The article never says this, and yet people in the Fray keep complaining that the author's point is that big farms treat undocumented workers better.

I see your point. I'm glad the big farms pay their workers as much as it's possible to pay them without going bankrupt, and give them all gold-plated Cadillacs to drive to work in... there's no reason not to assume this is the case, after all.

Because in the Salinas and Merced growing areas, unemployment is up around 15-20 percent, all of whom ARE undocumented. Since more undocs than docs live in those areas, it's safe to assume that Manuel is in the former category.

Not helpful.

From your snide tone, it sounds like you're trying to tell me that I should assume that Manuel is undocumented. Your example, though, supports not making assumptions.

I think the article makes an interesting point about how different sized farms treat workers differently. It flies in the face of the knee-jerk "big businesses are evil" reaction that some people have. A lot of Fraysters are responding to attack on their assumptions by implying that big businesses are still evil because the workers they treat better are undocumented and somehow less deserving of better working conditions.

Thanks, Robert Lee. That makes sense.

It IS evil to knowing use illegal aliens as your workforce. The reason you do so is so that you do NOT pay taxes like the rest of the country, and saying "look, we are giving the workers an extra outhouse" but at the same time NOT paying 100k in taxes -- that's not exactly being an altruist. And when Manuel gets injured on the job, YOU pay for it, not ADM.

How do you figure that using illegal aliens is a neutral or a good thing?

Bondsman:

How do you figure that using illegal aliens is a neutral or a good thing?

I never said that. People are derailing the conversation by making it about hiring undocumented workers. Whether or not the workers are undocumented, providing workers with health insurance (much more likely on a larger farm, according to the article) is a good thing.

it's illegal to hire illegal aliens, so how exactly does a company provide them with health insurance?

And if it's wrong to use illegal aliens in the first place, what difference does it make how "good" the company is to them?

Bondsman:

it's illegal to hire illegal aliens, so how exactly does a company provide them with health insurance?

I'm quoting the facts from the article, not claiming that the workers are illegal. You're derailing the conversation, again. The point is that bigger farms are more likely to provide health insurance, and that's a good thing.

You're trying to make an argument about the article based on a "fact" that you just made up.

Manuel is legal because he has a permanent job and a health insurance. This is after all a feel good story. It is a bit like praising the employee benefits of Wal Mart by correctly noting that some employees have become very wealthy through stock purchase plans. But how many farm workers are permanently employees and how many Wal Mart employees are part time? Most farm work is after all seasonal. If you are interested this link claims "According to Santos Quintero, whom we interviewed in the UFW offices in Watsonville, 90% of the workers in California’s strawberry fields today are undocumented."

<link>

lisaz:

Bondsman:

it's illegal to hire illegal aliens, so how exactly does a company provide them with health insurance?

I'm quoting the facts from the article, not claiming that the workers are illegal. You're derailing the conversation, again. The point is that bigger farms are more likely to provide health insurance, and that's a good thing.

You're trying to make an argument about the article based on a "fact" that you just made up.

The "fact" you quote from the article is that "full time" corporate farm employees are more likely to have health insurance. The fact we need to know is how many are full time employees. Shouldn't everyone in America have health insurance regardless of employment status? Seems it would save the employee and employers, small farmer or corporate owners a lot of headache (and illness).

Yeah, universal healthcare would be great, but that's completely irrelevant to the point the article's making.

Again, people are going off on tangents because they don't like what the article has to say and are either wanting to rail against their pet peeves or argue a topic they think they win on.

The article makes the point that workers are treated better on large farms. For a lot of reasons, I agree that this is probably true. If you want to argue that they're not treated better on large farms, I'd be happy to hear what you have to say.

Delete Favorites Reply

This anecdotal article makes the claim that workers are treated better, not the point. To make a point you need to have good evidence. The article states "In California, about two-thirds of farms with more than 25 employees provide health insurance to their year-round workers, compared with just one-third of farms with five employees or less." The question then become what is the relative percentage of year round workers? If you want reasons why the large corporate farm are a problem then see my post and link above my first response to you.

When you bring up the point that big corporate farms are "more likely to insure" the fact that we don't have a sensible universal health policy is very relevant to this discussion as it is corporate America which has been the culprit in fighting reform, including universal health insurance plans in addition to good wages and working conditions, and and only grudgingly grants concessions subject to monitoring, referred to in the article, but not before killing off the smaller operations by not surrendering a penny to workers willingly.

It is a bit like saying the Mafia is better than self defense or the government because, apart from the extortion, they are more effective than the former and more capitalist than the latter (which Americans know to best as certainly a Jesus is our savior ) . Sorry if I'm off on a tangent but the article is a tangent. Only having one buttock hacked off still doesn't make corporate farms the best of all possible worlds Dr. Pangloss.

To the extent that it is helpful, farms with 25+ employees are also far more likely to insure their seasonal workers; I believe the number is something like 25% of large farms provide health benefits to seasonal workers, whereas less than 5% of small farms do. (I do not have the data, which is only in hard copy, in front of me.) I'm thrilled to see such lively debate going on, so thanks for posting! I'm admittedly confused by the reference to the hacking off of buttocks, but I trust that you've been able to discern that I'm not necessarily a fan of large farms. I'm more interested in pushing folks to take a fuller look at what they're proposing, and to grapple with some of the nitty gritty issues that would have a real impact at the ground level--like labor enforcement, which becomes much more difficult when you're dealing with a sea of small farms instead of relatively fewer, larger ones. Thanks again! Tracie McMillan

Well, Lisa, it may be an assumption that a man named Manuel, working in California's Central Valley at the lowest levels of agriculture is undocumented, but it's a fairly reasonable one.