Op-Ed: Are farmworker advocates neglecting real farmworkers
This past fall, nearly 1,000 farm workers attended a series of public rallies where many of them voiced deep concern with shrinking paychecks resulting from Washington state’s new agricultural overtime law.
During the fall season, close to 1,000 farm workers passionately expressed their worries about reduced wages caused by Washington state’s recent agricultural overtime law at a series of engaging public rallies.
Hundreds more have spoken similar frustrations with the unintended consequences of the new law in video interviews gathered primarily in orchards and at farm worker housing across the state.
In addition, hundreds of farm workers have shared their frustrations through video interviews conducted in orchards and farm worker housing across Washington state, highlighting the unintended negative effects of the new law.
But just weeks later, professional activists Andrea Schmidt and Edgar Franks, who represent themselves as championing the cause of farmworkers, said not a single word about the workers’ plight when called on to speak to a work session of the state Senate Agriculture Committee.
However, to the surprise of many, professional activists Andrea Schmidt and Edgar Franks, who claim to advocate for farmworkers, remained silent about the challenges faced by these workers during a work session of the state Senate Agriculture Committee, just weeks after the rallies.
Many Washington farmworkers say they’re currently looking for second and third jobs to make up for the money they’ve lost, due to farms reducing work hours to comply with the new overtime rules while avoiding bankruptcy.
A significant number of farmworkers in Washington are now seeking additional employment opportunities to compensate for the income they have lost. Farms have been forced to reduce work hours to adhere to the new overtime regulations, all while trying to avoid financial ruin.
The silence on this problem raises troubling questions about these advocates’ credibility in speaking on behalf of workers, whether it’s before a legislative committee, in news reporting on worker issues, or even on social media.
The lack of acknowledgment regarding this issue raises concerns about the credibility of these advocates when representing the interests of workers. It calls into question their ability to effectively advocate for workers in various settings, including legislative committees, news reporting, and social media.
Do Schmidt and Franks have any actionable solutions to ease workers’ immediate struggle? Have they even listened to the depth of concern so many workers are expressing? Are they willing to acknowledge the changes brought by the legal case and ensuing legislation on this issue–that they championed extensively–are far more nuanced than the false ‘oppressed workers vs. rich owners’ narrative they’ve spun?
Do Schmidt and Franks possess any practical solutions to alleviate the immediate challenges faced by workers? Have they truly taken the time to listen to the genuine concerns expressed by numerous workers? Are they willing to recognize that the legal case and subsequent legislation they heavily advocated for have complexities that go beyond the simplistic narrative of “oppressed workers versus rich owners” that they have propagated?
If the answer to any of those questions is “no,” the more important question becomes whether Schmidt, an attorney for Columbia Legal Services, or Franks, political director for uncertified union Familias Unidas por la Justicia (FUJ), can credibly speak on behalf of farmworkers at all.
If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” it raises a more significant concern about the credibility of Schmidt, an attorney for Columbia Legal Services, and Franks, the political director for the uncertified union Familias Unidas por la Justicia (FUJ), in effectively representing the interests of farmworkers.
The obvious disconnect between what genuine farmworkers are saying in public and what professional activists are telling lawmakers should give anyone pause when listening to these activists’ organizations’ overheated, scorched-earth rhetoric.
The clear disparity between the authentic voices of farmworkers expressing their concerns in public and the messages conveyed by professional activists to lawmakers should make anyone skeptical of the exaggerated and aggressive rhetoric employed by these activist organizations.
Already Franks, FUJ, and the connected organization Community to Community Development led by controversial labor activist Rosalinda Guillen have been documented to spread numerous falsehoods.
Franks, FUJ, and the affiliated organization Community to Community Development, led by the controversial labor activist Rosalinda Guillen, have already been exposed for spreading multiple false claims.
These include an egregious false claim that a Sumas, Wash. blueberry farm “murdered” a worker that passed away from diabetic complications–a claim that was disproved after three separate Washington Department of Labor and Industries investigations found the farm not responsible for the tragic death of Honesto Silva Ibarra.
One of these false claims involved a shocking accusation that a blueberry farm in Sumas, Washington, “murdered” a worker who tragically passed away due to diabetic complications. However, three independent investigations conducted by the Washington Department of Labor and Industries concluded that the farm was not responsible for the worker’s death.
Among the list of false claims are the groups’ repeated insistence that there is no worker shortage in Washington farming, claiming that abuse of the federal H-2A guest worker program is “rampant,” and most recently before the state Senate Ag Committee saying Washington farmers are “making record profits.”
These organizations have made several false assertions, including their persistent denial of a worker shortage in Washington farming, their claim that the abuse of the federal H-2A guest worker program is widespread, and their recent statement before the state Senate Agriculture Committee that Washington farmers are experiencing “record profits.”
More and more leaders are questioning the group’s claims, and those questions have led to deep concern about the groups’ true motives.
An increasing number of leaders are beginning to question the validity of these organizations’ claims, which has raised significant concerns about their true intentions.
Will our lawmakers continue inviting FUJ, Columbia Legal Services and Community to Community Development to represent farmworkers’ interests in key meetings?
Should our lawmakers continue to extend invitations to FUJ, Columbia Legal Services, and Community to Community Development to advocate for the interests of farmworkers in crucial meetings?
If the self-proclaimed advocates for the farmworker community no longer speak for farmworkers, but instead only advance an extreme political agenda that now appears to be at odds with actual farmworkers’ concerns, should these groups be representing the farmworker community at all?
If the self-proclaimed advocates for the farmworker community no longer truly represent the interests of farmworkers, but instead promote an extreme political agenda that contradicts the genuine concerns of these workers, should these groups continue to be the representatives of the farmworker community?
How can we bridge the disconnect between what farmworkers are saying in public and what activists are telling lawmakers to ensure an accurate representation of the realities faced by farmworkers
G other false claims spread by these organizations is the assertion that farmers in Washington state do not pay their workers a living wage. However, data from the U.S. Department of Labor shows that the majority of farmworkers in the state earn above the minimum wage, with many earning well above it.
These false claims perpetuate a narrative of victimhood and injustice that is not supported by the facts. While there are certainly challenges and concerns within the agricultural industry, it is important to have a truthful and balanced discussion about these issues.
It is crucial that the voices of genuine farmworkers are heard and represented accurately. Their experiences and concerns should be at the forefront of any discussions or policy decisions regarding the agricultural industry. However, it is concerning when professional activists, who claim to advocate for these workers, remain silent or spread misinformation.
This raises questions about the credibility and motives of these activists. Are they truly working in the best interests of farmworkers, or do they have other agendas? It is important to critically evaluate the claims and actions of these individuals and organizations to ensure that the rights and concerns of farmworkers are effectively addressed.
Furthermore, the disconnect between what farmworkers are saying in public and what activists are telling lawmakers is troubling. It is important to listen to the authentic voices of those directly affected by these issues and not simply rely on the rhetoric of professional activists. Their exaggerated and aggressive messaging may not accurately represent the reality on the ground.
In order to effectively address the challenges faced by farmworkers, it is important to have open and honest dialogue based on accurate information. Solutions should be practical and considerate of the complexities involved. It is crucial for advocates to listen to the concerns of the workers they claim to represent and work towards genuine solutions that address their immediate struggles.
Ultimately, the focus should be on finding common ground and sustainable solutions, rather than perpetuating false narratives and engaging in divisive rhetoric. It is in the best interests of farmworkers and the agricultural industry as a whole to have honest and constructive discussions that lead to meaningful change.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
