A bill that could pit farm and ranch owners against their workers cleared the state Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee despite opposition from the commissioner of agriculture.

Senate Bill 87, which passed on a 4-3 party-line vote Wednesday, would allow farmworkers to unionize, *be paid overtime for more than 12 hours per day or 40 hours per week, and be paid closer to minimum wage. It generated outrage among Colorado farmers and ranchers amid claims the sponsor, who proudly touts her ag background, had turned a deaf ear to their concerns when drafting the bill. The measure now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

Informally known as a Farmworkers Bill of Rights, the bill was backed by a host of left-leaning organizations, including AFL-CIO, Conservation Colorado, the National Young Farmers Coalition, Colorado Jobs with Justice and Towards Justice.

The bill’s intent, according to sponsor Sen. Jessie Danielson, D-Wheat Ridge, is to restore human rights and stop discrimination against ag workers. She claimed those workers have been exploited for profit for generations, and the time had come for the state to stop protecting those practices.

Among those practices: workers are underpaid, live in substandard employee housing, are forbidden visits from family and friends, and some are caged in fences with razor wire (that was disputed by the owner of the farm whose migrant housing was photographed and distributed to the committee). Others are victims of human trafficking and sexual harassment, and some face severe retribution for speaking out, Danielson said. 

Attorney Valerie Collins of Towards Justice said federal and state laws have traditionally carved farm workers out of labor law protections, designed to deliberately prevent worker empowerment. It creates a second-class worker status, she said, requiring workers to navigate a hostile workplace. The bill includes a strong enforcement mechanism, including allowing a farmworker to designate a “representative to assert their legal claims.” She claimed there has been retaliation since the bill was introduced. 

The language of SB 87 allows for a worker to form a union, even if the farm has only one worker. Unlike other statutes, SB 87 also codifies into state law when someone gets a lunch or rest break and what kind of tools a farmworker can use. 

The bill has had little input from major representatives of the ag industry, a point brought up several times during Wednesday’s hearing. SB 87 is opposed by Colorado Farm Bureau, along with wheat and sugar beet growers, the state’s livestock and cattlemen’s associations, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union and the agricultural aviation association. SB 87 also is opposed by the Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce, the Colorado Chamber of Commerce and Weld County, the state’s number one ag-producing county.

Danielson repeatedly told those testifying against the bill that she had “invited” input on the bill after it was introduced, along with suggested amendments, but most declined. 

The bill’s provisions

The bill requires the director of the division of labor standards at the Department of Labor and Employment to come up with rules establishing overtime pay for any hours worked over 40 per week or more than 12 hours per day. But another section of the bill defines a normal working day as limited to eight hours within a 24-hour period.

Dan Waldvogle of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union said the bill’s overtime provisions do not recognize the seasonal nature of agricultural work. 

Brant Harrison of Palisade said the bill is loaded with unintended consequences. He’s a peach grower and said that on some days, it rains and everyone sits for the day. The next day, with better weather, means everyone works, and sometimes for much longer than eight hours. And his employees come back year after year, he said, in part because he treats them well.

“It frustrates me when I hear workers aren’t being treated well. I don’t know another fruit grower who treats his workers” the way some described. “Come over to the West Slope,” he said. “Talk to our workers and come see for yourself.”

Under SB 87, farmers and ranchers would be required to provide workers with weekly transportation, at the employer’s expense, so that workers could meet with “key service providers,” conduct financial transactions or access basic necessities. Key service providers are defined in the bill as lawyers, health care providers, education, clergy or “government officials,” such as a consular representative.

The bill also requires ag employers to provide at least a quart of water per hour of work, and open-air shade that allows workers “to be seated during break periods without touching each other.” The bill bans the use of short-handled hoes, cited by workers as a cause of back problems.

One section that had the ag industry most concerned: SB 87 would set up a “relator,” which one farmer told Colorado Politics is akin to a “bounty hunter” who would hunt for violations. Relators would be entitled to up to 35% of the fines levied for violations under the bill, including for retaliation, which carries a fine of up to $10,000 per violation. However, Danielson won approval of an amendment Wednesday to strip that section from the bill, based on concerns raised by the industry.

The administration view

It’s that section of the bill that created the most heartburn for Kate Greenberg, Commissioner of Agriculture. But it isn’t the only problem with the bill, she told the committee.

Protecting and advancing worker rights is vital, Greenberg said. The bill has important and meaningful objectives, but the Department of Agriculture cannot support it as introduced, she said, because of the burden it would place on the ag industry.

“It is essential that we don’t put Colorado producers at a disadvantage to producers in neighboring states” while still advancing and protecting worker rights. If the bill is substantially amended, the department will evaluate it, she said.

In response to a question from Sen. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, Greenberg pointed to the section on relators, but the sections on overtime, short-handled hoes, impacts on smaller farms and union organizing are also areas of concern, she indicated.

SB 87 was amended to strike the language on relators but the other issues – overtime, short-handled hoes and allowing union organizing – remains in the bill as amended. 

The bill’s definition of employers appears to be contradictory. One section, which states current law, says an employer is defined as having at least eight employees. But another section of the bill says an employer could be included who has just one employee.

“The meaning of ‘agricultural employer’ must be liberally construed for the protection of persons providing services to an employer,” the bill states. That also would mean one worker could set up their own union.

SB 87 also would set up an advisory committee, weighed heavily in favor of workers, to review wages and working conditions. Six of the nine members would represent farmworkers.

The minimum wage for livestock workers established under SB 87, beginning Jan. 1, 2022, would be $553.60 per week, increased annually based on the Consumer Price Index.

Competing testimony

One farmer, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said that hiking the worker costs for farmers will only push the drive toward automation, especially as technology improves.

“Equipment is cheaper than employees, lasts longer and is more reliable,” the farmer testified. One example cited is corn, which can be harvested by machine, eliminating the need for most of the manual labor.

The wages of agricultural workers are not enough to meet basic needs, said one of many who testified in Spanish Wednesday. In conversations with workers in the field in Weld County, one woman said many are not provided with housing, and when they are, it isn’t appropriate: the housing lacks heat or air conditioning, showers, bathrooms and, in more serious cases, no electricity or gas. “This is not favorable for any human being,” she said.

Center, Colorado, is the center of the San Luis Valley’s potato-processing industry. Principal Luis Murillo of Skoglund Middle School in Center talked about the impact COVID has had on potato-plant workers in his community.

Farmworkers work long and hard hours, more than 12 hours a day, he said. The sorting lines in the potato cellars don’t allow for distancing, and that has led to outbreaks of COVID-19, but as one worker told him, “I’d rather die of COVID than my family die of hunger.” People won’t speak up for fear of retaliation, he added.

Center has migrant camps where workers sleep and shower, and sometimes multiple families have to share a bathroom, Murillo said. He relayed a recent story about a 13-year old who stayed home to watch her siblings and died of smoke inhalation. That death could have been avoided if the family had appropriate heating and didn’t have to use heaters in the home. Students go to school not ready to learn with anxiety and depression. Workers should have minimum wage protections, he said.

*Most of the farmers and ranchers who testified during the hearing were opposed and said they treat their workers well; many said they were dismayed by stories of mistreatment. 

Ryon Sallee of Fowler, who runs a farm and a cattle operation, said he pays his 15 full-time and five part-time employees between $13 and $16 per hour, pays 75% of their health insurance, gives them beef, performance and Christmas bonuses. The bill’s overtime requirement will force him to get rid of much of that, he said.

The bill’s progress gives the ag community one more reason to rail against the governor. Polis has been under fire from the industry for most of his time in office, over promoting vegan alternatives to beef, including this Saturday’s “MeatOut” Day, and in naming an animal-rights activist, who has criticized the livestock industry, to the state veterinarian board. 

Correction: due to an error in the Secretary of State’s lobbyist database, Pinnacol Assurance was listed in a previous version as opposed to SB87. Pinnacol has not taken a position on the bill. In addition, this article has been updated to clarify the working hours issue and testimony by farmers and ranchers.