Sunday September 1, 2002
The current debate between farm workers and agro-industry over binding arbitration addresses many of the ethical and fair share issues that recent corporate fraud activities have brought to public attention.
At first glance one might be hard-pressed to tie Enron and corporate fraud to the binding arbitration debate in Sacramento. But if we accept the premise that "Big Business" has had its way with workers, and their retirement funds, we cannot deny that the average worker needs protection against a business class that has proven quite adept at buying subsidies, securing protection and purchasing sycophantic legislation in Washington.
To understand the relationship between corporate misdeeds and the current arbitration row in Sacramento, we need to look at the big picture. In particular, we need to look at how Corporate America has benefited, while life has become more difficult for the average worker in America.
There is no doubt that most Americans aspire to be rich and applaud entrepreneurs like Bill Gates and Steven Jobs. What annoys us, however, is when people get rich without earning it, rub it in with pretentious triumphalism, and then don't play by the rules the rest of us must follow.
For example, when functionaries in Merrill Lynch talk about the wonders of the market, then push stocks their analysts won't touch, we tend to get a little disturbed. What offends us, however, is when this group, who pushed the rest of us to accept their culture of accountability, blame others when evidence of malfeasance comes out.
Whether it's Goodyear and Ford denying culpability on deadly crashes, savings and loan executives saying they "had no clue" about bad investments, or business representatives refusing to testify before Congress, increasingly the average worker feels betrayed by a system that protects a gilded aristocracy of wealth and inheritance. If nothing else, the post-Enron scandal environment shows us that America's economic nobility is often unaccountable, lies and has no sense of responsibility to the average worker.
This is what makes the issue of binding arbitration so important. Farm workers, one of the most exposed and impoverished working groups in this country, maintains that when the bargaining process breaks down, negotiations should be brought before an impartial arbitrator, whose decisions are binding.
To understand the primary issues involved, we need to look at the agro-industry position, which is three-fold. First, agro-industry argues that forced arbitration will undermine market forces. What makes this argument hard to swallow is that America's farmers will receive over $180 billion in government subsidies over the next 10 years. In Kern County alone, 1,234 farmers received more than $236 million in government payouts from 1996 to 2001. Before we grumble about saving the family farm, it should be noted that 942 farm subsidy recipients have their government checks sent to addresses within the Bakersfield city limits (totaling more than $112 million.)
Second, agro-industry contends forced arbitration will raise prices. This argument loses meaning when we realize that Corporate America for years has asked us to sign away our "day in court." From HMOs to credit card companies, we are told that arbitration is faster and cheaper because both parties must present their best case, rather than bringing in lawyers, thus making the process more efficient. Bargaining in bad faith is avoided because both parties recognize that arbitration precludes government intervention and bars previous contract clauses from kicking in, both of which can prevent one party from negotiating in earnest.
This is what makes the third point of agro-industry so pertinent. The industry is on terra firma when it argues that agriculture would be unfairly singled out for binding arbitration when other industries aren't held to the same process. This is especially the case if we acknowledge that there are many growers who bargain in good faith and don't deserve to be picked on because other farmers give the industry a bad name.
The existence of this "good faith" group forces us to ask two questions. First, why should farmers, who are in a tough industry with roller -coaster pricing patterns, be forced into a process other industries aren't compelled to enter? Second, why should farmers be forced to accept the first blow of the corporate backlash that we are so attuned to now?
These are good questions that cannot be addressed here. However, there appears to be a beacon of hope because farmers and farmworkers recognize that both need to adapt to the needs of each other if America's agro-industrial sector is to remain vibrant in the world economy. To that end, the United Farm Workers union has initiated a series of programs designed to push a "value-added" component to their organization. Training, education and services all aspects farmers can't or don't provide are increasingly a big part of the UFW's activities. This aspect of the UFW has been acknowledged by progressive farmers, who work with or who have inquired about working with the union.
Binding arbitration, although necessary to deal with farmers who are more medieval than enlightened, can be reworked to include these and other assurances for farmers. Training, education and services must become part of labor's broader "benefits package" that farmers (and other industries) should expect from labor organizations. But perhaps more importantly, we need to prevent the farming industry from becoming a singled-out hostile camp. Agro-industry is a strategic sector that must remain economically and politically healthy for our country to prosper.
If this can be done, a binding arbitration compromise between farmers and farmworkers could help set the stage for future labor agreements, and could help labor and Middle America find common ground with Corporate America once again.
Mark A. Martinez is an associate professor of political science at Cal State Bakersfield.