Labor among issues tackled by AFBF advisory committees

By Ching Lee

As the American Farm Bureau Federation develops new policies or shapes existing ones on issues that affect farmers and ranchers, three California agricultural leaders lent their expertise to help guide discussion and give advice, information and recommendations. 

The California Farm Bureau members did so by serving on AFBF’s Issues Advisory Committees, which provide input to the AFBF board of directors, influencing potential policy positions and actions the organization may take. Committee members, who are appointed for two-year terms, met in Washington, D.C., last week to work on a range of issues, including labor, public lands, the environment, water and marketing.

Johnnie White, a Napa County winegrape grower and cattle rancher who serves on the Agricultural Labor Committee, said members of his committee visited with Sen. Chuck Grassley. The Republican lawmaker from Iowa chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight of the H-2A temporary agricultural workers program. 

In their meeting, committee members asked for a pause on the Adverse Effect Wage Rate, or AEWR, the minimum wage farmers must pay H-2A workers. White said freezing the AEWR at the 2023 rate is essential until the methodology used to set the rate is better understood. 

The U.S. Department of Labor determines the AEWR based on the prevailing wage in a region and occupation. The rate is also based on the regional average farm wage observed in the Agricultural Labor Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

The problem is the survey has only a 40% to 45% completion rate, with a 35% completion rate in California, according to Bryan Combs, USDA-NASS chief of the environmental, economics and demographics branch, who spoke to the group about the survey. 

Another concern, White said, is that the survey does not include farm labor contractors or the wages farmers pay farm labor contractors. He noted that farm labor contractors employ at least 40% of the state’s farm workforce. A study by the University of California, Davis, showed that for every direct on-farm hire, there is one and a half indirect hires through farm labor contractors, White pointed out. 

“Farm labor contracting is a huge part of our ag labor,” White said. That their wages aren’t included in the survey is a “major flaw,” he added, considering it is used to set the AEWR, yet it excludes a large portion of the state’s agricultural workforce. 

White stressed the importance of California being represented on the Agricultural Labor Committee, as the Golden State employs 850,000 farmworkers a year and is the second-largest user of the H-2A program, though H-2A workers represent only about 5% of the state’s total farm workforce. 

Though other states may be heavy users of the H-2A program, their numbers pale compared to California’s total agricultural workforce. For perspective, California farms employ some 500,000 workers during peak production season, while the entire nation employs about 348,000 H-2A workers. 

“We’re this big juggernaut compared to the rest of the country in our labor usage and needs,” White said. “It’s super important that California has a seat on this committee because I don’t think the rest of the country realizes how much labor we use and how much different it is.”

The committee also discussed eliminating a $600 fee the Biden administration placed on H-2A users. The fee is used to fund the asylum program “and has nothing to do with H-2A, yet for some reason, for every contract, we’re paying $600,” White said. 

In addition, the group stressed the need for year-round H-2A contracts for farm operations such as dairies, as their employment needs are not temporary the way farms with crops are. 

Jenny Holtermann, a Kern County almond grower who serves on the Environmental Regulations/Water Committee, was unable to attend her group’s meeting. 

Mark Lopez, a diversified farmer from Orange County who serves on the Organic, Food Safety and Direct Marketing Committee, said his group discussed tightening enforcement of organic farm products. He said concerns remain that “not everybody is adhering to” federal organic standards, especially imports. 

“That’s something that needs to be addressed,” he said.

There was also discussion about the labeling of cultured meat, which is produced by growing animal cells in a laboratory. Lopez said U.S. meat processors do not think such products should be labeled as meat. 

Another discussion centered on the need for a federal definition of regenerative agriculture and how it should be distinguished from organic agriculture. The National Organic Standards Board, which develops standards for organic production, does not define regenerative agriculture. 

Lassen County rancher Taylor Hagata, who serves on the Federal Lands Committee, said his group heard from speakers who spoke about the importance of livestock grazing, private research on intensive grazing and the effects of grazing on preventing wildfires.

The committee also heard from two former staffers of the first Trump administration. Hagata said there was “a lot of discussion” about the new Trump administration, the federal workers layoffs and the federal budget. 

“They said that farmers and ranchers are in a really good position right now to make change,” Hagata said. “The Trump administration wants change, and (the speakers) said that they don’t think there’s ever been a better time for that change to happen.”

He said the speakers encouraged farmers and ranchers who may have problems to talk to their local Bureau of Land Management offices, Forest Service offices or USDA offices and to express their opinions. If their problems are not resolved, he said, “go higher up, go to the state officials.”  

“And if that’s not working, talk to your elected officials,” Hagata added. 

With this being his third year serving on the committee, Hagata said he noticed the positive tone of the committee, as “people are hopeful.” Worries have been laid to rest about the Biden administration’s “30 by 30” conservation plan, which called for the protection of 30% of U.S. land and water by 2030. 

“That’s all gone now,” Hagata said. “A lot of the things we were discussing last year—that’s not even an issue anymore.”

(Ching Lee is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at clee@cfbf.com.)