say? But it would be nice if persons in the media started asking them these questions and have them address them, versus essentially giving them what amounts to a free ride. Why are they given that free ride? This is vital. If someone or some group is going to claim they are advocates for someone else, and claim expertise on an issue and demand significant changes in public policy that threatens an entire industry, not their own industry mind you, then it stands to reason the questions I have been asking should be asked of them, and they should be made to answer them. And if they refuse to address it that should be reported. The public needs to know this.

Again, I have been dealing with this clown and his organization since the mid 1990's. The degree that he will lie never ceases to amaze me. Have you ever read his deposition before the Lobby Commission? It is one of the funniest things I have ever read. It should be subtitled "What Rev. Witt didn't know and when he didn't know it."

Here is a new video I just put on YouTube. It deals with RMM's lobbying and what they claimed for years on their yearly 990 tax filings with the IRS. Check out the video and read the comments in the more info section found under my user name and photo to the right of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I have been asking these same questions and been making these same points for years and for the benefit of "bingchester" I ask them once again:

1. On what basis does Rural and Migrant Ministry, and/or any of its employees or operatives, represent or speak in behalf of farmworkers in NYS? Who are they to demand in behalf of farmworkers any changes to nys labor law in connection with farm labor? How did they get to represent or speak in behalf of farmworkers when for the most part the overwhelming majority of farmworkers in NYS have nothing to do with RMM, do not attend their meetings or rallies unless, they are paid for their participation?

2. Why is the overtime exemption bad for agriculture but okay for the employees of non-profits and especially religious organizations who are driving this concrete painted green movement?

3. When can we expect RMM and/or the various other blathering hypocritical religious organizations to call on the NYS government to end their exemptions to the labor laws, including and especially the overtime exemption?

When will a reporter ask these questions? If I declared that I represent Hungarian window washers and declared certain laws should be passed in their behalf would I be treated as a legitimate authority or source simply because of this self-proclamation of being their advocate?

I repeat this because I have read hundreds, yes hundreds of media pieces generated by RMM or where RMM appears, and they consistently cast this issue in terms of morality and justice. And I have yet to see anyone question them on their authority to speak in behalf of farmworkers and/or how they have the right to decide what is and isn't "just." It's the crux of their argument.  It needs to be repeated because they don't represent farmworkers and don't have a moral leg to stand on because they don't apply to themselves what they want to dictate to others. And the media, the politicos and the general public NEEDS to be made aware of this.

---

by: CPawelski @ Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 17:56:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Farm Death Bill" (0.00 / 0)

That's what my Assemblyman seems to enjoy calling any legislation seeking to guarantee for farmworkers what is basic in any other arena of the economy.  My Assemblyman  seems to give the local Farm Bureau veto power about this legislation, rather than take time to think it through himself.  My Assemblyman likes to complain that the only legislators who favor a bill to protect farmworkers are downstate democrats who can't tell the difference between the front and the back end of a cow.  So nothing ever moves any of the legislators around here in a positive direction.  

That Rev. Witt has a bill that seems to have established some common ground with the Farm Bureau is very intriguing.  Of course, the proposal is far from what it should be.  Yes, it could be voted down for not going far enough, but what else ya got to propose in its place that has any chance of passing?  If you argue that we should wait until the Democrats gain a solid Senate majority, well we've seen how that majority has delivered so far ... virtually nothing.  But let's keep in mind that as far as I know there have been no succesful pieces of legislation improving the lot of farmworkers in nearly forever.  

I think it is pretty amazing that Rural and Migrant Ministry was even able to get into the same room with the Farm Bureau.  In the long run, farmworkers and ag businesses have a lot of common ground.  It's a shame that the two groups have been set against each other.  Whether the legislation is enough is a valid criticism, but the fact that these two groups are talking and generating legislative compromises is extremely noteworthy, and an opportunity not to be lost.

I am not a farmworker, nor do I have any involvement in the business side of agriculture, but I benefit from both every time I sit down to eat at my kitchen table.  

---

by: Jim in Holley @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 16:14:24 PM CST

Self appointed farmworker advocate driven bill (0.00 / 0)

The overwhelming majority of genuine farmworkers in NYS have nothing to do with this self-appointed advocate organization Rural and Migrant Ministry. They have not elected, selected, designated or requested this organization to represent them or speak in their behalf. For the most part real farmworkers do not attend these organizations' meetings nor help plan their events. This fact was admitted by Rev. Richard Witt, Executive Director of RMM, in sworn testimony before the NYS Lobby Commission in October 2001. Witt admitted that though any farmworker who wants to be on RMM's planning committee could be on it, on average only two or three actually serve on the committee. The investigator for the Lobby Commission remarked, "does that sound strange to you? ... In the advocacy advocating for these people, any one of them, as you testified, can serve on the committee, and the most you got is three?" When actual farmworkers do participate, like their annual lobbying day held in May, they're usually paid to be there. In his testimony Rev. Witt admitted that the few farmworkers that were bussed into Albany were paid $40 at the end of their lobbying event. This is not "grassroots," nor even "astroturf," this is concrete painted green.

The fact is that more than a dozen federal, state and local governmental agencies oversee a plethora of laws that govern and protect both the working and living conditions of farmworkers in New York. These laws include the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, federal legislation that only applies to farmworkers, who are probably some of the most protected and regulated employees in New York.

Farmworkers in New York earn, on average, more than $10 an hour. The majority receive free housing and all that entails, including heat, electricity and other utilities and, in many cases, free cable or satellite TV service. They also benefit from a number of government-funded social service programs that, in many cases, exist only for their benefit. These include their own free health clinics, day-care centers (14 throughout the state) and migrant education programs. Factor in the free housing, all of the legal protections and all of the social service programs, and then ask, how do farmworkers compare with urban residents working in the same wage tier?

The five or six exemptions in labor law for farmworkers, like the one for overtime pay, exist because of the production and marketing realities associated with farming. I have no problem defending each and every one in that context. But I can't, because the self-appointed advocates' mantra is that these exemptions are "immoral" and "unjust." They state that "there can be no justification for this unequal treatment. Attempts at justification of this exclusion are offensive." Who assigned these organizations the authority to decide which exemptions are "just?" And many of these same exemptions that apply to farmworkers, like overtime pay, also apply to the employees of non-profits and religious organizations.

Yes, the very same organizations that are pointing their fingers at agriculture can legally "exclude" their own workers from receiving overtime. State legislative staffers also are exempt. Yes, the people who work for the people who want to end our exemption are exempt from overtime. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Go to these links to read more information in depth about this issue:

http://www.timesunion.com/AspS...

http://www.recordonline.com/ap...

http://lancasterfarming.com/no...

http://www.turnpagepro.com/doc...

Link above for an online version of my recent Onion World article. It starts on page 10.

http://www.vegetablegrowersnew...

The following Yahoo Group has some files I uploaded which people may find of interest in regards to this topic.

The first titled "A Farmer's Response" is a response to a presentation/portion of an RMM Board member's dissertation that really explains the history and background of these self-appointed advocate organizations.

The second "RMM Terror" is a copy of a shameless fundraising card sent out in November of 2001 by Rev. Witt for fundraising purposes that attempted to cash in on 9/11 by claiming over and over and over again that farmworkers are "terror" victims.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/...

Here is another example of what levels Witt will stoop to. Watch the video and then read my commentary under the more info section as to what really happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Can someone please answer these questions:

1. WHY IS THE OVERTIME EXEMPTION BAD FOR AGRICULTURE BUT OKAY FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF NON-PROFITS AND ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE DRIVING THIS PSEUDO-GRASSROOTS FAUX MOVEMENT?

2. WHEN CAN WE EXPECT RMM AND/OR THE VARIOUS OTHER BLATHERING HYPOCRITICAL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS TO CALL ON THE NYS GOVERNMENT TO END THEIR EXEMPTIONS TO THE LABOR LAWS, INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY THE OVERTIME EXEMPTION?

I, and millions of others have not ceded to this crowd the responsibility to be the arbiters of what is and isn't "moral" or "just" in our civil and criminal codes. Further, what I term the "Amen Industry's" blatant hypocrisy makes their self-appointed move to be that arbiter or "decider" of what is and isn't "just" to be equal parts laughable and disturbing.

I have a great idea, let RMM and the various religious orgs that are so keen on ending the ot exemption for ag first lobby the legislature and the Governor to end it for them and all non-profits, get it enacted and then report back to us how it works out. Then let them point the finger and dictate what my industry should be doing.

---

by: CPawelski @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 17:32:28 PM CST

More hypocrisy ... (0.00 / 0)

As I mentioned, many of these exemptions apply to other industries, including and most especially to religious (and other) non-profit organizations. This includes an exemption to overtime. In fact, when it comes to worker protections and exemptions overall few industries have a more dismal record than what I term the "Amen Industry." The blatant hypocrisy of these religious and quasi-religious organizations, that want to impose rules and laws on other industries they don't often want applied to themselves and who benefit from a number of labor law and tax "exclusions" is fully detailed in the excellent 5 part series "In God's Name" by Diana B. Henriques that ran in October of 2006 in the New York Times:

IN GOD'S NAME: As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10... ious.html?pagewanted=all

IN GOD'S NAME: Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10... ious.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all

IN GOD'S NAME: Religious Programs Expand, So Do Tax Breaks http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10... ious.html?pagewanted=all

IN GOD'S NAME: Religion-Based Tax Breaks: Housing to Paychecks to Books http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10... ious.html?pagewanted=all

IN GOD'S NAME: Ministry's Medical Program Is Not Regulated http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10... ion.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all

These articles are quite illuminating and the hypocrisy they expose are equal parts nauseating and appalling.

Back a few years ago I contacted the various religious orgs that fund Rural and Migrant Ministry (the organization driving this faux movement) and asked them where they stood on their workers being allowed to collectively bargain.

Check out this link for more details: http://rochester.indymedia.org... 93/index.php

Two years ago the PBS program "Religion and Ethics Newsweekly" aired the following segment:

Catholic Church and Labor-----------------------------
The Church has had a long history of defending the rights of workers dating back 100 years to Pope Leo XIII. But recently, Catholic Bishops and Catholic school teachers across the nation have been fighting over union representation. In the Diocese of Scranton, Bishop Joseph Martino refused to recognize a Catholic teachers union representing one-third of its teachers for more than 30 years. Instead, he formed one of his own designed to serve teachers and Diocesan employees. The Bishop's decision caused an uproar in Scranton's heavily unionized Catholic community and reignited the national debate over union protection under state law for teachers in religious schools of all faiths.

Lucky Severson travels to Scranton for a closer look at this controversy. According to Michael Milz, president of the Scranton Diocese Association of Catholic Teachers, "We're not used to those kind of tactics coming from the Catholic Church. How can you not say it's hypocrisy when . . . they urge other employers to allow their workers to have the right to organize, yet deny it to your own workers?" However, Professor Brian Benestad, who teaches theology at the University of Scranton, argues "If the Catholic schools are required to recognize the union, then you're going to have government . . . intervening in the school, making decisions about whether the bishops' invocation of doctrine is really genuine."

It seems to me that if you are going to aggressively lobby for certain laws or conditions for workers outside of your industry, then you should be leading by example for employees in your own industry. If religious institutions are so keen on unionizing workers why don't they start by unionizing the workers that work for their various organizations and affiliated institutions (churches, schools, hospitals, etc...)? It should be emphasized that religious based institutions, including their private schools and hospitals, have a long, rich tradition of being anti-union. Or should I say, they are pro-union, unless it is people that happen to work for them, that is. From the National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice (NICWJ) website:

"Engages Religious Employers: Religiously-affiliated non-profit institutions, such as hospitals and nursing homes, should model the highest standard of employer-employee relations. Unfortunately some religious institutions hire union-busting 'consultants' and engage in unethical, and sometimes illegal behavior toward workers when they attempt to form a union. NICWJ has developed resources to educate people of faith about this issue." (http://www.iwj.org/template/page.cfm?id=91)

To emphasize, religious organizations have a long rich history of being anti-union and employing union-busting tactics when those union workers happen to be their own employees. One example being the Roman Catholic Diocese of NY in connection with the local Catholic high school John S. Burke; see letter entitled "Union Breaking Tactics: http://www.recordonline.com/ap... (for another example of Catholic intimidation regarding unionization of employees at a local hospital see: http://www.recordonline.com/ap...

They are so big on removing the "exclusions" or exemptions found in our laws. Great. Then let them lead by example by removing theirs, including the overtime "exclusion" they benefit from. Or one of the biggest, most egregious exemptions found in our laws, the tax exclusions that these religious organizations benefit so greatly from.

They are blathering hypocrites who don't apply to themselves what they want imposed on others. I really subscribe to the position George Carlin takes on this issue.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

In regards to these religious and quasi-religious organizations that are benefitting from tax paying "exclusions" check out George Carlin's specific takes on this issue. The reference can be found at the 6:40-6:02 section of his 1988 HBO Special "What Am I Doing in New Jersey?" when he talks about religion and its role in the public policy process:

http://www.truveo.com/George-C...

Here is a paraphrased version of what he says:

"I don't know about you but I've pretty much had it with these f****** church people. You know what I say we should do? TAX THEM! TAX THESE MOTHER F*****. If they're so interested in government policy and public policy make them pay the same admission price as everyone else. TAX THEM! The Catholic Church alone could wipe out the federal budget deficit if you taxed them on their real estate holdings."

If they want to teach about Jesus or feed homeless people, that's fine. But if they want to be so involved in the public policy process let's have some "justice" here and strip them of their tax-exempt status and make them play by all of the same labor laws they want to impose on other industries.

When these clowns end their exemptions and lead by example then I will begin to take them even remotely seriously on their self-imposed perch of being moral arbiters and deciders of what is and isn't "just" in our society.

In the meantime ... BLECH!

---

by: CPawelski @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 17:42:52 PM CST

Investigate these advocates (0.00 / 0)

First, one of my links wasn't correct in my previous post. Here is the correct link: http://rochester.indymedia.org...

Second, here is a link to a story about our valley and farm this year. This year, like a number in the past, my workers earned more than me.

http://www.westfaironline.com/...
http://www.westfaironline.com/...

Farmers like myself would love to pay our workers even more. We'd love to provide healthcare coverage. But, when I'm getting paid, dollar for dollar and not adjusted for inflation, the same price for a 50lb bag of onions that I was paid over 25 years ago ($6), and when we in this country spend less than 11% of our disposable income on food and farmers typically receive less than 20% of that retail dollar, farmers like myself are doing all we can. This is the contextual reality that the self-appointed advocates never deal with. This issue must be addressed within that reality, not from a void.

My income will be below the federal poverty line. Where do you all propose the money should come from to pay for these things?

Good public policy is crafted within the framework of the contextual realities we dwell in, not in a vacuum. To do otherwise is the intellectual equivalent of passing gas. I urge people to learn the facts regarding farming and farm employees. Please don't take as gospel the claims of hypocritical self-appointed advocates. Let's talk about the arguments for the exemptions on the basis of ag's unique production and marketing realities, our real world economic context (and let's also add the historical context of a 70+ year cheap food supply mandate that has been federal policy the shapes the issue) and how we need to maintain a domestic food supply system for national security purposes. We rely on foreign sources for our energy. How's that working out for us? Want to do the same for food? That's the broader public policy question and this issue must be addressed in the broader context I have outlined. Not in an isolated vacuum with propaganda and misinformation driving the argument, which is what these self-appointed advocates do and rely on. It's appalling.

The bill's advocates are a 501(c)3 organization whose lobbying is not supposed to be a substantial part of their activities and are not supposed to be involved in political activities. They are gross violators of the 501(c)3 tax code.

Here are some financial fun facts about RMM & CITA, culled from their tax filings and literature produced by and about them, that supporters/enablers should, if they aren't already are, be aware of.

Why these organizations are considered to be trustworthy sources on this or any other issue is simply beyond me.

I have all the documentation, tax returns, etc ..., to back everything I state in the piece below. This was written a couple of years ago. More recent tax returns don't paint a better picture for RMM, by the way. In their most recently filed 990 return, 2007 (filed a year late, which is typical), RMM:

1. Once again they operated with a significant deficit, over $43,000.
2. They have a substantial amount of debt. They have notes and lines of credit and the like that are converting to loans. They owe tens of thousands of dollars. Neither this fact nor the fact they have been operating at a deficit  has been disclosed by the organization to its supporters, which one would assume an organization that takes in close to $400,000 a year would have a fiduciary responsibility to do for those donors. The fact they were investigated and fined by the NYS Lobby Commission and that a complaint was filed with the AG's office was never disclosed to the donors and supporters by RMM staff.

Overall financial status:

RMM's 2004 tax return claimed the organization raised $442,160, and total expenses amounted to $571,499, leading to a deficit of $129,339. RMM's 2003 tax return claimed the organization raised $468,237, and total expenses amounted to $587,647, leading to a deficit of $119,410. That's a 2 year deficit of $248,749. Doesn't that seem excessive?

Three questions are raised by this financial disclosure:

a. How or why did they have such losses?
b. How were they able to continue to operate despite such losses?
c. Why weren't donors ever notified of such losses?

Religious programs:

From 1996 though 2004 the primary program expenditure claimed by RMM is the following:

"Accompaniment - To provide for the religious needs of the migrant farmworker community in the Mid-Hudson as they work to improve their living and working conditions."

In 2004 this figure alone totaled $216,788. They have claimed to have spent, from 1996 through 2004, $1,084,989 on providing for the "religious needs of the migrant farmworker community."

Let me be perfectly blunt, this claim is total fiction. RMM does not provide any sort of program or service which "provides for the religious needs of the migrant farmworker community." Let me repeat, this claim is f-i-c-t-i-o-n. I have, I believe, virtually all of their literature going back to the mid 1990's and I haven't come across a single article or even reference to any sort of program that can even be remotely misconstrued as "providing for the religious needs of the migrant farmworker community." In fact, the few times RMM Exec. Dir. Witt has mentioned religious type programs or services it is the context of a dismissive if not mocking tone. The only time it is mentioned as such is on RMM's yearly tax returns.

Can RMM substantiate this claim that it has spent over $1 million dollars since 1996 on programs that "provide for the religious needs of the farmworker community?" Can RMM produce any examples, even a single example, backed with credible documentary evidence, of a religious themed or related program?

What is it called when you make a claim of spending a substantial amount of money on a program or type of program that you aren't really spending it on?

Youth programs:

In a fundraising letter written by Witt, combined with a sermon he gave in 2005, it can be determined that a mere 27 or so students have "graduated" from RMM's "Youth Arts Group." RMM's tax returns report that RMM, from 1996 through 2004, has expended some $729,429 on their "youth arts group/youth empowerment program."

There are and have been literally hundreds upon hundreds, if not a thousand or more children of migrant farmworkers that have lived in the lower Hudson Valley from 1996 through 2004. Doesn't it bother anyone that:

1. RMM has been able to enroll a measly 30 children or less in their signature youth program over the years?
2. They have claimed to have spent close to $700,000 on 30 children or less?

Do these claims sound plausible? How many of these children are actually the children of migrant farmworkers? One, five, nine? Has anyone asked that? Why are there so few participants in or graduates of this program? What have they spent over $700,000 on over the past few years, for roughly 27 graduates?

Where is the money really going or being spent on?

Excessive compensation:

In Part VI of the 2004 return ("Other Information"), under 90b it states "Number of employees employed in the pay period that includes March 12, 2004" states that RMM employed 14 persons. In the 2003 return they reported 13 employees.

With a reported deficit of $248,749 doesn't a payroll of 13 or 14 people seem somewhat questionable, if not excessive?

In 2003 RMM reported they spent on compensation of officers, other salaries and wages, pension plan, other employee benefits, and payroll taxes, a total of $300,827. Now if you add the "accounting fees" of $33,841 and the $64,106 paid to "consultants" and you have a total of $398,774. This figure represents nearly 68% of reported expenses. Is that typical? Of this amount $60,446 was earmarked to the Executive Director Witt alone. That's roughly 11% of total expenses. Is that typical?

In 2002 RMM reported they spent on compensation of officers, other salaries and wages, pension plan, other employee benefits, and payroll taxes, a total of $266,293 (this not take into account reported "accounting fees" of $22,913). This figure represents over 50% of reported expenses. Of this amount $59,225 was earmarked to the Executive Director Witt alone.

In the separate independent auditor's report (performed by the CPA firm of Sedore & Company) that was filed with RMM's 2004 tax return one finds a page entitled "Statement of Functional Expenses for the Year Ended December 31, 2004." The form reports the following program service expenditure totals:

Salaries

Executive Director: $40,189
Administrative Coordinators: $65,341
Resource Coordinators: $52,499
Advocacy Coordinators: $6,503
Youth Empowerment Coordinators: $44,308
Total salaries: $208,840

Fringe Benefits

Payroll Taxes: $14,754
Medical Insurance: $46,400
Pension, Executive Director: $8,771
Total fringe benefits: $69,925

So, expenditures related to these employees amounts to $278,765 and this figure accounts for roughly 49% of RMM's total expenses. Adding the $25,086 earmarked for "Consultants" and this expense figure rises to $303,851 or roughly 53% of total expenses. Executive Director Witt alone accounts for $48,960 or  8.5% of total expenses.

Don't these figures and percentages seem somewhat questionable, if not excessive, especially when one considers how serious the"financial difficulties" RMM is facing and how large their reported deficits have been as reported in their 2003 and 2004 tax returns? Does this accurately represent how sound, responsible and honest non-profits are generally or typically run?

This page also reports "Travel" expenses of $12,978, "Telephone" expenses of $13,148, "Computer/internet" expenses of $7,074 and "Copies and printing" expenses of $14,307.

For an organization that operates statewide (barely & limited) and not nationwide, don't these reported expenses raise legitimate questions?

CITA program expenditure claims:

Here is what the RMM created and controlled sub-organization CITA reports each year on their tax return as to what their program services are:

"TEACH SAFE PESTICIDE HANDLING; TRANSLATION SERVICES; INCREASING PUBLIC AWARENESS OF LIVING CONDITIONS; TRANSPORTATION AND RECREATION FOR IMMIGRANT FAMILIES; AND ATTAINING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FOR FARMWORKERS"

As I have stated repeatedly, CITA was created and originally based in my backyard. "Pesticide handling," "translation services," "transportation and recreation" are bogus program services and I would bet the farm they could not substantiate the claimed expenditures regarding these program service claims, which are, on face value, dubious if not excessive.

On the other hand, "attaining fundamental rights for farmworkers" is simply not an activity of a true 501(c)3. It's the activity of either a labor union or a 510(c)4.

For CITA's 2003 return they reported expenses totaling $234,611. Of that amount $111,983 went to pay the salaries of 4 employees. If you add in the $11,430 for other salaries and wages, $19,094 for other employee benefits, $10,386 for payroll taxes, $23,700 for professional fundraising fees and $1,900 for accounting fees the total is $178,493. That's roughly 76% of expenses. That's typical? And that year one Board of Director member, Salvador Solis, who CITA reported worked less than 5 hours a week, was paid $27,583. That's typical?

For CITA's 2004 return they reported "total revenue" of $187,548 and total expenses of $251,120. That led to a deficit of $63,572. Like RMM this is a financial fact that CITA has not bothered to formally notify its dues paying supporters of.

And though they reported a significant deficit, they managed to significantly increase their employee compensation expenditures. In fact, the organizations 4 key employees were paid $140,333, which was an increase of $28,350 over 2003. If you add in the $8,361 for other salaries and wages, $23,884 for other employee benefits, $14,089 for payroll taxes, $18,000 for professional fundraising fees and $3,250 for accounting fees the total is $207,917. That's roughly 83% of reported expenses. That's typical? Or is it  typical, when going from a year that reported a surplus of $15,035 to a deficit of $63,572, to increase employee related compensation expenses some $29,424?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe those four key employees are spending the bulk of each day teaching pesticide handling, translating and transporting farmworkers around. Or, maybe not. Shouldn't they be able to produce some sort of receipts or other credible evidence to back these claims?

Rural and Migrant Ministry board member Margaret Gray's dissertation, entitled "Harvesting Expectations: Farmworker Advocacy in New York," was submitted by Gray in September of 2005 and was evidently accepted by CUNY (in connection with her completing her Ph.D. work) in 2006.

As Gray freely admits in her dissertation  she has long been heavily involved with the self-appointed advocate organizations, especially RMM. Her dissertation contains some startling comments and admissions.

Her dissertation somewhat acknowledges the facts regarding CITA's creation and relationship with RMM. She states regarding CITA's creation:

"the organization was born of efforts begun by RMM, which has, since then, been a primary supporter of CITA, especially in offering staff time and expertise."

As my response to her paper delivered in Omaha stated, the truth involves far more direct control and influence of RMM on CITA.

On page 218 of her dissertation Gray states the following regarding CITA's evident lack of success:

"My research suggests that JFW (the "Justice for Farmworkers Coalition," the RMM contrived and quasi-fictional creation which tries to make RMM's activities appear to be broader based and supported; comment mine/CP) and the legislative campaign has gained a life and a tempo of its own which is not complemented by success at the level that CITA's organizing has expected to achieve."

She later adds the following stunning observation:

"I do not recommend that JFW abandon the legislative and advocacy work. Rather, it seems advocates must attend to the balance of worker power and advocate power. Since they cannot compensate for worker power, how might advocates redirect their resources to build worker power? One obvious answer might be to give more resources to CITA. This has been considered, but has not been promoted because of mistrust, lack of leadership and accountability at CITA, added to its limited organizing success.... The reality of farmworkers' lives is that they have little formal education and even less exposure to the type of professional skills required for operating a successful nonprofit, including grant writing, grant reporting, office administration, and staff management.... CITA has been run since its inception on a shoestring budget and, at times, financial restraints have meant laying off staff. CITA is not run as a professional nonprofit and for many years has been in survival mode."

To repeat, these comments are stunning.

1. What are the facts regarding the amount of funds CITA has raised over the years. Is it really a "poor" organization operating on a "shoestring budget?"

In the 990 tax filings in my possession for CITA they report the following amounts under:

Part 1 Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets or Fund Balances; 1 Contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts received; d total:

2004 $172,931
2003 $232,226
2002 $232,635
2001 $214,323
2000 $241,119
1999 $180,816
1998 $174,606

In seven years CITA has raised $1,448,656. For comparison, over the same period the New York State Labor Religion Coalition has raised $1,612,352. Either figure can hardly be described as represnting funding levels that would comprise "shoestring budgets."

2. I find it to be stunning that evidently CITA's creator and controlling organization RMM does not feel comfortable steering more funding CITA's way because of "mistrust, lack of leadership and accountability at CITA, added to its limited organizing success." What does that imply? If RMM has mistrust, questions CITA's leadership and CITA's lack of accountability (let's keep in mind the numerous legitimate questions regarding RMM's own dubious program expenditure claims on phantom religious programs they don't provide, for a literal handful of children who are most likely not the children of farmworkers, on excessive compensation for employees, amongst other questionable expenditures reported on the annual 990 tax filings) then one has to wonder if maybe supporters of RMM should dig a little deeper regarding RMM & CITA and their expenditures.

3. Regarding "lack of organizing success," if CITA can't substantiate via credible records and evidence it has spent significant resources on such activities as pesticide handling instruction, transportation and recreation for immigrant families, and translation services, and they have had limited success organizing, what or where are their funds being spent on? What are they doing with their funds? Why the lack of success?

4. Typical for Gray and her cohorts at RMM is the not so subtle bit of racism employed to explain away problems with their activities. Remember, Gray blames CITA's fiscal woes on farmworkers having "little formal education and even less exposure to the type of professional skills required for operating a successful nonprofit, including grant writing, grant reporting, office administration, and staff management." The problem with this attempt to misdirect culpability is that non hispanic anglos (hand picked and in conjunction with RMM) have essentially run CITA over the years. CITA, RMM and other allies' produced literature, press accounts, as well as CITA's tax returns and even Gray's dissertation report the following non-hispanic (and would assume formally educated) individuals that have run CITA over the years include:

* Joseph Regotti
* Carolyn Mow
* Jennifer Adler
* Charles Barrett
* John Solberg
* Ami Kadar (a grant writer for CITA and current interim director)

Yet Gray places the blame on the poor, uneducated "brown people" at CITA for their evident financial mismanagement. Shameful. Either way, the obvious questions are raised:

Where is their funding going and what are they expending their resources on, and why haven't they disclosed any of this to the people and organizations that donate to CITA (and RMM)?

To all those supporters of RMM out there, you should read this material closely and do some investigating before you do their lobbying for them, either directly or indirectly via your financial support.

And by the way, once again I'll emphasize, these self-appointed advocate organizations have not been elected, selected, designated, requested or chosen by the overwhelming majority of farmworkers in NYS to represent them or speak in their behalf. They do not represent the needs or concerns of genuine farmworkers (a fact found in a recent survey/study conducted by Cornell University researchers). Farmworkers do not, for the most part, participate in the planning activities of these organizations and the paltry few that have shown up at their orchestrated lobbying events were paid by RMM for their participation, filling the role of "prop" or "extra." And these religious and quasi-religious institutions do not apply to themselves much of what they want to impose on agriculture. When you do RMM's bidding don't fool or kid yourself, you are not helping genuine farmworkers. You are not doing what farmworkers want or have expressed they need. You are doing what the self-appointed advocates at RMM (and those that back them financially) think is best for farmworkers, in the grandest tradition of Kipling's "white man's burden."

---

by: CPawelski @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 18:25:53 PM CST

Link correction (0.00 / 0)

Oops, more bad links. These should work:

IN GOD'S NAME: As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10...

IN GOD'S NAME: Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10...

IN GOD'S NAME: Religious Programs Expand, So Do Tax Breaks

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10...

IN GOD'S NAME: Religion-Based Tax Breaks: Housing to Paychecks to Books

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10...

IN GOD'S NAME: Ministry's Medical Program Is Not Regulated

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10...

---

by: CPawelski @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 21:15:27 PM CST

Daily News (0.00 / 0)

BingChester cites and provides a link for a NY Daily News piece. Here are some more details on that topic.

Since late 1999/early 2000 the NY Daily News has devoted an inordinate amount of space to this issue. What are the motives of the Daily News in regards to their crusade? Is it concern for the downtrodden? Hardly. During a speech at Encuentro 2000, Richard Witt, the Executive Director of the self-appointed farmworker advocate organization, Rural and Migrant Ministry stated: "And then the New York Daily News, which is New York's largest circulation newspaper, uh took this on. As the editor said to me, uh, he said, this is really important to us. And I said why? And he said well, I think we can get a Pulitzer out of this." They didn't win a Pulitzer for their misleading "Harvest of Shame" series, or win any other award that I was able to contact, and share the facts regarding the misinformation found in their series, before the award was given. And though they received a Polk award when I later contacted the manager of that award and shared with him information how factually incorrect and misleading their series was he was mortified.

---

by: CPawelski @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 08:16:03 AM CST

Two corrected links (0.00 / 0)

I hate how this site sometimes screws up links. Here are the correct links:

http://blip.tv/file/705987
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

---

by: CPawelski @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 10:50:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Please explain (0.00 / 0)

I have a series of simple questions that I'd like answered and explained to me. The are:

On what basis does Rural and Migrant Ministry, and it's affiliated and proxy and related partners and other organizations, but especially Rural and Migrant Ministry, speak in behalf of farmworkers? On what basis do they get to demand what labor laws should be in connection with farmworkers? On what basis do they get to demand and decide what legislation should be passed in connection with farmworkers?

Who are they to demand this? If they were to suddenly claim they represented and spoke in behalf of nurses and other care providers of Eastern European descent should they then be assigned credibility by the press and legislators accordingly? Should their demands in connection with those related issues also be met, simply because they have appointed themselves and demand things?

Please explain to me above why anyone should give a care with what Richard Witt wants and his operatives want and demand. Can I claim I speak in behalf of sexually abused church goers and issue a series of demands as to how laws should be changed to further punish offending clergy? Should I be in a room crafting legislation on this, simply because I claim I should be there?

Jim above laments the following:

"I think it is pretty amazing that Rural and Migrant Ministry was even able to get into the same room with the Farm Bureau.  In the long run, farmworkers and ag businesses have a lot of common ground.  It's a shame that the two groups have been set against each other. "

I have been dealing with Richard Witt, his misleading and demonizing rhetoric and his overall crap for roughly 14 years. I can provide you with example, after example, after example of such, repeated references to farmworkers being "slaves" and farmers slave owners (see this video: http://blip.tv/file/705987), claiming that a child died in a manner that is entirely false (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... claiming that farmworkers are "terror" victims 2 months after 9/11, claiming that there are virtually no laws or protections for farmworkers and they are ignored by society which is patently and absurdly false, claiming that farmworkers are typically abused and exploited by their employees, etc .... The situation that currently exists is a direct result of Witt and his operatives. To bemoan it now is nauseating. The difference now is that in the past farmers in general would ignore ilk like him and hope it would just go away. Now more are like me, who aggressively and proactively confront him and his propaganda and agenda where ever his sleaze bubbles up and appears. We have had enough!

Jim also claims:

"But let's keep in mind that as far as I know there have been no succesful pieces of legislation improving the lot of farmworkers in nearly forever."

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and what you are explicitly and implicitly implying is false. I'm going to repeat myself again, the fact is that there are roughly a dozen or more federal, state and local governmental agencies overseeing a plethora of laws that regulate the living and working conditions of farmworkers in NYS, including the U.S. Department of Labor, a number of different divisions of the New York State Department of Labor (including Rural Employment Services, Labor Standards and a Monitor Advocate), the state and local county Health Departments, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, OSHA, the EPA, and the NYS Worker's Compensation Board, amongst others. These laws include the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) which is specific federal legislation that only applies to farmworkers The NYS Department of Labor produces a little green book (in English and in Spanish) entitled "Protection for Farm Workers." The book states, "Farmworkers: You should know that there are federal and state laws related to employment that provide important protection for you." The book then details laws covering housing, pay, transportation, working conditions and how to make complaints about employers to the NYSDOL.

How can you open your mouth and speak on an issue and even lobby in behalf of legislation that would drastically affect an industry when it's painfully obvious you haven't done a lick of research but have instead chosen to be spoon fed by a one-sided dubious source? Do you, and others like you, make this as a general practice in how you reach and form opinions, act on them and conduct yourself in you regular life?

And do you all know what the rules are regarding 510(c)3s and lobbying? Do you know how the IRS under the code defines "charitable and educational" work and activities and information? You should start looking that up. Here are a couple of good links to get you started:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl...
http://www.irs.gov/charities/c...
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf...
http://www.publicinterestwatch...

My advice to you all is to do a smidgen of research before you meddle with an industry and pontificate and proclaim things you obviously don't have a fraction of  a clue about.

---

by: CPawelski @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 09:47:47 AM CST

Bill has NOT met concerns of small farmers (0.00 / 0)

This bill must not be allowed to pass in any form. It does not address the concerns of small farmers; in my immediate circle (I am not a farmer) is at least one family farm that will top the amended $500K in sales and will fall under the provisions. That is not clearing $500K, or a profit of $500K--you only need to make sales of that amount. This farm is is worse shape than any previous year since expenses far outweigh the sales figures.The farmer involved also works a non-farming job alongside me because the farm does not support his family without assistance.Is RMM going to pay him for the 100-hr week I watch him put in year after year? I thought not.

This bill does not target "agribusiness;" family farms are definitely included in this.

My friends have now increased the number of workers, and decreased the hours of each. This unfortunately means that housing that accommodated families, not all of them workers, just had to be revised to accommodate workers alone. This will separate workers' families that stayed together before. This is not theoretical, people--it is happening already, since farmers have to plan for next year today. The "advocate" groups are hiding the real-life consequences of what will happen, since it doesn't suit their political purposes, but the workers and farmers are who live with these results, not Witt and others making their living trying to make New York a Latin American outpost.

Collective bargaining? Clean out the illegals first and then come talk to me. The Church and other "religious" organizations are only seeking to use these workers as cannon fodder for their own power, as are the unions. I am a past union organizer, and past Catholic. This is a misuse of true legal labor protection, and the workers know that. The workers will not benefit, but by time that is recognized, these religious groups will be grappling for power with the unions, and the workers, as always, will be left with less in their pockets and ineffectual representation.

If RMM and the Church want to pay OT, let them. Again, stay out of our pockets and the farmers' pockets. New York needs our farmers and our food supply, and pandering to an outside agenda's power grab will not accomplish that.

This is Caryn Sobel. The account wouldn't register by my real name, but had to be given another name to be allowed comment.

---

by: Cloudberry @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 13:12:44 PM CST

Morre questions (0.00 / 0)

I'm going to add a few points and questions Pastor Jim and I really want you to think about this.

First, you (meaning what I term the "Amen Industry") have absolutely no grounds to cast this issue as one of "morality" or "justice." Zero. Zippo. None. Your industry benefits from many of the same exemptions that ag does and many more beyond. The level of hypocrisy is astounding. Your industry has gotten a pass on this. Farmers, many being church goers, have been reluctant to call you on this. But that's changing. Either way, you have absolutely no grounds or right to cast this issue in those terms or argue it on that playing field. When you eliminate all of your labor law and other exemptions and improve your dismal record when it comes to such things as collective bargaining then you can argue it in those terms. In the meantime, spare me.

This issue has to be dealt with on the playing field of economics. The fact is we as a society pay spend roughly 10% of our disposable income on food and the farmer receives roughly 20% off the retail dollar. We are barely eeking out a living. Last season, as in 3 of the previous 4 before it, my income on the farm was less than what my employees earned. Read this article:

http://www.westfaironline.com/...
http://www.westfaironline.com/...

I will be applying for food stamps this year. I am the working poor. Where do you propose the money should come from to pay for these exemptions you want to end (but continue to maintain for your industry)? Where? Where will the money come from to pay for overtime and unemployment (of course providing unemployment to person who work temporary seasonal jobs, to essentially encourage them to not seek employment elsewhere which is their normal routine but instead to sit and collect unemployment is idiotic public policy, but I digress) to my workers? By the way, the law in NYS is that if you have a payroll of $1,200 in a calendar year you have to provide workers comp and this is true for upper 90% of farms in NYS. The advocates making an issue of this is pure propaganda. We virtually all already provide workers comp and have for years. And work agreements as well.

But again, where do you propose the money should come from to pay for these things? I don't have it. I, like the rest of ag, don't set my price. My price for my crop is dictated to me. Plus, I'm getting paid, dollar for dollar, not adjusted for inflation, for the most part and with few exceptions the same exact price I received in 1983. Are your wages the same as they were in 1983? Again, where do you propose the money should come from to pay for this?

Further, in regards to collective bargaining, on my farm my employees earn above the federal minimum wage, are provided free housing, free gas and electric, free tvs and DirecTv service, a free ride to the grocery store each week, I mow their lawn each week and they get a bonus at the end of the season. I'm not making a living here. What will a union get for my employees from me. I'm not even addressing the point that a strike at planting or harvesting can effectively finish a farm, I'm just asking what will a union do for my employees? Except collect union dues? Or, since NYS is not a right to work state, agency fees? Dues will be collected and minimal to no assistance will be provided. This is real world. Tell me, who will be exploiting who?

Anxiously anticipating your response.

---

by: CPawelski @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 17:23:12 PM CST

Where is bingchester? (0.00 / 0)

He pops on this site, posts a little propaganda, and then disappears. I know I've asked a lot of questions, made a number of points, and the bingster hasn't addressed any of them. Let me make it simple bingchester, lets start with these two:

1. WHY IS THE OVERTIME EXEMPTION BAD FOR AGRICULTURE BUT OKAY FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF NON-PROFITS AND ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE DRIVING THIS PSEUDO-GRASSROOTS FAUX MOVEMENT?

2. WHEN CAN WE EXPECT RMM AND/OR THE VARIOUS OTHER BLATHERING HYPOCRITICAL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS TO CALL ON THE NYS GOVERNMENT TO END THEIR EXEMPTIONS TO THE LABOR LAWS, INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY THE OVERTIME EXEMPTION?

Please answer or address these for me. The crux of RMM's (and it's enablers, funders, affiliated "Amen Industry" organizations) argument for the ending of these exemptions is that it's an issue of "morality" and "justice" and they have the legitimate right to decide what is and isn't moral or just. Explain to me why this issue should be dealt with on that playing field and why they have any legitimacy in making that argument because I'm having a real hard time seeing through the gross hypocrisy.

Still waiting.

---

by: CPawelski @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 11:27:02 AM CST

RMM and Witt and lobbying (0.00 / 0)

I have a new video on YouTube that deals with RMM's lobbying and what they claimed for years on their yearly 990 tax filings with the IRS. Check out the video and read the comments in the more info section found under my user name and photo to the right of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

---

by: CPawelski @ Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 14:42:30 PM CST

ATU piece (0.00 / 0)

Last year Miriam Pawel wrote some misleading nonsense in the ATU and I smashed her ( http://www.timesunion.com/AspS... ) and once again she writes a piece filled with more misleading nonsense and I smash her once again: http://www.timesunion.com/AspS...

What happened to bingchester? No replies at all. Maybe he decided to do a little research and look into the bs claimed by Witt and his crowd. I cannot fathom how so many people can listen to that nitwit and accept what he says at face value. He is the most full of crap person I have ever dealt with, hands down.

This riff by George Carlin was made for him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

---

by: CPawelski @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 07:43:44 AM CST

HV Biz op-ed (0.00 / 0)

I have a new op-ed on this issue. This one appears in the upcoming print edition of HV Biz. Here are the links for the online edition from the Westfair Online website:

http://www.westfaironline.com/...

http://www.westfaironline.com/...

http://www.westfaironline.com/...

Once again I ask, where is bingchester?

C

---

by: CPawelski @ Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 07:03:02 AM CST