Republish
Newsom feels the heat on farm labor measure
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
Newsom feels the heat on farm labor measure
Share this:
Gov. Gavin Newsom will soon write a new chapter in California’s decades-long conflict over the unionization of workers in the state’s huge agricultural industry — and what he does could affect his obvious quest to become a national political figure.
Assembly Bill 2183, a measure that would make it easier for the much-troubled United Farm Workers Union to organize farmers’ employees is sitting on his desk, passed by overwhelming margins by Newsom’s fellow Democrats in the Legislature.
The union’s drive for using a card check process or mailed ballots took on urgency when the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2020 that it had no right to enter farmers’ property to talk with their workers, exacerbating the UFW’s chronic inability to make significant organizational inroads.
That failure, union leaders say, is due to farmers’ undermining organizational elections, which now are conducted by secret ballot. However, the UFW has also suffered from its own organization shortcomings as journalist Miriam Pawel chronicled in her authoritative book, “The Union of Their Dreams.”
Newsom vetoed an earlier version of the bill last year, saying, it “contains various inconsistencies and procedural issues related to the collection and review of ballot cards,” and adding, “Significant changes to California’s well-defined agricultural labor laws must be carefully crafted to ensure that both agricultural workers’ intent to be represented and the right to collectively bargain is protected, and the state can faithfully enforce those fundamental rights.”
This year’s version contained some changes that the UFW and its allies hoped would placate Newsom, but just before final votes last month, Newsom once again indicated his opposition. “We cannot support an untested mail-in election process that lacks critical provisions to protect the integrity of the election,” Newsom spokesperson Erin Mellon said.
Newsom’s unusual preemptive declaration may have been an indirect request that the Legislature not send him a second measure, but it didn’t deter legislators from acting with 55 votes in the Assembly and 26 in the Senate.
If anything, it spurred the UFW to redouble its public campaign, including a highly publicized week-long march to the Capitol from Delano, site of a 1965 grape worker strike that led to formation of the UFW and in 1975 to passage of the state’s Agricultural Labor Relations Act.
The UFW also formally joined the California Labor Federation after former Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez took the umbrella organization’s helm and obtained expressions of support from national political figures such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and, this week, President Joe Biden.
“In the state with the largest population of farmworkers, the least we owe them is an easier path to make a free and fair choice to organize a union,” Biden said on Labor Day.
All of this puts Newsom in a political pickle.
If he signs the bill, he will not only be reversing himself on a high-profile issue — never good optics for an ambitious politician — but could be providing critics with ammunition should he someday be seeking presidential votes in agricultural states that are critical in White House contests, such as Iowa, Ohio and Florida.
However, if he vetoes the measure, it could make it much more difficult for him to gain support in the Democratic Party’s progressive/activist wing, to which unionization of workers in agriculture and other low-wage industries is a holy grail. Delores Huerta, the UFW’s most revered figure, has predicted that Newsom would sign the bill because he’ll want union support for a presidential campaign.
A veto would also mean that he would probably see another UFW bill next year and every other year of his governorship.
Dan WaltersOpinion Columnist
Dan Walters is one of most decorated and widely syndicated columnists in California history, authoring a column four times a week that offers his view and analysis of the state’s political, economic,... More by Dan Walters