New York Times
August 9, 2002

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 8 - A union's chief role is to deliver better wages and benefits to its members, so it has been a huge frustration for the United Farm Workers that agricultural workers have not gotten a contract more than half the times they have voted to unionize.

The union has turned to the state capital for help, and today the Legislature sent Gov. Gray Davis a bill that would enable unionized farm workers to use binding arbitration to obtain a contract. California's $27 billion agricultural industry opposes the bill, insisting that contracts imposed through arbitration will drive growers out of business.

The bill poses major problems for Governor Davis, a Democrat, as he seeks re-election. If he signs it, he will upset growers and businesses, two groups he has courted. If he vetoes it, he will anger his longtime allies in organized labor and in Hispanic groups. So far, the governor has not tipped his hand.

"This is extremely significant legislation," said Kent Wong, a professor specializing in labor issues at the University of California at Los Angeles, "and it creates some real problems for the governor. On the one hand, he very much wants labor support. He is counting on strong labor turnout in November. But on the other hand, he is trying hard to attract middle-class voters, so he doesn't want to appear to be in labor's pocket."

Saying they would be surprised if Governor Davis vetoed the bill, farm worker leaders asserted that intransigence among growers had prevented tens of thousands of farm workers from obtaining contracts that would improve their wages and benefits.

According to the union, workers have voted to join the U.F.W. at 428 companies since 1975, but only 185 contracts have been signed. At one vegetable grower in Salinas, D'Arrigo Brothers, the workers voted to unionize in 1975, and, despite decades of negotiations, the 1,400 workers still have no contract.

"What good is the right to organize if farm workers never get a contract?" said Marc Grossman, the union's chief spokesman. "The right to organize is not supposed to be just an academic exercise."

The bill would be the first amendment to the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, the landmark 1975 law that made California the first state to give farm workers the right to unionize and bargain collectively. Farm workers are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act.

Cesar Chavez, the union's founder, was the driving force behind the law, and union officials say a Davis veto of the current bill would anger many Hispanics who revere Mr. Chavez.

"We've been given the right to organize, but it's often been ineffective because it often hasn't resulted in collective bargaining agreements that better workers' lives," said Arturo Rodriguez, the union's president, who noted that many farm workers are migrants who earn less than $10,000 a year.

Tom Nassif, president of the Western Growers Association, which represents 3,500 growers, said the union asked the Legislature for help because it was too weak and its leaders were too inexperienced to get what they wanted at the bargaining table.

Under Mr. Chavez in the 1970's, the union had 100,000 members. But after years of internal feuding and after many growers refused to sign contracts, membership fell to 20,000 by 1993, the year Mr. Chavez died. With the union now headed by Mr. Rodriguez, who is Mr. Chavez's son-in-law, membership has inched up to 27,000.

Mr. Nassif said the bill was dangerous for growers. "It would probably send most of the farmers on whom this would be imposed out of business," he said. "Agriculture is the No. 1 industry in the state with the No. 1 economy. So why would you change a law that would hurt the most important industry?"

Jesus Torres, a worker at Pictsweet Mushroom Farms in Ventura County, said the last thing workers wanted was to drive their employers out of business.

"We ask only for what is just," Mr. Torres said. "We would never try to stop a unionized grower from being successful."

For the union, Pictsweet is Exhibit A for the need for arbitration. Its workers voted to unionize in 1975 and had a contract until 1987, when a Tennessee company, United Foods, bought the operation. Since then, the workers have had no contract.

Pictsweet workers said they repeatedly asked the company to improve wages and health benefits and to start a pension plan to match those at other mushroom farms with union contracts.

"I don't think they want a contract ever," said Fidel Andrade, a Pictsweet worker who was reinstated last month after state officials found that a manager had illegally fired him for being a union activist. "I think they want to get rid of the union."

Pictsweet officials declined to comment about the dispute.

Last Monday, the state Assembly passed the arbitration bill, 49 to 22, with almost all Democrats supporting and almost all Republicans opposing. Today the Senate, which originally approved the legislation in May, passed a new version, 22 to 10, also largely along party lines, that matches the Assembly's language.

Under the bill, if the two sides fail to reach an agreement within 90 days, either side can ask for a mediator. If mediation brings no deal within 30 days, either side can ask for binding arbitration by a neutral party.

Some labor leaders say the bill could serve as a model for unions nationwide because workers across the private sector have not obtained a contract one-third of the times they have voted to unionize.

Union officials predict that the legislation will pressure employers, who dread having a contract imposed, to become serious about negotiating. But growers say the legislation will hinder bargaining.

"The union's going to come in with some outrageous demands," Mr. Nassif said, "and the arbitrator is going to find some way to cut the baby in half. You'll have the unions asking for many things they know they can't get."

Mr. Davis has 12 working days to sign the bill. Several farm workers are holding a vigil outside the Capitol until he acts.

Russ Lopez, a spokesman for the governor, said Mr. Davis had a "great relationship with the farm workers," but also had "some concerns" about the bill.

"It's a delicate balance, and he's well aware of that," Mr. Lopez said.

Copyright; New York Times