7 ms·

A judgment of fair payment is up to the employee and the employer not the nation as a whole. Previously, farm workers believed it was fair to work 70 hours wit

A judgment of fair payment is up to the employee and the employer not the nation as a whole. Previously, farm workers believed it was fair to work 70 hours with no overtime compensation. Now the employer is prohibited from doing that pushing the required compensation above what he believed to be fair. Price fixing labor does not work. Harvesting is a job that should be paid by produce harvested or job completion instead of hourly. But, that is illegal as well. If we keep making low rung jobs illegal there is no ladder for people to climb.

cxr 3y ago
> Harvesting is a job that should be paid by produce harvested or job completion instead of hourly. But, that is illegal as well. Is it? Even if that's true for hired workers, presumably Schreiber, the guy who owns Schreiber Farms, does get paid based on production. > If we keep making low rung jobs illegal there is no ladder for people to climb. What ladder are you referring to in your counterfactual?
rhyme-boss 3y ago
Do the employees agree it's fair or are they desperate, in a survival mentality, and they take whatever they can get? It's far-fetched to think a farm worker is going to ascend to a higher income. There is no ladder when you're making less than subsistence.
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  Does it matter which it is? They agreed to do the job for the compensation that was offered because it was better than something else. This nation was built by immigrants that came here with nothing and worked their asses off to improve their family circumstance. How many generations ago did your family move here? How did the first US generation of your family work and live? Where is your family now? That path has to remain open. Labor laws handed down from on high have been progressively making it more difficult to start from nothing and become something. Like many in the country, my great grandparents moved to the US with essentially nothing, not speaking much, if any, English. They worked as farmers with lots of children to get the work done. Nobody in my family are currently farmers. Many in my current family generation work high paying jobs, many don't. I am not saying that farming is a bad job. It is necessary. Just illustrating that the possibility, not guarantee, of upward mobility is what makes this country great.
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    You’re describing a pyramid scheme.
    - tastyfreeze 3y ago
      No I am describing the growth of wealth and improvement of society over time. The pie isn't a fixed size. It grows with how much we produce. The more we produce the more there is to go around. Consuming more than we produce shrinks the pie. There will always be people at the top and people at the bottom of any specific hierarchy. It is not possible to shape a society where all are equal in all ways. There is too much variability in human personality and ability for that to ever be possible. The best we can do is make it possible for all to achieve what their ambition and ability allow while preventing anybody from stopping others from doing the same. We have that now.
      - kennywinker 3y ago
        I’m not asking for total equality. But the premise that people need to live in poverty and work their life away in increments of 70 hour weeks at a time all so my asparagus is $4/lb not $5/lb, is disgusting. And the premise that we need them to suffer in poverty because their kids might have a shot at a life just above poverty, doesn’t make it better. We have enough wealth that nobody has to work 70hrs/week. Yet we insist on imposing that, for fear of making our wealthiest slightly less wealthy.
        tastyfreeze 3y ago
        You seem angry. It also sounds like you have never worked seasonal work. I believe you have made a critical error assuming this is the only work they have. They are being paid well for the job compared to other listings. When that job is done they move on to another. You are also assuming that they are suffering. What do you base this assumption on? Seasonal workers I have met and talked to are generally happy, easy going people. They are not being exploited that is something you read that isn't there.
kennywinker 3y ago
> Previously, farm workers believed it was fair to work 70 hours with no overtime compensation. Correction: previously the farm workers believed it was better to work 70 hours with no overtime compensation, rather than starve or become homeless. > If we keep making low rung jobs illegal there is no ladder for people to climb. There was no ladder to climb when piecework was legal, there’s no ladder to climb now. Just because a vanishingly small number of people in America manage to get out of poverty, that doesn’t justify a society structured so there will ALWAYS be large population of people in deep poverty. Nobody should be forced to work 70 hours to feed their family, while we are this rich a nation. > A judgment of fair payment is up to the employee and the employer not the nation as a whole. Here I agree. Employees should band together, and use their collective power to extract as much wealth as possible from their employer - since that’s exactly what the employer is doing to them. The job of the government is to support the workers, they are the plurality of the people, after all.
- quantified 3y ago
  How many of these employees are in the country legally? How many of them actually have much choice at all in their employment? The "great" thing about the system is that the poorer the employees are, the lower a wage they will accept. So "fair" payment is only fair if they aren't poor and have options. If you don't believe that, do you believe that price gouging does not exist by definition? It's exactly the same thing for transactional purchases, not labor relations.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > The "great" thing about the system is that the poorer the employees are, the lower a wage they will accept. People who accept low wages are poor by definition. But the only solution to this is opportunity. You can't get there by prohibiting that person's current best option. You don't make more money by working 40 hours at $30/hour than 70 hours at $30/hour. > If you don't believe that, do you believe that price gouging does not exist by definition? "Price gouging" is when sellers raise prices during a temporary period of high demand. It's not even obvious that this is bad -- it disincentivizes hoarding and makes sure goods are still on the shelves during an emergency for people who really need them. Paying the market rate for labor is what any business in a competitive market has to do or a competitor will do it, undercut them on price and put them out of business. The market rate for unskilled labor is low. The known solutions are things like learning a trade so you can do skilled labor, or automating production or reducing housing scarcity so that prices come down and the wages unskilled workers can earn go further. Many of the laws passed in this regard are highly counterproductive, because they don't do those things, they result in having your hours cut with no change to your hourly wage for the people directly affected, and higher prices for people in general.
bamfly 3y ago
> A judgment of fair payment is up to the employee and the employer not the nation as a whole. Only true when it's two people of similar wealth and circumstances bargaining over how much one will pay for the other's labor. If you just cringed over how much less leverage the employer would have in that scenario—yeah, exactly.
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  If a farmer doesn't harvest they don't get paid, ignoring crop insurance. The farmer literally has no choice but to hire employees to help harvest. The employees in this scenario have all the leverage. But, they can only negotiate their wage up to a point where the farmer's livelihood is sacrificed. Its not like farmers are making orders of magnitude more than the people they employ to help harvest. This isn't the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie. This is people, all technically proletariat, making an arrangement that they all benefit from (free market dynamics).
  - bamfly 3y ago
    You are ignoring a lot about the situation of the workers, to reach these conclusions, and implying that they have so much leverage they're able to capture all the value of their labor: > The employees in this scenario have all the leverage. But, they can only negotiate their wage up to a point where the farmer's livelihood is sacrificed —save a tiny sliver that the farm owner is lucky to manage to get. And this: > Its not like farmers are making orders of magnitude more than the people they employ to help harvest Consider the immense capital value required to have a farm of large enough scale to even halfway succeed in 2023. Some extremely poor decisions have been made if they're really not making a lot more than a migrant worker on their farm. This is... fantasy-land topsy-turvy-world stuff. You might have a point if the laborers were bargaining as a bloc, had captured ~all the available labor into that bloc, and had a substantial cash reserve for strike-pay. Short of that, this is all totally backwards.
    - tastyfreeze 3y ago
      Large capital requirement doesn't mean large profitability for the farmer. You are making at least as many assumptions as I am. What I don't understand is why you would assume that a person that says they prefer the 70 hour week with no overtime doesn't know what is best for themselves. They kept coming back to harvest for Schreiber for decades. People don't do that if they are treated unfairly. From the article Mendoza was taking home up to $1,400 a week for the 6-8 week harvest period ($8,400 - $11,200). I would say that is not bad for 2 months work.
BaseballPhysics 3y ago
> A judgment of fair payment is up to the employee and the employer not the nation as a whole. It's fascinating seeing an entire generation forget why labour unions came to exist in the first place...
xnyan 3y ago
That is true only in a free market, which labor is not. Employers have far more bargaining power than any individual looking to sell their labor. To say workers thought it was fair to work "70 hours with no overtime compensation" is delusional. It was the best deal they could accept given the material reality of their conditions.
HWR_14 3y ago
Why on earth would it be illegal to pay people by lbs of produce at harvesting. You have to pay them at least minimum wage (including minimum wage at 1.5x after overtime hours kick in), but you can pay them the maximum of minimum wage -or- lbs of produce. Not only is it possible, it's common: https://www.croptracker.com/blog/farm-labour-should-i-pay-my-employees-piece-rate.html https://www.croptracker.com/blog/farm-labour-should-i-pay-my...
avmich 3y ago
> A judgment of fair payment is up to the employee and the employer not the nation as a whole. That's not quite true. We have antitrust laws, minimum wages and other things designed to make a more even field for employment relationships. > Harvesting is a job that should be paid by produce harvested or job completion instead of hourly. Or not. Opinions differ on this point.

cxr 3y ago

> Harvesting is a job that should be paid by produce harvested or job completion instead of hourly. But, that is illegal as well. Is it? Even if that's true for hired workers, presumably Schreiber, the guy who owns Schreiber Farms, does get paid based on production. > If we keep making low rung jobs illegal there is no ladder for people to climb. What ladder are you referring to in your counterfactual?

rhyme-boss 3y ago

Do the employees agree it's fair or are they desperate, in a survival mentality, and they take whatever they can get? It's far-fetched to think a farm worker is going to ascend to a higher income. There is no ladder when you're making less than subsistence.

tastyfreeze 3y ago
Does it matter which it is? They agreed to do the job for the compensation that was offered because it was better than something else. This nation was built by immigrants that came here with nothing and worked their asses off to improve their family circumstance. How many generations ago did your family move here? How did the first US generation of your family work and live? Where is your family now? That path has to remain open. Labor laws handed down from on high have been progressively making it more difficult to start from nothing and become something. Like many in the country, my great grandparents moved to the US with essentially nothing, not speaking much, if any, English. They worked as farmers with lots of children to get the work done. Nobody in my family are currently farmers. Many in my current family generation work high paying jobs, many don't. I am not saying that farming is a bad job. It is necessary. Just illustrating that the possibility, not guarantee, of upward mobility is what makes this country great.
- kennywinker 3y ago
  You’re describing a pyramid scheme.
  - tastyfreeze 3y ago
    No I am describing the growth of wealth and improvement of society over time. The pie isn't a fixed size. It grows with how much we produce. The more we produce the more there is to go around. Consuming more than we produce shrinks the pie. There will always be people at the top and people at the bottom of any specific hierarchy. It is not possible to shape a society where all are equal in all ways. There is too much variability in human personality and ability for that to ever be possible. The best we can do is make it possible for all to achieve what their ambition and ability allow while preventing anybody from stopping others from doing the same. We have that now.
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      I’m not asking for total equality. But the premise that people need to live in poverty and work their life away in increments of 70 hour weeks at a time all so my asparagus is $4/lb not $5/lb, is disgusting. And the premise that we need them to suffer in poverty because their kids might have a shot at a life just above poverty, doesn’t make it better. We have enough wealth that nobody has to work 70hrs/week. Yet we insist on imposing that, for fear of making our wealthiest slightly less wealthy.
      - tastyfreeze 3y ago
        You seem angry. It also sounds like you have never worked seasonal work. I believe you have made a critical error assuming this is the only work they have. They are being paid well for the job compared to other listings. When that job is done they move on to another. You are also assuming that they are suffering. What do you base this assumption on? Seasonal workers I have met and talked to are generally happy, easy going people. They are not being exploited that is something you read that isn't there.

kennywinker 3y ago

> Previously, farm workers believed it was fair to work 70 hours with no overtime compensation. Correction: previously the farm workers believed it was better to work 70 hours with no overtime compensation, rather than starve or become homeless. > If we keep making low rung jobs illegal there is no ladder for people to climb. There was no ladder to climb when piecework was legal, there’s no ladder to climb now. Just because a vanishingly small number of people in America manage to get out of poverty, that doesn’t justify a society structured so there will ALWAYS be large population of people in deep poverty. Nobody should be forced to work 70 hours to feed their family, while we are this rich a nation. > A judgment of fair payment is up to the employee and the employer not the nation as a whole. Here I agree. Employees should band together, and use their collective power to extract as much wealth as possible from their employer - since that’s exactly what the employer is doing to them. The job of the government is to support the workers, they are the plurality of the people, after all.

quantified 3y ago
How many of these employees are in the country legally? How many of them actually have much choice at all in their employment? The "great" thing about the system is that the poorer the employees are, the lower a wage they will accept. So "fair" payment is only fair if they aren't poor and have options. If you don't believe that, do you believe that price gouging does not exist by definition? It's exactly the same thing for transactional purchases, not labor relations.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > The "great" thing about the system is that the poorer the employees are, the lower a wage they will accept. People who accept low wages are poor by definition. But the only solution to this is opportunity. You can't get there by prohibiting that person's current best option. You don't make more money by working 40 hours at $30/hour than 70 hours at $30/hour. > If you don't believe that, do you believe that price gouging does not exist by definition? "Price gouging" is when sellers raise prices during a temporary period of high demand. It's not even obvious that this is bad -- it disincentivizes hoarding and makes sure goods are still on the shelves during an emergency for people who really need them. Paying the market rate for labor is what any business in a competitive market has to do or a competitor will do it, undercut them on price and put them out of business. The market rate for unskilled labor is low. The known solutions are things like learning a trade so you can do skilled labor, or automating production or reducing housing scarcity so that prices come down and the wages unskilled workers can earn go further. Many of the laws passed in this regard are highly counterproductive, because they don't do those things, they result in having your hours cut with no change to your hourly wage for the people directly affected, and higher prices for people in general.

bamfly 3y ago

> A judgment of fair payment is up to the employee and the employer not the nation as a whole. Only true when it's two people of similar wealth and circumstances bargaining over how much one will pay for the other's labor. If you just cringed over how much less leverage the employer would have in that scenario—yeah, exactly.

tastyfreeze 3y ago
If a farmer doesn't harvest they don't get paid, ignoring crop insurance. The farmer literally has no choice but to hire employees to help harvest. The employees in this scenario have all the leverage. But, they can only negotiate their wage up to a point where the farmer's livelihood is sacrificed. Its not like farmers are making orders of magnitude more than the people they employ to help harvest. This isn't the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie. This is people, all technically proletariat, making an arrangement that they all benefit from (free market dynamics).
- bamfly 3y ago
  You are ignoring a lot about the situation of the workers, to reach these conclusions, and implying that they have so much leverage they're able to capture all the value of their labor: > The employees in this scenario have all the leverage. But, they can only negotiate their wage up to a point where the farmer's livelihood is sacrificed —save a tiny sliver that the farm owner is lucky to manage to get. And this: > Its not like farmers are making orders of magnitude more than the people they employ to help harvest Consider the immense capital value required to have a farm of large enough scale to even halfway succeed in 2023. Some extremely poor decisions have been made if they're really not making a lot more than a migrant worker on their farm. This is... fantasy-land topsy-turvy-world stuff. You might have a point if the laborers were bargaining as a bloc, had captured ~all the available labor into that bloc, and had a substantial cash reserve for strike-pay. Short of that, this is all totally backwards.
  - tastyfreeze 3y ago
    Large capital requirement doesn't mean large profitability for the farmer. You are making at least as many assumptions as I am. What I don't understand is why you would assume that a person that says they prefer the 70 hour week with no overtime doesn't know what is best for themselves. They kept coming back to harvest for Schreiber for decades. People don't do that if they are treated unfairly. From the article Mendoza was taking home up to $1,400 a week for the 6-8 week harvest period ($8,400 - $11,200). I would say that is not bad for 2 months work.

BaseballPhysics 3y ago

> A judgment of fair payment is up to the employee and the employer not the nation as a whole. It's fascinating seeing an entire generation forget why labour unions came to exist in the first place...

xnyan 3y ago

That is true only in a free market, which labor is not. Employers have far more bargaining power than any individual looking to sell their labor. To say workers thought it was fair to work "70 hours with no overtime compensation" is delusional. It was the best deal they could accept given the material reality of their conditions.

HWR_14 3y ago

Why on earth would it be illegal to pay people by lbs of produce at harvesting. You have to pay them at least minimum wage (including minimum wage at 1.5x after overtime hours kick in), but you can pay them the maximum of minimum wage -or- lbs of produce. Not only is it possible, it's common: https://www.croptracker.com/blog/farm-labour-should-i-pay-my-employees-piece-rate.html https://www.croptracker.com/blog/farm-labour-should-i-pay-my...

avmich 3y ago

> A judgment of fair payment is up to the employee and the employer not the nation as a whole. That's not quite true. We have antitrust laws, minimum wages and other things designed to make a more even field for employment relationships. > Harvesting is a job that should be paid by produce harvested or job completion instead of hourly. Or not. Opinions differ on this point.