Apr 30, 2010

Report on Migrant Housing, Working Conditions Sparks Controversy

When the Michigan Civil Rights Commission released a report in March on the living and working conditions of migrant and seasonal workers in Michigan, it caused quite a stir. The report, which features testimony from several migrant workers, is a very critical assessment of migrant worker conditions in the state.

The report claims that farm workers are being forced to live in sub-standard housing conditions, including structural defects, overcrowding, close proximity to pesticides and poor sanitation. This brings an increased risk of diseases due to poor sanitation. Another issue is the lack of funding and staffing for the state Migrant Labor Housing Program. The report also points out discrimination against migrant workers because of familial status.

Sexual harassment and discrimination against female workers also is pointed out. Theft of farm worker earnings due to different pay structures and minimum wage violations, the use of child labor and an overall lack of enforcement of state and federal regulations round out the list of problems mentioned in the report.

Footnotes

The report set off a wave of concern from growers and farming officials within the state who don’t agree that the findings represent the vast majority of farms in Michigan that offer migrant labor housing. According to the Michigan Farm Bureau (MFB), the report has a credibility issue.

At the heart of the MFB complaint is a footnote taken from the report itself.

According to footnote No. 16, on page 5: “It should be noted that the commission did not intend this process to yield a statistically representative picture of all Michigan farms or farm workers, nor do we now contend that it does … The conditions we observed may or may not be ‘typical,’ but they are certainly prevalent enough to demand action.”

“The buried footnote needs to be brought to light, because the report unfairly casts a damaging black eye on the hundreds of agricultural employers who abide by state and federal laws and provide high standards of living and working conditions for their valued migrant and seasonal farm workers who voluntarily return to their farms year after year,” said Rob Anderson, MFB’s legislative counsel.

People need to know that the majority of growers don’t fall into the category of those listed in the report, said Craig Anderson, manager of the MFB Agricultural Labor and Safety Services Department. Michigan is known around the country for providing good housing to migrant workers.

“I have workers who have returned for years, even generations, to the same farm,” Anderson said. “If conditions were so terrible, why do they return?”

However, some of the recommendations from the report are quite vital, according to MFB.

“We are not discrediting the opinions or feelings of those migrant and seasonal farm workers who were involved in the report,” Rob Anderson said. “The Michigan Farm Bureau believes that every human being should be treated with fairness and dignity, and we have always urged our members to comply with existing laws meant to ensure that these basic principles are afforded to migrant and seasonal farm workers.

“But we are concerned with how this report is being promoted and interpreted, and we believe it provides a misleading and one-sided perspective. In the isolated incidences where infractions are uncovered and verified, we support full enforcement of existing laws.”

Farm Bureau supports maintaining adequate funding and staffing levels for Michigan’s Migrant Labor Housing Inspection program within the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA). Currently, each farmer pays for inspections and licenses with a $5 fee for each occupant a house can hold.

“Farmers believe that buildings inhabited by individuals should be inspected by the state to ensure they are up to code, and this includes housing units that agricultural employers build and maintain for migrant and seasonal farm workers,” Rob Anderson said. “Agricultural employers offer this free or low-cost housing to attract workers, and they want their workers to be assured the buildings meet inspection standards.”

Ideally, the housing units would be inspected before the season, with a follow-up during the season. The MDA funding coming from the new fee barely pulls together enough money and resources to conduct pre-season inspections, Anderson said.

Michigan has roughly 850 housing locations, with 4,400 living units licensed each year. MDA does an average of 1,000 inspections annually, which cover licensing, complaints and construction, said Jennifer Holton, public information officer for MDA. There are 22,000 occupants in these dwellings, of which 40-50 percent are children and elderly.

Cuts to the program had already occurred. Right now, the program has four inspectors to handle the workload, down from nine originally. The new $5 fee provides $110,000 in funding for a program that costs the state $647,000 to operate, Holton said.

“The unfortunate impact is that some housing facilities will close due to lack of inspections,” Craig Anderson said. “We hope this brings attention to the inspection funding issues and ensures housing standards continue to be met across the state.”

Another issue raised by the report is child labor. Farm Bureau supports adhering to youth employment laws that are consistent with state and federal guidelines.

“Agriculture provides young people with an opportunity to learn lifelong skills and a strong work ethic, but it is discouraging for agricultural employers when their workers violate clearly communicated and established workplace rules regarding youth employment,” Anderson said. “When workers bring their children to the fields in violation of the rules established by the employer, the employer is the one blamed even though he’s done his due diligence.”

Already in place

Many of the commission’s recommendations are already being met by existing rules and regulations, Anderson said. An example would be the provisions for minimum wage. The state and federal government set minimum wages, and both include piece-rate provisions – something the commission’s report took exception to.

“There is no need to create more layers of bureaucracy,” Craig Anderson said. “But, just as the commission report notes, there is room for improvement in how existing laws are being communicated and enforced by the various state agencies and departments involved.”

He pointed to the licensing program and inspections.

“We believe there are plenty of opportunities for workers to provide information and file complaints either direct to agencies or to workers’ advocacy groups,” he said. “The licensing program is key to solving all issues.”