Fri 26 Oct 2007
[Interesting and important report by Margaret Gray on farmworkers in New York and the need for greater labor protections. Story below as reported in the New York Times, and the full report can be downloaded at the following link: http://events.adelphi.edu/news/farmworkers/ ]
Study Finds Farmworkers Unaware of Job Protections
October 24, 2007
LISA W. FODERARO, New York Times
Farmworkers in the Hudson Valley toil long hours for little pay and are largely unaware of the few protections and services available to them, according to a report released yesterday by researchers at Adelphi University and Bard College.
The report, a portrait of the state’s agricultural work force, claims to be the first such study in three decades. It describes a substantial shift in the racial and ethnic makeup of farmworkers in the Hudson Valley since the 1980s, from mostly black to predominantly Hispanic.
Of the 113 workers interviewed for the study, 90 percent were foreign-born and 78 percent were from Latin America, the report said. In addition, 71 percent were illegal immigrants, while 21 percent were in a federal guest worker program.
While the immigrant farmworkers who were interviewed were paid more than the minimum wage, they sent home, on average, $513 a month to family members in other countries, or about half the average monthly take-home pay, according to the report.
The annual income from Hudson Valley farm work reported by the workers averaged $6,643. Just over a third of the workers reported wages from other sources, bringing the average annual income to $8,078.
“This very low annual income places these farmworkers well below the official poverty line for the U.S.,” the report said.
The study, called “The Hudson Valley Farmworker Report: Understanding the Needs and Aspirations of a Voiceless Population,” was led by Margaret Gray, an assistant professor of political science at Adelphi.
The interviews were conducted in 2002 by Dr. Gray and students from the Bard College Migrant Labor Project.
The report was delayed in part by a grower’s complaint about Dr. Gray’s research. Since her doctoral dissertation included some of the research material, the grower tried to block her doctorate as well, she said.
Dr. Gray said the 78-page report was inspired by continuing debate in Albany about the state’s farmworker labor laws. She said farmworkers in the state and nation generally did not have as much legal protection as other workers. Most workers, whether illegal immigrants or citizens, are entitled to overtime pay, a day of rest and collective bargaining protections, whereas farmworkers are not, she said.
“The inclusion of farmworkers in New York’s labor laws is necessary for all farmworkers, citizen or not,” Dr. Gray said. “Labor protections would offer workers more economic security and safe avenues to address their concerns. It is a travesty that they are denied the opportunities and protections that most nonagricultural U.S. workers enjoy.”
Eighty percent of the farmworkers interviewed said their employers did not speak their language, and 56 percent said they were unaware of the laws that did relate to them, like the right to safe housing and transportation and protections against pesticides.
Dr. Gray said that she interviewed one worker in a new two-bedroom trailer he shared with two others, and that he said he would not change anything about the housing.
When she turned off the tape recorder, she said, the worker confided that the trailer lacked beds and that they slept on the floor. “Even when workers had poor housing, they didn’t complain about it,” Dr. Gray said. “The vulnerability is further exacerbated because the workers fear deportation and job loss.”
In accepting their working conditions, the workers compare themselves to their peers at home instead of to other American workers. In addition, most said they planned to return home some day, plans that can inhibit their “desire to improve their situations in the U.S.,” the report said.
The State Assembly has passed an omnibus bill to provide farmworkers with the same rights as most other workers, but it has remained in committee in the Senate.
In recent years, farmworkers have taken steps to demand the same kind of benefits and protections that exist in other industries, like improved workers’ compensation coverage and at least one day off a week. State and federal labor laws, dating back to the 1930s, have regularly omitted farmworkers from such guarantees, mostly because of lobbying by the agriculture industry.
Farmers argue that because of the number of job safety regulations, their workers actually have more legal protections than workers in other businesses. “There are many laws,” Dr. Gray said, “but the fact that they don’t have a right to overtime pay or a day of rest or collective bargaining is quite significant.”
October 27th, 2007 at 9:28 am
I’m the farmer referenced in the Times piece by Gray. I am very familiar with Gray, her “research” (or her “artistic work” as her Adelphi biopage describes her academic work: http://www.adelphi.edu/faculty/profiles/profile.php?PID=0390 ) and the work/activities/rhetoric of the organizations she has aligned herself with. Based on that familiarity I can confidently state her work is sloppy, misleading and mostly unsubstantiated crap.
Worse, it’s purely agenda driven. The “research” and weak evidence is designed to give it a veneer of academic legitimacy. But make no mistake, the weak arguments and cherry picked evidence is designed to prop up a social agenda that is set in stone. Despite the real facts and evidence out there. That will not change the conclusions. The conclusions are cherished and believed despite whatever evidence is out there or found.
Now don’t take either Gray’s word for it, like the NY Times author evidently did, mouth agape. I was not contacted for the piece, and I would have happily talked to the reporter. No facts were obviously checked. For example, though the print version of the article claimed that Gray’s study was “the first extensive study in 3 decades of jobs in agriculture” the FACT is that over the past few years Cornell University has produced a number of studies regarding agricultural employment. Gray knows this because in my written response to her work, which I in part addressed (and took apart) the sloppy Bard study and did that in part by citing the aforementioned Cornell studies.
Don’t take my word for this either. As I said, I wrote a detailed response to an academic paper of hers (not the Bard study) that was part of her dissertation presented at an academic conference. If anyone is interested please don’t hesitate to e-mail me at evep@warwick.net and I’ll e-mail you a copy. Read it and judge for yourself whose work is better substantiated.
Further, regarding my complaint against her, which the article refers to, it was centered on what I felt were clear violations of research protocols in dealing with human research subjects in the course of her researching her dissertation, as well as a false light invasion of privacy. I seriously doubt Gray shared with the Times reporter my complaints but feel free to e-mail me and I’ll send them to you. Read them and judge for yourself whether my complaints were valid or had merit. But don’t do what this Times reporter did, accept purely at face value what one party spoon fed her.
Chris Pawelski
October 29th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Admin Note: This posting has gotten several comments from Mr. Pawelski, and one additional comment. Due to length considerations, we are limiting comments after the next two (below). Please contact Mr. Pawelski or the report’s author if you have any questions or concerns about the report.
October 29th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Some context about Cornell’s research and the role of agribusiness, in the Cornell Sun, March 2005:
http://cornellsun.com/node/22652
“[CMP] was born because Cornell students exposed the University when it ran one of the worst labor camps in the state. And because Cornell was caught with its pants down, it had to appease the community, so it created [CMP]. So why now did they decide to terminate this program, shift it back to the school of agriculture? Because it’s about money. It’s about power. It’s about the power of farmworkers who seek social justice against agri-business which seeks to build a huge profit on the back of the worker,” Schmidt said.
According to Schmidt, this shift is in part due to a local grower by the name of Chris Pawelski. Tony Marks-Block ‘07 said that Pawelski is an influential member of the New York State Farm Bureau, an organization that has financial ties with CALS.
“Chris Pawelski does not like the fact that there is an organized farmworker movement in New York State,” Schmidt added. “He was able to pressure the University. He drew a line in the sand and said to the University, ‘Which side are you on? Are you on the side of oppressed people speaking out against their oppressor, or are you on the side of agri-business?’ Cornell moved over to agri-business.”
October 31st, 2007 at 7:06 am
The lead researcher’s strong biases critically shapes and taints the data and, more significantly, the findings or conclusions of the report
Margaret Gray is not a neutral, unbiased, dispassionate researcher. She did not use a third party to collect data which she then honestly examined. She did not then draw conclusions based on that collected data that weren’t heavily influenced by an agenda or bias on her part. She is a long time board member for the self-appointed farmworker advocate organization Rural and Migrant Ministry. For many years she has actively worked to implement Rural and Migrant Ministry’s legislative lobbying agenda (ending a number of New York State labor law exemptions in regards to agricultural employment). Gray started with a conclusion (the implementation of the Rural and Migrant Ministry’s legislative lobbying agenda) and either manufactured or cherry-picked data to back that agenda.
In 1993 the Agricultural Program Leader for the Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) office of Orange County, Lucy Joyce, proposed conducting a farmworker survey of local farmworker’s concerns and needs. I have in my possession a letter Joyce received (dated 7/9/93) from the then Cornell Migrant Program (CMP) Director Herb Engman regarding CCE of Orange County doing a farmworker survey/census. Engman in part stated:
“Once again, I advise extreme caution on the question of the census of farmworkers, especially migrant farmworkers. You must establish a clear definition of migrant farmworker (there are several, usually based on eligibility standards for the various federal programs). Then you must have a defensible strategy for collecting the data which, as Professor Chi points out, is unusually difficult. It is usually advisable to have an independent body conduct the research; those with a vested interest will be accused of ‘cooking’ the data. If the Orange County Association is to be connected to the survey, I would further advise that you link with a campus researcher who can help design the plan and defend the methodology. As you can tell, I am nervous about such a survey unless it can be done right. My involvement in research has been rather extensive even though I am not a researcher; I would not touch this effort unless I had total confidence in the research plan and the researcher.’” (Emphasis mine)
When one considers Gray’s obvious vested interest in this issue and with these self-appointed advocate groups Engman’s advice to Joyce regarding conducting survey research seems eerily prescient.
The interview sample on which the Hudson Valley Farmworker Report is based is not only tainted by the researcher’s agenda but it is also woefully inadequate and statistically insignificant and has no basis to make any broader claims or conclusions beyond the sample pool
The Hudson Valley Farmworker Report on page 6 states:
“Our interviews were conducted with 113 farmworkers on 19 farms in the Hudson Valley region in the fall of 2002. The sample of workers represents farms of different sizes and farms engaged in different tasks. Of the 19 farms, 13 were fruit orchards (mostly apples), two were primarily engaged in growing vegetables, two were nurseries, one was a sod farm, and one was a combination of fruit orchard and vegetable farm. This is a small percentage of Hudson Valley farmworkers.”
Regarding the sample the report itself (in a moment of surprising honesty and candor) then states very plainly (also on page 6):
“The data presented in this report offer a full demographic profile of the Hudson Valley agricultural workforce that we interviewed.”
The study used a small group for interviews so they could get more in-depth information. Great. But then to extrapolate this information and imply that it is of statistical significance is equally absurd and outrageous. The aforementioned admission is a very telling statement — the data only represents the workforce interviewed — certainly not the larger one of the Hudson Valley, let alone New York State at large. Yet this is what Gray attempts to do. The press release for the report states:
“‘The report sends an important message because it explains how and why the state’s farmworkers are such a vulnerable population,’ said Dr. Margaret Gray, Adelphi University Professor who conceived the research and wrote the report.”
http://events.adelphi.edu/news/2007/20071023.php
To claim that information gathered by a very biased researcher from 13 fruit orchards, 2 vegetable farms, 2 nurseries, 1 sod farm and 1 combination fruit and vegetable farm can possibly represent the needs/concerns/perceptions of 20,000 or more agricultural employees statewide is laughable.
No, this report can only make statements or conclusions regarding the miniscule number of farmworkers interviewed, not regarding farmworkers statewide. Even if she interviewed 113 genuine farmworkers, and those farmworkers were not hand picked by Rural and Migrant Ministry, and she was honest in how she conducted the interviews, even if all of that is true (and again, a reasonable person can raise legitimate questions regarding any or all of those points), a sample of 113 people, not taken from a cross section of farms across New York State but from one region (which she acknowledges in research work based on her dissertation research “reflects the general characteristics of workers in five counties, and not all of the state’s farmworkers”), cannot legitimately claim to represent the concerns of 20,000 individuals. The size and the methods she employed to determine her sample aren’t valid for her to make the sweeping claims she makes regarding worker motivations and/or perceptions.
Finally, the overview of the study states:
“The Hudson Valley Farmworker Report is the first in-depth study of the state’s farmworkers in 30 years.”
http://events.adelphi.edu/news/farmworkers/
That’s simply not true. Various elements of Cornell University have conducted a number of in-depth studies regarding New York State farmworkers over the years. These studies include two studies which Gray made reference to in a paper she presented at an academic conference in April of 2005 (which was based on her dissertation research). The first study is entitled “Immigrants and the Community: Integrating the Needs of Immigrant Workers and Rural Communities,” by Max J. Pfeffer and Pilar A Parra (released November 2004).
http://rnyi.cornell.edu/poverty_and_social_inequality/000174.php
The second study is entitled “Survey of Hispanic Dairy Workers in New York State” by Thomas R. Maloney and David C. Grusenmeyer (released February 2005). The Executive Summary, in part states: “The survey included 111 Hispanic employees on 60 New York dairy farms. These farms are situated in 17 counties and distributed fairly evenly across the State.”
http://aem.cornell.edu/research/researchpdf/rb0502.pdf
A fair and honest comparison of the data gathering and the research methodologies of these Cornell studies versus Gray’s research clearly exposes the anemic scholarship, structural weaknesses and deep biases that cripple “The Hudson Valley Farmworker Report.”