I'm sorry, but what a ridiculous piece. Perhaps it's just because I'm from a country (New Zealand) where health insurance is universal and employment legislation is relatively strictly enforced, but the argument seems to be a Wild West sort of thing: "You're better with the big guy, because he'll take care of you."

Is it not like praising racketeering because the businesses who pay the mob do better than the ones who resist? If regulatory agencies do their job, this whole argument is moot; if they don't, it seems more an occasion for bemoaning the state of the regulation than praising the groups who, because of their size, are able to get away with the least.

We should be bemonaning the state of labor regulations, no question. But in reality, someone like Manuel (used as a symbol of laborers in general) has more immediate practical concerns, like making sure his paycheck is on time and clears the bank, and making sure he can take care of his family on the wages he earns. Speaking from experience, sometimes you take the job with the giant corporation because the benefits are better, the pay is regular and guaranteed, and the job is more likely to be around next year at this time. Because of the higher visibility of the large organization, there's a greater risk of being caught and litigated against for skirting/breaking the rules, so the rules are codified, made available to employees, and most of all, followed. It's not ideal, but no job ever is. It's not exactly the Wild West, but when you have responsibilities to take care of, sometimes you have to find something available, regular, and adequate to meet your needs.

That said, you're right about one thing: we should be working to improve conditions for ALL workers in the US, and that includes both labor/workplace regulation and health care.

Just as a clarification: I don't believe big farms/corporations are "better" - for the environment or for the state of labor in general. All I'm saying is that from a personal/practical perspective, I can understand why Manuel would feel more comfortable taking a job with a large farm. I read this story as trying to show a different perspective than what we usually get, which is the (usually) urban upper-middle class decrying the negative effects of chemicals, mechanized farming, and mass production/distribution. I did not read this as blanket support for big agriculture.