UFW FACES ANOTHER MAJOR MEMBERSHIP LOSS

The tattered United Farmworkers union is staring another significant loss of members in the face following the sale of the Jackson-Perkins rose, nursery and mail catalog operation in Wasco. The company, which employed as many as 3,000 workers who were members of the UFW at one time, was sold in April by parent company Harry & David.

Although the number of union members employed at the time of the sale is probably closer to 800, all of them could be lost to the union unless some fancy maneuvering can be done in consultation with attorneys for the buyers.

In the first place, two buyers are involved. One is a major nursery wholesaler and cataloger which bought the roses and other stock in the ground as well as the Jackson-Perkins identity for them. A second buyer purchased the 3,200 acres of land, buildings and some equipment where the flowers have been grown and packed for decades. From all indication the land will be planted to almonds as soon as the roses can be cleared out.

So what happens to the contract between the UFW and the employer? That is a major issue since the employer as it was known when the union contract was signed no longer exists. The current contract, which has been renegotiated on a year to year basis for the past few years, expires June 30.

The employer has notified the UFW that it will no longer be a party to the contract after June 30, and that all current employees will be terminated on that date. Naturally, the union is exploring ways to continue(renew) the contract and maintain employment for its members.

Top

BINDING ARBITRATION HITS 30-YEAR-OLD D'ARRIGO CASE

The media is reporting that D'Arrigo Brothers Co. in Salinas and the United Farmworkers union are discussing terms of a contract to cover farm workers in accordance with the binding arbitration provision of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act. Workers chose the UFW in an election more than 30 years ago, but a contract has never been negotiated.

Earlier this month the Monterey County Herald reported that the discussions have taken place and that a contract might be approved early this month. Apparently the discussions are between the employer and the union so far, but an arbitrator is waiting in the wings if the two parties can't reach agreement.

The union told a reporter that it is trying hard to agree on contract terms, but is ready to accept the arbiter's decision if necessary. D'Arrigo has not talked to the press, but it has been suggested that the company is in court in San Diego County to challenge the recently added(2002) binding arbitration section of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act.

The newspaper article indicated that both Cardinal Roger Mahony and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have written to D'Arrigo asking the company to settle with the union.

Picketing by workers at D'Arrigo has occurred through the years, and in 1998 they walked off the job after deciding to strike for 30 days. A prominent member of the D'Arrigo family died before the 30 days was up, and the union called off the strike, saying its termination was out of respect for the employer family.

Top

VOTE SCUTTLING LEGISLATION MOVES RAPIDLY

The bill in the California Legislature to substitute a poorly supervised "card check" signup system for secret ballot elections by farm workers who want to endorse a union is moving with troublesome speed. It passed the Senate late last month, and is before the Assembly now, at least as this was written June 13.

SB 180 was submitted by San Francisco Democrat Senator Carol Migden, who has since been in the news for erratic behavior behind the wheel of her SUV, and a menu of health issues. One of the early co-authors to sign on was Assemblyman Juan Arambula of Fresno.

The measure allows(encourages) farm workers to express their preference for a union by merely signing a petition or card circulated by union organizers. The signups can take place on the job, at home, at the supermarket, in the church parking lot or wherever organizers can find workers(or impostors).

One of the major weaknesses of the scheme is its vulnerability to intimidation. Two or three union thugs at a worker's door in the dark of night can be overwhelming. Plus, under the election law workers have often signed an election petition just to bring the issue to a head or to get rid of a pestering organizer. But with the "card check" system a signature means approval of a union. It takes only one signature more than 50 percent of a workforce to establish a union as its representative.

Support of the signup system by the United Farmworkers exposes the union's blatant hypocrisy. Thirty years ago it was the vocal proponent of the secret ballot election process. Now, with its kissin' cousins in California Rural Legal Assistance(CRLA) it is lobbying to undermine the voting process that brought stability to the farm labor front in 1975 and has maintained it since.

It is not surprising to see such a labor-biased proposal hoodwink an immature and shallow California legislature, but a bill to accomplish the same result is moving through Congress as well, not that the federal body is immune to labor bias or immaturity.

HR 810 was introduced by Bay Area Congressman George Miller, and enjoys support from both California senators. It is organized labor's attempt to shore up its sagging membership, recently reported to be less than10 percent of American workers in private employment. The UFW's numbers in California are far more dismal, less than one percent of the agricultural workforce after 32 years of organization work, marches, rallies, accusation against employers and occasional picketing and attempts at boycotting.

One close observer of the farm labor scene in California has predicted that passage of the "card check" law for agricultural workers in California will result in escalation of the UFW's membership from 4,000 or so to 250,000 practically overnight.

Others have suggested that availability of the "card check" system will cause unions long dormant in agriculture, such as the Teamsters, and others that have had minimal or no involvement to become active. The chaotic and probably violent competition between them has the potential for mass disruption of production as well as widespread assault on the lives of farm workers.

How can agricultural employers protect themselves from this potential onslaught on sanity and stability? One advisor suggests that every farm employer launch a project immediately to gain a legitimate signature for every employee. Social Security records and I-9 forms can be helpful sources. These can be compared to signatures gained by organizers.

The California bill is especially weak in providing supervision or verification of signatures. Organizers can high-tail it for busy Los Angeles night spots on a Saturday night or a soccer match on Sunday to gain hundreds of signatures at 50 cents each or whatever the going rate becomes. If an employer can't eliminate the phony ones by comparison with valid employee signatures he is likely to be ordered to negotiate with a union within hours.

It is not a pretty picture, and some responsible politicians have recognized the massive flaws. President Bush has vowed to veto the federal version if it reaches him. Governor Schwarzenegger has been less committal, though several in the farm community believe he will veto the process as well.

However, assuming vetoes at both levels, what is to prevent a renewal of the outlandish scheme in three years(or only one year in DC) when both offices might be occupied by labor-leaning Democrats? It's a scary thought.

Top

CONGRESS BUNGLES IMMIGRATION REFORM HOPE

Adding injury to insult(see above) Congress has made a mockery not only of immigration reform but legislative responsibility as it has spent most of this year muddling the immigration issue. Some sincere and well-thought-out proposals have been caught in the legislative meat grinder. Several well-meaning suggestions have been squandered.

One observer of political maneuvering suggests that failure of the immigration reform bill as finally conceived might be worth the agony if a plain-spoken AgJOBS bill can survive and gain responsible consideration.

The ill-fated effort at the Congressional level was not only an embarrassing spectacle of political ineptness, but convincing evidence that too many elected representatives just don't "get it." Political horse-trading took the place of responsible representation of the wishes and needs of the American people - the constituency of the duly elected.

If it is any consolation, the media have not shown much depth of understanding of the issue either. As for efforts to build the fence, that is a disgrace. If we didn't know it before, Congress has offered irrefutable arguments for smaller government. It's not that the issues are too big, but government is too big to deal with them.

Top