40 hours or 60: Who decides what rural labor is worth?

Sugar beet worker in Colorado (1938). Source: Library of Congress 

In 2011, this blog post observed that farmworkers:

[R]eceive little protection from the law...[and] are excluded from the National Labor Relations Act.

The National Labor Relations Act gives workers the right to unionize, and the exclusion of farm workers is part of a broader pattern. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 similarly exempted agricultural workers from overtime protections; a carve-out that persists at the federal level today. As the National Employment Law Project has noted, Congress approved this exemption as part of a:

[G]rand compromise that excluded farm and domestic workers - who were overwhelmingly Black - from the protections being afforded to other workers.

Colorado is now testing whether states can succeed where the federal government has not; a move is afoot there to extend overtime protections to farmworkers without triggering the very harms those protections are meant to prevent. 

Here's some recent history. In 2021, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed Senate Bill ("SB") 21-087, the "Farmworker Bill of Rights," which brought agricultural workers under state overtime rules for the first time. The law was phased in gradually, initially kicking in at 60 hours per week, then declining over time. Currently, the law operates through a bifurcated system: workers harvesting outside the peak season are generally paid overtime after 48 hours, while peak-season workers receive overtime after 56 hours. 

Map of Colorado Counties. Source: David Benbennick, Wikimedia Commons

Now, five years later, Democrats in the state legislature are split over what comes next. One bill would lower the threshold to 40 hours, matching the standard for other industries. A competing bill would raise it back to 60, essentially returning to where the phase-in began.  

Senator Jessie Danielson has introduced SB 26-081, which would lower the threshold to 40 hours per workweek or 12 hours per workday, matching the standard for most other Colorado workers. Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez is expected to introduce a competing bill that would raise the threshold to 60 hours before overtime applies. 

Farm operators argue that a 40-hour threshold could be fatal. Don Brown, a Yuma County farmer and former state agriculture commissioner, told Colorado Politics that if the 40-hour bill passes, "we will have to figure out how to eliminate jobs and mechanize more."

Peach picker in Palisade, CA (2015).
Source: Library of Congress. 

Bruce Talbott, owner of Talbott Farms, is the largest fruit grower on the Western Slope: a portion of Colorado that is west of the Continental Divide (the mountain ridge that separates rivers flowing to the Pacific Ocean from those flowing to the Atlantic Ocean), and is home to the state's fruit-growing industry. Talbott Farms recently built a new bunkhouse to spread hours across more workers to minimize overtime. In response to the possibility of lowering the overtime threshold to 40 hours, Talbott stated: 

All businesses have to live within their means. In the end, it's the farmworker who gets hurt. 

The industry also faces broader challenges. The director of the Colorado Department of Agriculture's market division noted that net farm income is projected to drop to $1.8 billion in 2026 - $400 million lower than the previous year - citing fluctuating markets and low commodity prices. 

Farmworker advocates see the issue differently. Betty Velasquez of Project Protect Food Systems Workers argues:

[Farmworkers] are the people providing food on our tables. They should have access to earn more money as well. 

Advocates also contend that the industry has not produced data showing overtime rules specifically cause harm, and they point out that reduced hours have given workers more time with their families. Yet, the empirical picture is also contested. 

A 2023 study by UC Berkeley researcher Alexandra Hill found that California's overtime law led to reduced hours and earnings for farmworkers after employers shortened workweeks to avoid overtime costs. Hill's continued research found that by 2022:

[California farmworkers] earned about a hundred dollars less per week on average than they would have without the law in place. 

The Colorado debate exposes a structural tension in rural livelihood policy. Agricultural exceptionalism - the legal tradition of treating farm labor as categorically different - was born of a racist compromise in 1938. States like Colorado and California are now experimenting with alternatives. Those experiments produce uneven results, with some states like New York and Oregon offering tax credits to offset higher labor costs while others press forward without such cushions. Workers and operators each claim to speak for the rural interest. 

Senator Danielson insists the state should be doing more to protect farmworkers. Senator Rodriguez frames the dilemma as "death by 1,000 cuts" - death to farmers, that is - by water shortages, tariffs, and now labor costs. 

Both are Democrats. Both represent rural livelihoods. Neither has a clean answer.

A 2026 Farm Bill enters the House…

On February 13, 2026, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, an updated version of the Farm Bill, was introduced in the House of Representatives. Shortly afterwards, on March 4th, the House Agriculture Committee voted 34-17 to advance the bill to the House floor, marking the first major legislative step in process likely to be long and contentious, given the recent extreme polarization on the U.S. Congress.

Supreme Court of the United States in 2023

It's high time for a new farm bill-- the last official version, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, was authorized for 5 years, spanning from 2018 to 2023. Updates to the Farm Bill after 2023 were stalled by political gridlock. Instead of passing a new Farm Bill in 2023, Congress opted for two consecutive one-year extensions of the outdated 2018 framework.

At last, lawmakers are attempting to move forward with a new Farm Bill that will update how the federal government supports or defunds a range of programs affecting agriculture, food systems, conservation, and rural communities across America.

Farm bills have been introduced to Congress starting in 1933. The first one followed the catastrophic impact the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl had on American farmers. In response, the federal government created programs designed to stabilize farm income, conserve land, and ensure a stable food supply. You can read more about the history of the farm bill here or in this prior blog post. Indeed, many posts going back to this blog's inception in 2007 mention the Farm Bill.

Throughout the years, the Farm Bill has grown into one of the federal governments largest and most comprehensive policy packages, typically spanning hundreds or thousands of pages. Programs housed under the Farm Bill include SNAP funding, crop insurance, conservation programs, rural development programs, agricultural research, food distribution programs, and beyond. 

This Farm Bill claims to “expand investments in rural communities, bring science-backed management back to our national forests, and restore regulatory certainty in the interstate marketplace.”

Within the report, two sections specifically caught my eye—the MAHA section and the discussion surrounding California’s Proposition 12. Both sections highlight how the Farm Bill increasingly serves as a platform for broader political debates.

Somerset, El Dorado County, California

(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2025

MAHA Section
The highlighted MAHA section references the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement within the current administration led by Robert F. Kennedy. MAHA aims to address national health issues. As expressed in the one-pager released by the House Agriculture Committee on MAHA in this Farm Bill, the goals of MAHA are to “renew our lands, reforming dietary guidelines to focus on sound nutrition science, ensuring that rural America has access to quality healthcare, and making whole foods such as fruits and vegetables more affordable and accessible for everyday Americans.”

This Farm Bill codifies recent reforms to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) which include prioritizing whole, high-quality protein and full-fat fluid milk and hard cheeses. This Farm Bill also proposes the incorporation of these guidelines into SNAP which may impact which foods are promoted within federal nutrition assistance programs. 

Sign in Sonoma County

(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2024

Another initiative highlighted in this one-pager is the establishment of a “local procurement program” that will in theory strengthen partnerships between local producers and the “food distribution community” in effort to ease fresh food distribution.

On paper, the idea sounds promising. Strengthening local food systems could support farmers while improving access to healthier foods. However, the proposal remains vague-- it is not clear (at least to me) who, how, or where these programs will take place.

Another major component of the MAHA section focuses on rural healthcare, an issue that has become increasingly urgent as rural hospitals close and rural healthcare systems become increasingly stressed, as I discussed in this prior blog post.

Clinic in McCloud, California

(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2018

This bill proposes expanding programs affecting rural healthcare including the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the Community Facilities Program, and the Rural Hospital Technical Assistance Program (RHTAP). RHTAP is codified within the bill with the goal of “improv[ing] the financial and operational sustainability of rural healthcare facilities, bolstering essential health services for rural residents and preventing hospital closures in their hometowns.” This program originally received funding through the Rural Development Hospital Technical Assistance Program Act of 2025, which appropriated up to $2 million per year from 2025-2029. The proposed Farm Bill extends that funding window, restating the maximum funding for the fiscal years 2027-2031. As I mentioned in this blog post, politicians use policy packages such as this to signal their support of rural farms, families, systems, etc.. Yet the monetary value proposed in each case is insignificant to the cause. Here, $2 million spread among the countless rural healthcare systems that are in serious need is negligible.

Proposition 12 Section
Another section highlighted by the House Committee on Agriculture focuses on California’s Proposition 12 (Prop 12), one of the most controversial livestock welfare laws in the United States. Passed by 63% of California voters in 2018, Prop 12 prohibits the sale of certain pork, veal, and egg products in California unless they are produced according to certain animal welfare standards. These standards focus on enclosure size compliance. 

Chickens in transportation truck in Northwest Arkansas

(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2017

Corporations like the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) advocate for repealing Prop 12 to allow for the sale of animal products from animals raised in smaller and confined spaces. The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council brought suit against the California Department of Food and Agriculture asserting that Prop 12 violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court upheld Prop 12, yet the current administration and House Republicans have attempted to overturn the decision and influence public opinion or legislatures not to support it anymore—for example, through this one-pager. In this one-pager, the House Committee on Agriculture calls Prop 12 “arbitrary and unscientific.” They state that “retail pork prices in California have increased 18.7% compared to a 6.3% increase nationwide. They then state that “[c]ompliance costs disproportionately affect small and mid-sized producers, who face tighter margins and less access to capital.” While small or mid-sized facilities may be affected more than large ones, Prop 12 has been fully in effect since 2022. I support Prop 12 and find that since the majority of California voters supported it, the NPPC and the MAHA movement should reassess their priorities.

Ultimately, the Farm Bill has increasingly incorporated broader policy debates, but the 2026 rendition highlights how influential national debates and administrations can be on this hallmark legislation. Programs initially intended to support farmers, rural communities, and ecological conservation are now debated at length in an effort to gain an inch of power or influence. However, a new Farm Bill was desperately needed to address the everchanging landscape—especially post-COVID and entering a likely recession.

Agriculture and the 2023 Farm Bill are opportunities for climate action

Over the weekend, I had the good fortune of attending a seminar titled “Farming For Our Future” at the Yosemite Environmental Law Conference. The panelists illustrated the ways and extent to which agriculture, forestry and food systems contribute to climate change and environmental degradation. They also explained how U.S. policy choices have led us down the path of harmful agriculture and how policy changes can make a difference.

I left the panel feeling excited and hopeful about how lawyers and policymakers can address climate change by paying more attention to rural spaces and agriculture, and so I decided to bring a brief overview of what I learned to the blog.

The Problems

Agriculture and forestry contribute about 9 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions, while the national figure is about 11 percent. Food systems worldwide contribute to one third of global emissions.

The panelists explained that in California, these agricultural emissions are predominantly caused by manure processing and livestock enteric (aka cow burps), followed by emissions from growing and harvesting crops and fuel combustion. Livestock further contributes to climate change due to the scale of the industry’s use of rangelands, which make up 21 percent of all land in the U.S. and do not sequester carbon.

Another large source of agriculture emissions in California is rice. I’d previously known rice to be a water-intensive crop with the redeeming factor of creating good habitat for migratory birds given the widespread loss of natural wetland habitat. This weekend, however, I learned that the flooded-field method of growing rice poses an additional climate challenge: The water that sits in the field becomes anaerobic and emits substantial amounts of methane.

Sacramento Valley rice fields, which dot most roads leading in
 and out of Chico, where I grew up. Photo Credit:Laretta Johnson

Our current agricultural practices pose environmental problems beyond intensifying climate change. The panelists also talked about degradation and loss of soil caused by, among other things, lack of cover cropping and use of nonorganic fertilizer and pesticides. Fertilizer use and manure also lead to water contamination throughout the Central Valley and other areas of the state and country.

The list of environmental issues within agriculture go on, and one could easily dedicate a blog post to each one. But rather than attempt an exhaustive list of environmental challenges, I want to address both some roots of the issue and opportunities for policy change.

Roots of Environmentally Harmful Agriculture

First, it’s important to note that agriculture can be, and traditionally has been, regenerative and sustainable. Panelist Professor Lingxi Chenyang spoke about pre-contact agriculture in the Americas, which was more biodiverse and tailored to the ecosystem in which it was practiced. Examples of this are fire-managed agroforestry, three-sisters practices, and wetland-based agriculture.

As Professor Chenyang explained, when European settlers arrived and colonized the land, they began to adopt commodity farming practices focused on exports and without real conservation practices. Federal policy and westward expansion then established regional agricultural specialization, like wheat in the great plains, corn in the midwest, cattle grazing in the west, and fruits and vegetables in California. As illustrated by the Dust Bowl, intensive monoculture degrades soil health and is harmful to natural ecosystems.

Congress passed the first iteration of the Farm Bill as part of the New Deal in response to low agricultural commodity prices following World War I, the Great Depression, and the Dust Bowl. Its main intention was to reduce surplus and raise crop prices, and it incentivized farmers to reduce production of certain crops. The Farm Bill, which is passed every five years, continues to have a huge influence on American agriculture and primarily supports and subsidizes large-scale commodity production rather than diversified, climate-resilient agriculture. You can read more about past farm bills' effects on land stewardship here.

Policy Solutions and Potential for Change

As the saying goes, inside every problem lies an opportunity. The opportunity to address climate change via agriculture policy is now, as the 2018 Farm Bill expired last month and Congress has yet to pass the 2023 bill. The call for the farm bill to address climate isn't new (see this 2012 blog post) but I wonder if the time and current administration may lead to real climate progress this time around.

If policymakers can influence the new Farm Bill to fund and incentivize climate-friendly practices, rather than continue to subsidize corporate commodity farms, the country could make big strides toward reducing agricultural emissions. This could also lead to more resilient farming practices in preparation for the climate disasters we are already locked in to.

As the Center for American Progress notes in this article, the “must-pass” Farm Bill is a unique opportunity for the typically gridlocked Congress to pass legislation addressing climate change. The Center recommends investing in conservation easements, climate innovation research and rural capacity building, among other climate-smart practices.

Some good news is that climate-resilient and low-emission, sustainable practices do exist – and they can provide ample food. Agroecological practices suggested by panelist Peter Lehner, managing attorney for Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food & Farming Program, include perennial crops, crop rotations, cover crops, no-till and reduced till practices, agroforestry and silvopasture, and organic fertilizer, compost and biochar practices.

However, according to Mr. Lehner, a USDA survey showed that 85% of farmers are unwilling to adopt structural conservation practices without outside funding. And from a business perspective, that makes a lot of sense.

One of my closest friends works for a resource conservation district in Virginia, where she helps administer grant money to farmers for adopting conservation practices. Farming has often been in a family for generations, and changing longstanding practices are a risk. Asking farmers to take such risks without financial and educational support is unlikely to move the country’s agriculture toward climate resilient and climate friendly practices, but the Farm Bill, as well as state policies, can be an avenue for providing funding, support and education for farmers to do so.

As Mr. Lehner pointed out during the panel, the federal government has recently invested heavily in sustainable transportation and energy. The next step can and should be sustainable agriculture.

Many thanks to the “Farming for our Future” panelists, Professor Lingxi Chenyang; Torri Estrada, Executive Director and Director of Policy at the Carbon Cycle Institute; and Peter Lehner, Managing Attorney for the Sustainable Food and Farming Program at Earthjustice. The panelists shared a lot of the knowledge, history and statistics used in this blog post.

Democratic lawmakers seek to bolster rural recreation economy

Senators Chuck Schumer (New York) and Michael Bennet (Colorado), along with Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury (New Mexico), recently introduced the Rural Outdoor Investment Act, which Bloomberg describes as authorizing 

$50 million annually through fiscal 2028 for rural areas to upgrade outdoor recreation infrastructure such as boat ramps and trails, as well as help communities plan for the increased tourism and larger workforce the industry is expected to bring.

Outdoor recreation in the US, especially on public lands and waters, boomed during the Covid-19 pandemic, as Americans sought alternatives to indoor activities. The industry supported 4.5 million jobs and contributed about 1.9% to the nation’s gross domestic product in 2021, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Outdoor recreation also contributed about $862 billion in sales and revenue in 2021.

One commentator calls this bill the "recreation industry’s 'big play in the farm bill,'" because while "lawmakers introduced the measure as stand-along legislation...they are eyeing attaching it to broader bipartisan bills [including the farm bill] before year's end."  Read more here from the New Mexico Political Report here.

The link between outdoor recreation and rural economies is explored in prior posts here, here, and here.  

New Substack explores rural issues (especially politics)

Bryce Oates, who has written regularly for the Daily Yonder for several years, has a new Substack called The Cocklebur.  Here are some of the headlines of his recent posts: 

• There will be no cavalry that is not of our own making (about rural organizing) 
• Conserving public forests pairs well with sustainable timber economy (cross posted to the Daily Yonder)
• "When we are organizing in rural communities, sometimes we are quite literally the only alternative to that alt-right worldview."
• Forget soccer moms.  Let's talk about rural SNAP voters.
• "Investing in rural organizing is what's going to bring the political changes we have been looking for."
• Agriculture greenhouse gas pollution has risen steadily in the last 30 years, in spite of misinformation peddled by the Industrial Agriculture lobby.

You can subscribe to The Cocklebur here. 

Black farmers & land loss in the Black Belt

The Justice for Black Farmers Act, introduced into Congress this year aims to address the history of discrimination in federal agricultural policy. This Act represents a social phenomenon where Black farmers have lost land throughout history due to histories of racial discrimination, Jim Crow policies, and discriminatory lending practices. This Act aims to provide debt relief and create a land program to encourage Black farmers and protect remaining Black farmers from further land loss. To truly understand the significance of this Act and its relationship to rural America, we have to take a look at the rural landscape and delve deeper into the historical roots of slavery and Black land ownership.

Forty-six million people are currently living in rural America, comprising 14% of the U.S. population. This population is also associated with a large swath of land,  97% of the nation's territory. Compared with their metropolitan counterparts, non-metropolitan economies depend more on agriculture, with the industry accounting for nearly 17 percent of employment in rural areas according to the Center on American Progress.  Agriculture can play a key role in the rural economy contributing to about 5% of the GDP.  Embedded within the agriculture sector is a racial hierarchy that led to the Black land loss, and which motivated attempts to remedy it. 

Rural communities are home to people of color who can often be erased from the dominant narrative of rural America. Understanding the history of some of these communities can help address harm and bring equity to these areas. Focusing on Black farmers specifically within the Black Belt, demonstrates how discussing spatiality and geography as a component of identity can be useful in determining how to shape our understanding of rural America and the people of color within it. 

The Black Belt is a region located in the Southern United States. It includes around 623 counties from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi to North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. According to the Black Farmers Network, the older meaning of the term comes from the 1820s and 30s when it used to mean the rich dark soil in which white settlers planted cotton and built plantations.

First used to designate a part of the country that was distinguished by the color of the soil, the term has now come to refer to the large number of Black people who were enslaved there. Since the valuable, fertile land was controlled by rich whites, it was a source of Black slave labor who worked the land. Enslaved people then became the majority of the population over the course of the 19th century when more than 1 million enslaved people were transported and sold to the Southern states. In 1970, the US' first census recorded the Black population as around 760,000 people and by the time the Civil War started in 1861 the population had reached 4.4 million. Black free people only made up about 2% of this population. Slavery continued to be the dominant status for Black people in the Black Belt until the Emancipation Proclamation when formalized slavery became transformed into de facto racial codes.

Black land ownership peaked in 1910 when Black people accessed 16 to 19 million acres of land. The number of Black farmers also peaked at this time with nearly 1 million producers on Black-operated farms according to the same source above. However, these numbers soon began to decline. However, after the 13th Amendment "officially" ended slavery,  the extension of it remained in the form of Jim Crow and Black codes continued to reinforce white power over the land. This prevented the accumulation and transfer of intergenerational wealth. According to Inequality.org, Black people, today, make up 13% of the U.S. population but only own 1% of rural land, a striking inequality. 

Black land loss is important in understanding why geography matters. Racism has fueled Black land loss. This has taken the form of limited access to capital because of discriminatory lending practices, redlining, gentrification, lack of legal wills that can facilitate property transfers, federal policies that excluded Black people from land purchases such as the Homestead Act, and more. "Farming in the United States is enmeshed with both racism and capitalism in a way that has had a profound impact on who owns, accesses and benefits from farmland" according to Megan Horst, writing on Eater. As of 2021, just about 1.4% of farmers identify as Black compared to 14% in the 1900s. 

The effects of the Black Belt slave economy are still felt by people of color who reside there. Formalized slavery has been transformed into substandard housing and education as well as poverty. According to the University of Alabama's report on Poverty, Housing & GDP in Alabama's Black Belt, all 25 Black Belt counties are among the top 35 counties with the highest poverty rate in the state. Black Belt counties have a poverty rate of around 30% while non-Black Belt counties have a poverty rate of 14% a significant disparity according to the same report.

To address the issues that those in the Black Belt face, and issues that Black farmers in rural America face, it is important to consider spatiality and geography. After all, Black people were enslaved and brought to the United States to grow the economy of the Deep South. Discussing rurality thus necessitates discussion of the economy, agriculture, and history.

In recent years, in the judicial and legislative scene, there has been some attempt at repair. The 1999 civil rights case Pigford v. Glickman resulted in a settlement of $1.15 billion in damages to thousands of Black farmers including those from the Black Belt. Black farmers alleged racial discrimination in farm loan assistance and allocation in their complaint.  Ultimately, we need to repair the ongoing harms associated with our deep-seated history of slavery and colonialism. We need to ensure that Black farmers can access economic opportunities to build their families and livelihoods. 

The ongoing "right to repair" battle in rural America

In agricultural communities, farming equipment owners have long been battling companies such as John Deere for their “right to repair”- essentially, the right for farmers to make necessary repairs to equipment they own, instead of all repairs being handled by the company itself. This would allow farmers to avoid the hassle and expense of professional repairs, as these services are often unnecessarily costly and time-consuming.

While people unfamiliar with agriculture may assume that repairing a tractor is just a matter of fixing a tire or tinkering with an engine, the reality is far more complicated. Modern tractors run software owned by the companies that build them, and without privileged access to this software, farmers are left to wait for a company-authorized technician to reach their often remote location in order to make repairs.

Over the course of this conflict, agricultural machinery manufacturer John Deere has been at the forefront of public scrutiny involving the right to repair. In 2017, eight states introduced right to repair legislation, with John Deere and other companies citing the potential dangers associated with a lack of professional expertise as justification to keep the status quo intact. More information on those proposed bills can be found in this blog post here.

Small amounts of progress have been made since then. On July 9th, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order aimed at helping the FTC create rules to crack down on companies that have completely integrated their product repairs, thus thwarting the right to repair. The FTC responded by declaring it would commit more resources into the matter, but it remains to be seen whether this commitment will have any large effects. 

During the same year, 25 states introduced right-to-repair bills. Many were spurred on by the diminishing availability of repair services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These pieces of legislation have encountered massive amounts of pushback and lobbying from companies that prefer all repairs to their products be done through their own services instead of through third party shops. Although many bills addressing this issue are being considered, only one has been successful- New York's Digital Fair Repair Act, which will only impact electronic products made or sold in-state after July 1, 2023. 

Since 2017, the right to repair has become an increasingly hot topic. While the agricultural industry is a main target, these bills would also give consumers and hospitals the ability to make third-party repairs on a variety of electronic equipment ranging from phones to medical devices. As a result, right-to-repair legislation is overwhelmingly supported by a bipartisan majority. A study conducted of California residents in 2022 found that 75% of those surveyed were in favor of the right to repair- 76% of Democrats, 61% of Republicans, and 81% of independents. More reading on right to repair advocacy done by legislators such as Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Jon Tester can be found here.

Faced with the widespread popularity of the right-to-repair movement, some large agricultural companies are reconsidering their stances on the topic. In January of 2023, the American Farm Bureau Federation entered into a memorandum of understanding with John Deere to recognize a right for farmers to repair all John Deere farming equipment. The memorandum represents a commitment by John Deere to give farmers access to the tools and software of their purchased equipment. It also encourages the growth of third party repair services in the process. On its face, this memorandum appears to represent a huge shift in the agricultural industry, empowering owners to better deal with their own equipment in a way that best suits their individual situation. 

However, skepticism of John Deere's earnestness in this process remains. An article posted by NPR shortly after the memorandum was announced underscores concerns from those in the agricultural field who worry the agreement didn't ensure actual follow-through from John Deere. In fact, detractors claim the memorandum may simply be an attempt to further delay the passage of right-to-repair laws currently under consideration. Ultimately, the agreement is only between the AFBF and John Deere, raising concerns that the memorandum merely represents an empty promise. The article offers this quote from Walter Schweitzer, President of the Montana Farmers Union:

If they truly, honestly wanted to give farmers and ranchers and independent repair shops the right to repair equipment, why are they so afraid of legislation that authorizes that?

If John Deere's memorandum fails to make any meaningful headway into resolving the right to repair issue, the best way to enact instant, sweeping fixes to the system would be through legislation passed by the federal government. While many states are considering bills on an individual basis, change is coming too slowly to offer meaningful relief to farmworkers on a short-term basis. 

Just last month, legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives to both increase access to third party repairs and change copyright law to avoid legal issues for consumer repairs. While these bills are likely far away from becoming reality, they represent perhaps the best chance farmers have in receiving the change necessary for agricultural workers to retain more control over the products they own. 

Rural legal scholarship: Federal Land Conservation in Rural Areas

The article by Jessica Owley and Jess Phelps is available in the Brooklyn Law Review.  Here's the abstract:

Rural land has an important role to play in environmental protection. This Article examines how the federal government works to further the goals of land conservation in rural areas—ranging from farmland to forests and wetlands; from working landscapes to national parks; and from private to public landownership. We note three approaches. The federal government mandates conservation through laws like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. The federal government incentivizes conservation through Farm Bill programs and tax incentives. Finally, the federal government facilitates conservation through noncoercive funding, review, and technical assistance programs under the Farm Bill, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This examination of federal land conservation programs gives insight into the different tools and strategies available to protect rural lands and examines the potential benefits of a stronger federal role. The greatest obstacle to successful environmental protection in rural areas is a lack of active environmental management and the conversion of land to other uses, chiefly residential and energy development. Current land conservation programs do not appear to be addressing these issues directly, and action on some level is necessary to achieve more optimal environmental outcomes in the rural countryside.  (emphasis mine).  

Two big features on how small rural farms are no longer financially viable

One is from Alana Semuels in this week's Time Magazine, and the other is from the New York Times Sunday paper, compliments of journalist Corey Kilgannon.  Semuels' headline is, "'They're Trying to Wipe Us Off the Map':  Small American Farmers are Nearing Extinction," and Kilgannon's is "After 240 Years and 7 Generations, Forced to Sell the Family Farm."  I'm providing a short excerpt from each here, starting with the Time piece, which features Mary and John Rieckmann, aged 79 and 80 respectively, who farm 45 dairy cattle in central Wisconsin:

The Rieckmanns are about $300,000 in debt, and bill collectors are hounding them about the feed bill and a repayment for a used tractor they bought to keep the farm going. But it’s harder than ever to make any money, much less pay the debt, Mary Rieckmann says, in the yellow-wallpapered kitchen of the sagging farmhouse where she lives with her husband, John, and two of their seven children. The Rieckmanns receive about $16 for every 100 pounds of milk they sell, a 40 percent decrease from six years back. There are weeks where the entire milk check goes towards the $2,100 monthly mortgage payment. Two bill collectors have taken out liens against the farm. “What do you do when you you’re up against the wall and you just don’t know which way to turn?” Rieckmann says, as her ancient fridge begins to hum.

A compelling data point:

John recently brought two calves to the stock market and got $20 for one and $30 for another—two years ago, those calves would have brought in $300 to $400 each.

Semuels also takes up the issue of farmer suicide, which is the topic of this recent story and some prior posts here on Legal Ruralism (with parallels to Australia).

Here's the lede from the New York Times feature, dateline Durham, New York, population, 2,725:

Farmer Frank hobbled into the house, cane in hand. 

“Sow got out of her pen, had to chase her down,” said Farmer Frank — Frank Hull, 71 — whose body, ravaged from decades of heavy manual work, is no longer built for chasing sows. 

For half a century, he and his wife, Sherry, 67, have run their 260-acre farm here in the upper Catskills, some two hours north of New York City. 

Known as Hull-O Farms, it has been in Mr. Hull’s family since his forebear, John Hull, founded it some 240 years and seven generations ago. 

It is one of the oldest farms in the country continuously owned and run by the same family. But that lineage is about to end.

Both stories are chock full of interesting and compelling data points about the trends, including the sale of farm land for housing developments and so forth.  The New York Times story also talks about the Hulls' engagement in agri-tourism.

And coastal elites wonder why rural folks are angry enough to support the likes of Trump. 

"Rural" in NYTimes opinion pages on three consecutive days

It's been striking to see three opinion-page pieces prominently mentioning rural issues in the past few days.  I'm just going to briefly mention the three here, though I don't have much time for analysis. 

The first piece was by the novelist Robert Gipe, which ran in the print version on Saturday.  The headline is, "Appalachia is More Diverse Than you Think."  An excerpt follows: 

Appalachia has been going through rapid, often painful changes for the past hundred years, and our communities have been working hard to rebuild our economies. Over the past decade, many of us have put aside partisan politics to work together to do what’s best for the places we live in, the places we love. But the 2016 election has strained the bonds we’ve forged — and has led to deep reflection and conversation within the region.

He talks economics, coal, poverty, infrastructure, politics, racism, sexism and hope, ending with this:

We all crave honorable work at a living wage. We want success tied to the success of the community. We want to be safe. We are weary of fear. We are exhausted by hate. We in Appalachia join our fellow Americans in asking: Who will encourage our best selves? Who will enable our joy? Who will release the energy hiding in our hearts?

Gipe has an essay in the collection Appalchian Reckoning: A Region Responds to Hillbilly Elegy, to which I am also a contributor.  I had the pleasure of hearing him read from that essay in Asheville, North Carolina, on Saturday night, at an event coinciding with the Appalachian Studies Association meeting.  I was delighted by, among other things, his remembrances of the 1974 film, "Where the Lilies Bloom," and I promptly came home and ordered it, though it cost $75 on amazon.com.

On Sunday, the New York Times ran Robert Leonard and Matt Russell's piece, "What Democrats Need to Do to Win in Rural America."  Here's an excerpt:

The Iowa caucus offers Democrats an opportunity to hone their pitch to rural America. 

Some of the biggest problems around here are in agriculture and trade — yet in those areas, several candidates seem clueless. One appears to know so little it would make a sixth grader in 4-H roll her eyes. Another was smart enough to speak to a small gathering of progressive farmers but not thoughtful enough to take questions or engage. Bernie Sanders came pretty close last week by going after multinationals’ near-monopolies.
A strong Democratic platform with realistic plans for rural America would focus on four themes: demography, infrastructure, farm sustainability and environmental practices that can help combat climate change. 

Up to about 30 percent of Iowa’s economy is tied directly to agriculture and related industries. The lucky farmer is in limbo; the unlucky one is itemizing inventory for the farm auction. Years of low commodity prices were a nightmare, and President Trump’s tariffs made a bad situation worse. Farmers — particularly young ones — are losing their land, and older ones are simply hanging it up. As one farmer here told us, “It’s too much work to lose money at it.”

And on Monday, columnist Paul Krugman's column, "Getting Real About Rural America" ran.  Like so many urban and coastal elites, he marvels at the power of agglomeration (think Brookings Institute's "Miracle Mets" from a few years ago: 

Things clump together; the periphery cannot hold. 

As you read this, Democratic presidential hopefuls are crisscrossing Iowa, trying to assure farmers that they share their concerns. Commentators are publishing opinion pieces about how Democrats can win back rural voters. Think tanks are issuing manifestoes about reviving heartland economies. 

There’s nothing wrong with discussing these issues. Rural lives matter — we’re all Americans, and deserve to share in the nation’s wealth. Rural votes matter even more; like it or not, our political system gives hugely disproportionate weight to less populous states, which are also generally states with relatively rural populations.

More on the demise of the small dairy farm

Jim Goodman, an organic dairy farmer in Wonewoc, Wisconsin (population 816) published this op-ed/guest piece in the Washington Post yesterday, "Dairy Farming is Dying.  After 40 years, I'm done."  The headline sums up well what he has to say, but here's one of the most compelling excerpts:

Unlike many dairy farmers, I didn’t retire bankrupt. But for my wife and me, having to sell our herd was a sign — of the economic death not just of rural America but also of a way of life. It is nothing short of heartbreaking to walk through our barn and know that those stalls will remain empty. Knowing that our losses reflect the greater damage inflicted on entire regions is worse.

Writing about the farm crisis of the 1980s, Goodman observed its knock-on effects:

Farmers felt the impact most directly, but there were few in rural communities who were untouched. All the businesses that depended on farm dollars watched as their incomes dried up and the tax base shrank. Farm foreclosures meant fewer families and fewer kids, so schools were forced to close . The Main Street cafes and coffee shops — where farmers talked prices, the weather and politics — shut down as well.

He also notes the link between the current farm crisis and the mental health crisis among farmers, writing:

This year, Wisconsin, where I live, had lost 382 dairy farms by August; last year, the number at the same point was 283. The despair is palpable; suicide is a fact of life, though many farm suicides are listed as accidents.

Earlier posts on this topic are here and here. 

As for the subsidies available to larger dairy farms in the just-signed Farm Bill, those he calls a "PR stunt."  What farmers want, he says, is a fair price for their product. 

Other topics addressed in this piece include going organic, agribusiness, and the collapse of the family farm. 

Civil rights and the USDA in the modern era (Part III)

In my first post about civil rights and the USDA I mentioned that there had been several expensive and successful discrimination lawsuits filed against the USDA. It received a suggestion to discuss these lawsuits more in depth, which I will do below.

Background

To understand these lawsuits, it is important to first know about the Farm Service Agency. One of the major functions of the USDA is to provide timely credit to farmers through the Farm Service Agency. Nearly all producers depend on short-term credit to purchase production inputs, like fertilizer and seeds, because essentially they will not have enough money to make said purchase until they sell their crops.

The availability of credit in rural areas is already low but coupled with the inherently high risk of lending to someone who does not have a guaranteed output, it can be nearly impossible for a farmer to qualify for a regular loan.  The USDA farm loan program was partially established to fill that gap and lend to family farmers who were unable to get one elsewhere.  These loans are subject to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which makes in unlawful for creditors to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age.  The ECOA provides various remedies for violations, such as actual damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and attorney’s fees. The discrimination cases were brought utilizing the ECOA for discriminatory lending policies against minority farmworkers.

Pigford v. Glickman 

Pigford v. Glickman is a 1997 class action suit brought against the USDA on behalf of 2,000 black farm owners. For years whenever black farmers applied for farm loans or assistance they were met with long wait times and loan denials, while the other non-minority farm owners in similar situations received their requested aid. Although the black farmers would often file civil rights complaints against the agencies denying their loans, as I discussed in my previous blog post, these complaints were rarely investigated. The lack of assistance forced many of these farmers to lose their farms and livihoods; the number of black farmers in America fell from almost one million in 1920 to a few tens of thousands by 1978.

After the black farmers were certified as a class the USDA commissioned a consulting firm to investigate the treatment of minorities and women with regards to Farm Service Agency programs and payments. The firm found overwhelming evidence of discrimination, which incentivized entering into a settlement agreement with these farmers. In 1999 a consent degree was approved, and a settlement agreement was formed to pay the farmers who had been affected by these discriminatory policies. By 2012 approximately $1.06 billion had been paid to 22,000 claimants.

Keepseagle v. Veneman

Keepseagle v. Veneman is a case brought by Native American farmers who were discriminated against by the Farm Service Agency between 1981 and 1999. An NPR interview with the attorneys for the Plaintiffs described it thus:

We found evidence both from the Keepseagles and from many, many other people with whom we spoke that while they were either denied loans on the basis of terms that others who were white farmers and who were applying for loans were granted loans. Or they had loans, as the Keepseagles had, and were seeking to refinance them because they couldn't make the payments and were denied those opportunities or had special conditions imposed on their business operations that their neighbors, who were white, did not have.

The group was certified as a class in 2001, and after a long fought litigation, a settlement agreement was reached in 2010 for $760 million. Native American farmers who had faced discrimination could either apply for a "fast-track" payment of up to $50,000, or apply to a more rigorous process for damages up to $250,000.

Garcia v. Vilsack and Love v. Vilsack

These last two cases are notable not because they were able to successful litigate their claims, but because they still caused the USDA to change their practices. Garcia v. Vilsack is the case of a group of Hispanic farmers that brought a discrimination claim against the USDA.  Unlike the previous cases they were denied class certification, but despite that, the USDA implemented a new administrative process specifically for resolving claims by Hispanic farmers.

Similarly, in Love v. Vilsack, a group of women farmers brought suit against the USDA for being treated differently because of their gender when they applied for assistance through the Farm Service Agency. They were also denied class certification, but the USDA responded by creating a specific administrative process for resolving claims brought by women. Additionally, to more equitably settle these disputes, the USDA voluntarily set aside $1.33 billion for discrimination claims brought by members of these two groups.

These cases certainly had a financial impact on the USDA, and likely contributed to the substantial changes Tom Vilsack was able to make while he was head of the USDA. If you would like to read more about civil rights and the USDA, you can check out Part I and Part II.

"The Insanity of our Food Policy"

Don't miss Joseph Stiglitz's piece under that headline in The New York Times Opinionator section this week.  Here's a paragraph that sums up his complaints about proposed changes to the farm bill and how they would deepen inequality in our nation.  It also happens to be one of the best explanations of "rent seeking" that I have ever read:

The proposal is a perfect example of how growing inequality has been fed by what economists call rent-seeking. As small numbers of Americans have grown extremely wealthy, their political power has also ballooned to a disproportionate size. Small, powerful interests — in this case, wealthy commercial farmers — help create market-skewing public policies that benefit only themselves, appropriating a larger slice of the nation’s economic pie. Their larger slice means everyone else gets a smaller one — the pie doesn’t get any bigger — though the rent-seekers are usually adept at taking little enough from individual Americans that they are hardly aware of the loss. While the money that they’ve picked from each individual American’s pocket is small, the aggregate is huge for the rent-seeker. And this in turn deepens inequality.

Meanwhile, as Stiglitz points out, House Republicans who would continue to line the pockets of agribusiness with subsidies on crop insurance premiums, would cut the food stamp program, which currently provides most recipients only about $4/day.  

SNAP usage, state-by-state

See this map and accompanying story by Maria Goody on NPR's The SALT.  The map, by Stateline,  shows the percentage of residents in each state who receive SNAP--also known as food stamps.  Goody observes:

While Republicans have led the call to slash the SNAP program in the House, many of the states whose residents are most reliant on food stamps are reliably Republican and located in the GOP's Southern heartland. About 20 percent of the population in Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, and South Carolina, for instance, receive benefits from the federal food assistance program.

Other states with very high food stamp usage are Oregon and New Mexico at 21% each.

South Dakota Ranchers devastated by storm, woes aggravated by federal shutdown

Steven Yaccino reports in yesterday's New York Times from Union Center, South Dakota, a Census Designated Place in the Black Hills region of the state.  The headline is "South Dakota Ranchers Face Storm's Toll, but U.S.' Helping Hands are Tied."  What is most attention getting about the story is the photo of dead cows featured with it--carcasses piled three deep in a muddy trench.  The story is about the impact of the powerful early season snow storm that struck the area last week, killing perhaps 20,000 cattle shortly before many were to be taken to market and while many were still grazing in summer pastures. Agriculture is South Dakota's biggest economic driver, a $24 million/year business carried out on 16,000 ranches.  The cows are worth about $2,000 each, and they outnumber people in the state by a ratio of 5-to-1.

Yaccino quotes Gary Cammack, a rancher and state representative who lost more than 100 cows and calves, about a quarter of his herd:

At this point in time, it’s important to step over the dead ones and take care of the living.

* * *  

If this event had happened to one rancher, if he had lost everything that he owned, you would not hear one word from us. We would pull together and make him whole. But how do you do that when you’re all in the same boat?

Cammack wants to begin the work of cleaning up the carcasses, and state ate and county agencies, have done their part, clearing roadsides and providing burial pits.

But the federal government shutdown has complicated things, as Yaccino explains:

Ranchers looking for guidance on how to document their losses with the federal Farm Service Agency, whose workers have been furloughed, are, as some here say, “plumb out of luck.” And the stalling of a farm bill in Congress has left many families skeptical about whether disaster relief will ever come.

The storm, which left up to five feet of snow on the ground just 36 hours after a week of 80-degree temperatures, was the fourth largest snow fall in the state's history.  It came at a time when the cattle did not yet have their winter coats and were still grazing in summer pastures. 

Yaccino quotes another rancher, Matt Kammerer, regarding what's happening in Washington while he and other ranches face devastating losses:

They’re acting like a bunch of kids fighting over a toy.  They’re getting paid; they ain’t feeling any hardship. 

[Some ranchers] might not ever recoup. You take $80,000 worth of debt at the bank, and there’s nothing left for them to pay that off. I mean, there’s nothing.

Kammerer,who lost about 40 of his 200 cows, said he brought a county commissioner out to verify the losses.

Hunger in (rural) America: Both black and white, young and old

Thank you Sheryl Gay Stolberg for your story about food insecurity in today's New York Times, dateline Dyersburg, Tennessee, population 17,145.  With "As Debate Reopens, Food Stamp Recipients Continue to Squeeze," Stolberg does what we see too infrequently in the media: illustration(s) of a social problem--food insecurity--by reference to both black and white populations, both young families and the elderly, both men and women.   Here's an excerpt:

As a self-described “true Southern man” — and reluctant recipient of food stamps — Dustin Rigsby, a struggling mechanic, hunts deer, doves and squirrels to help feed his family. He shops for grocery bargains, cooks budget-stretching stews and limits himself to one meal a day. 

Tarnisha Adams, who left her job skinning hogs at a slaughterhouse when she became ill with cancer, gets $352 a month in food stamps for herself and three college-age sons. She buys discount meat and canned vegetables, cheaper than fresh. Like Mr. Rigsby, she eats once a day — “if I eat,” she said.  

Elsewhere, Stolberg quotes Rigsby, age 20 with a wife and one-year-old son, as saying we “'look like we are fine,' but live on the edge of poverty, skipping meals and rationing food." The Rigsbys say they prioritize meals for their child, but that they often run out of milk by the end of the month.  Rigsby is out of work because of a knee injury, but he recently sold his truck.  His wife works part time at J.C. Penney.  Their SNAP benefit is $350 a month, but will fall by $29 in November, when cuts go into effect.

Mr. Rigsby, "who dreams of becoming a game warden," supports drug-testing for food stamp recipients.  He says he is "irritated" by people "who mooch off the system."  It's a stance that reminds me of Jennifer Sherman's Those Who Work, Those Who Don't:  Poverty, Morality and Family in Rural America (2009).

Another woman featured is 61-year-old, Kathy Baucom, a former welder now disabled with lupus.  She relies in large part on the deer she hunts to feed herself--as well as on the local food bank.  Her SNAP benefit is just $117/month.

Dyersburg is the county seat of nonmetropolitan Dyer County, population 38,335, with a poverty rate of 19.2%.  It is in the Mississippi Delta region, associated with high, intergenerational poverty.  Stolberg apparently selected Dyersburg because of the area's U.S. Congressman.  Stephen Fincher, elected in a Tea Party wave in 2010, is also a soybean and corn farmer who received some $3.5 million in subsidies between 1999 and 2012.  He recently voted for a farm bill that did not include food stamps, now officially known as SNAP:  Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.

Stolburg highlights not only Fincher's hypocrisy, but also his Biblical justifications for his lack of charity toward the poor.  After his vote on the farm bill in May, Fincher said,

The role of citizens, of Christianity, of humanity, is to take care of each other, not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country. 

At another point he quoted the verse, "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."  I guess he hasn't noticed the extent of the problem among the disabled and working poor. (That phrase always reminds me of Joe Bageant's quip:  "poor is poor whether you have to work for it or not.")  

Kudos to Stolberg for seeing rural folks in this story, where she writes:  

Experts say the problem is particularly acute in rural regions like Dyersburg, a city of 17,000 on the banks of the Forked Deer River in West Tennessee. More than half the counties with the highest concentration of food insecurity are rural, according to an analysis by Feeding America, the nation’s largest network of food banks. In Dyer County, it found, 19.4 percent of residents were “food insecure” in 2011, compared with 16.4 percent nationwide.

Elsewhere Stolberg specifically acknowledges the invisibility of hunger--especially in rural areas.   

As I pick labels for this post, "children," "teens," "elderly," "family," "race/ethnicity," I am reminded that all of these groups are struggling with hunger--and poverty.

This story's incidental discussion of hunting as a way to provide for one's family--and oneself--reminds me of this earlier post.
 

Family, business and American agriculture

In a recent speech, Bernie Erven emphasized the importance of hiring good workers, especially in the struggling farm industry. A central part of the movement to modern hiring practices focused on a movement away from traditional familial hiring practices. NPR's blog The Salt covered the speech and the potential implications of moving away from hiring from within families. In the article, Jessica Stoller-Conrad noted that the argument to hire in a more "professional" way would likely be a tough sell to most farmers in America.

With non-family farms making up only 2% of the farms in America, the movement away from employing family members would present a drastic demographic shift. While the designation of family farm does not necessarily mean that all employees of the farm would be family members, the shift away from predominately hiring family members could present a dramatic departure from family farm traditions. The USDA defines a family farm as having a substantial amount of labor provided by the family.

Erven spoke directly to the employment of family members, noting that it is essential to still interview family members when hiring them to work on family farms. While interviewing family members prior to hiring may result in more qualified people being hired, a shift away from having a substantial amount of labor be performed by family may result in the farm failing to meet USDA's definition of a family farm. Beyond the legal requirements and implications on farm loan programs, the decreased availability of jobs may end up encouraging young members of rural communities to migrate to urban areas to find jobs.

From a purely economic lens, Erven's argument likely has merit. Hiring skilled farmworkers as opposed to under-qualified family members may appear to economists as the most sound economic choice. While the Farm Bill has been extended for another year, the delay in passing the House of Representatives may indicate an uncertain future for farm subsidies. The introduction of hiring practices that are focused on qualifications instead of familial connections may appeal to those who are focused on the American farm as an economic driver. But can the farms of rural America be reduced to solely economic entities?

A conversation concerning the current or ideal role of farms in American society is perhaps more appropriate in a longer post. However, attempts by the Federal Government around family and agriculture could frame the discussion in interesting ways.

In June of 2011, U.S Fish & Wildlife Services hosted public meetings to discuss the purchasing of conservation easements in California's Central Valley. The project being called the California Foothills Legacy Area and is being marketed as a way for ranching families to stay on their land while protecting the land for wildlife. Many private property rights advocate groups and the California Cattleman's Association came out in opposition of the project. Strong opposition has also been voiced over the past year by private citizens who described the project as the "federal government's greedy hand."

It is interesting to think about the California Foothills Legacy Area's presentation of family as a central reason for the project. The focus on family as an integral aspect of American rangeland echoes the centrality of family in American farmlands. Despite the current centrality of the identity of family in farms and rangeland, shifting demographics and migration is changing the make-up of rural communities. Would a shift away from a central identity of family change the place of farms and ranges in American culture?

Farmer v. farm workers

Until my mid-teens, I thought “farmer” and “farm worker” were one and the same: I believed these two parties represented the same interests. Then, one year, when my hometown grew brown with drought, I started hearing rumblings in the community about farmers and fish. Sifting through the adult conversations around our local café I learned that the farms north of us, near Tule Lake and Yreka, and south of us in the Central Valley, called for more water from the dams, creeks, and rivers. On the other side of the equation; my home town called for preservation of the streams that kept tourists and fishermen coming back year after year. Through the snatches of derisive conversation I began to piece together impressions of farmers as large landholders who frequently exploited cheep immigrant labor at the expense of their right to a living wage. Like the reality of farmer/farm worker relations, the town opinions were by no means monolithic; however it became obvious that freeway signs reading “Farmers Feed America” were political tools that I should consider before carelessly agreeing with their seemingly innocuous stance.

Perhaps unsurprising to most of us, farmer interests frequently clash with a number of other group interests including agricultural employees. It seems America has sided with the farmers at the expense of the farm workers. Today only 1% of America calls themselves farmers, yet protections for these livelihoods are some of the strongest in the nation. The US Farm Bill, passed every 5 to 7 years, provides for subsidy payments to these landowners that between 1995 and 2009 amounted to $246.7 billion. Farm workers, on the other hand, receive little protection from the law. They have experienced historical animosity in the political arena and are excluded from the National Labor Relations Act, which protects certain employee rights, including the right to unionize. National legislation also neglects to provide farm employees with a minimum wage, leaving this area to the sole discretion of the state. Today, five states have yet to enact minimum wage standards for these workers. Other states, like Kansas, with a minimum wage of $2.65/hour, abysmally fail to protect worker rights.

Despite the structural disadvantages faced by agricultural employees, they continue to mount efforts to further their rights. Californians are familiar with Cezar Chavez’ work to establish the first agricultural employee union, The United Farm Workers of America, which has successfully brokered union contracts with industry leaders across the United States. Recently, a Florida based group, the Coalition for Imokalee Workers (CIW) won a long battle covered by the New York Times. Primarily composed of Hispanic, Mayan, and Haitian workers, CIW organizes employees in a unique strategy to raise tomato farm worker wages. The group first targeted large tomato purchasers like Burger King and McDonalds. They requested these companies agree to pay one cent more per pound to the producers so that farmers could pass those earnings on to their workers. When these companies caved to the grass root campaigns, the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange prohibited farmers from distributing the extra money to their workers. This April, CIW reached an agreement with the trade association that allowed distributions of the increased earnings to workers as well as minimum labor standards. Even with the successes of United Farm Workers of America and CIW it is abundantly clear that farm employees continue to stand in extreme disadvantage in juxtaposition to their employers whose interests are served in national legislation.