U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) 

Employment and Training Administration (ETA) 

Policy and Low-Wage Labor Supply: 

A Case Study of Policy and Farm Labor Markets in New 

York State 

Prepared by: 

Elizabeth Nisbet, Ph.D. Candidate 

Bloustein School for Planning and Policy 

Rutgers University 

Princeton, New Jersey 

This paper was funded, either wholly or in part, with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA) under Contract Number 

DOLJ061A20380. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or 

policies of the Department, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or 

organizations imply endorsement of same by the U.S. Government. This paper was one of 

seven prepared under the 2009 ETA Research Papers Program, which competitively awarded 

doctoral and post-doctoral students funding to conduct original research and prepare scholarly 

papers on topics relating to the workforce investment system. 
Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Hal Salzman, William M. Rodgers III, Carl E. Van Horn, and 

James DeFilippis of the Bloustein School at Rutgers University and Eileen Appelbaum, School 

of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers University for their thoughtful review and 

helpful feedback on versions of this research.

ii
Table of Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... vi

I. Policy and Farm Labor Markets ............................................................................................................ 1

A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

B. The Study .......................................................................................................................................... 4

C. Labor Shortages and Calls for Policy Change .................................................................................... 6

II. The Farm Labor Force ........................................................................................................................... 8

A. NAWS data: Trends in the Non‐H‐2A Workforce.............................................................................. 9

1. Workforce Composition................................................................................................................ 9

2. Wages, Income, and Benefits...................................................................................................... 10

B. H‐2A program.................................................................................................................................. 12

III. Policy and the Farmworker Occupation ......................................................................................... 13

A. Controlling Illegal Immigration ....................................................................................................... 14

1. Border Patrol and Interior Enforcement..................................................................................... 15

2. Employee Identification.............................................................................................................. 16

B. Immigration Policy to Expand Farmworker Supply......................................................................... 18

1. Legislation to Legalize Farmworkers........................................................................................... 19

2. Guest Worker Programs.............................................................................................................. 20

Overview of H‐2A Regulations and AgJOBS Legislation...................................................................... 23

C. Policies to Improve Living and Workplace Standards..................................................................... 23

1. Labor Standards .......................................................................................................................... 25

a. Federal .................................................................................................................................... 26

b. State ........................................................................................................................................ 28

2. Social Programs........................................................................................................................... 29

IV. Policy and Local Farm Labor Market Dynamics .............................................................................. 30

A. New York’s Shortages and Surplus.................................................................................................. 30

B. The Organization of Farm Workforces............................................................................................ 33

C. The Incorporation of the H‐2A Program into Workforces .............................................................. 37

D. An Example of Policy Implementation: Housing............................................................................. 39

V. Discussion............................................................................................................................................43

A. Policy and Farm Labor................................................................................................................. 43

B. Improving the Situation of Farmworkers.................................................................................... 45

iii
Appendix: Tables and Figures ..................................................................................................................... 49

Table 1: Qualitative Interviews ............................................................................................................... 49

Table 2: Comparison of Fruit/Nut and Vegetable Workers with Full Sample......................................... 49

Table 3: Differences in Real Wages and Income by Group..................................................................... 50

Table 4: Time Spent in Farm Work for Pre‐harvest, Harvest, or Post‐harvest Work in Fruit/Nut or

Vegetables............................................................................................................................................... 50

Table 5: Government Records of Foreign Labor Presence ..................................................................... 50

Figure 1: Place of Birth............................................................................................................................ 51

Figure 2: Legal Status of Workers ........................................................................................................... 51

Figure 3a: Change in Presence of Migrants in the U.S............................................................................ 52

Figure 3b: Change in Presence of Migrants in the East .......................................................................... 52

Figure 4: Average Hourly Wages of Crop Workers, Nominal and Real (2006) Dollars, 1989‐2006 ........ 53

Figure 5: Real Income (2006 Level)......................................................................................................... 53

Figure 6: H‐2A Visas Issued by Fiscal Year............................................................................................... 54

Figure 7: Foreign Workers Employed in Peak Period (September) ........................................................ 54

Source: New York State Department of Labor........................................................................................ 54

References .................................................................................................................................................. 55

iv
Abstract 

Farmers and industry groups often advocate for change in immigration policy to address farm 

labor shortages. Such calls for intervention raise questions about the range of policies that relate 

to labor supply and affect farmworkers in local markets. This paper describes a case study of 

policies related to farmworker supply and how these play out in labor markets in New York, 

drawing from government and interest group records, statistics from the National Agricultural 

Workers Survey, and qualitative interviews. Results illustrate the complexity of policies 

influencing labor supply and workforce organization and point to challenges inherent in 

maintaining workforces while attending to the quality of farm work.

v
Executive Summary

Farmers and industry groups regularly call for policy change to address shortages of farm 

labor. Such calls for government intervention to expand the pool of workers raise questions 

about other policies that relate to supply and affect workers and how these might be important in 

local labor markets. While farm groups often propose solutions that involve expanding 

temporary or longer-term foreign worker pools through immigration policy, there are additional 

roles of government in labor supply embodied in labor standards and social policy. Even where 

there is not a clear supply effect of policy, looking at the state’s involvement in an occupation 

calls for attention to the range of policy affecting it.

To inform policy discussion, this paper describes initial results from a mixed-method case 

study to answer the questions: 1) What policy changes, including policies enacted specifically to 

address labor shortages, might have affected the supply of farmworkers in the United States?; 

and 2) How might these policies play out in labor markets in New York State? 

Research included: 

 An overview of the farm labor force, drawing from statistics from the National Agricultural 

Workers Survey (NAWS) on trends in farm labor supply and farm jobs, and information 

from the New York and U.S. Departments of Labor on nonimmigrant foreign temporary 

workers for seasonal agricultural labor participating in the H-2A visa program; 

 

 A review of the policy framework for farm labor markets, drawing from government and 

interest group records (i.e., Congressional hearings and press releases or policy briefs), 

academic literature, and qualitative interviews with policy actors; and 

 A discussion of possible linkages between policy and workforce organization in New York 

State farm labor markets, drawing on qualitative interviews with 13 employers or 

supervisors; 23 policy actors at federal and state levels, experts, or service and advocacy 

organization staff; and several groups of workers (58 total). 

NAWS data show that the share of migrants in the farmworker population is declining and 

the increase in the share of Mexican-born and undocumented workers has leveled off (see 

vi
Section IIA), but all three groups are more present among workers harvesting fruits or vegetables 

or engaged in pre- and post-harvest tasks for these crops. Data also show flat real wages and a 

low share of receipt of benefits like unemployment, worker’s compensation, and health 

insurance. Real income has increased, but well over a third surveyed were below the poverty 

level. The presence of H-2A workers in the State has grown. In fiscal year 2007, there was a 

27.3% increase from 2006 in the number of H-2A workers certified to work in New York State 

(4013) and a 23.5% increase in the U.S. overall (89,575).1 

This paper shows that concerns about farm labor supply have continued to draw the attention 

of federal policymakers since 1986, and calls on government to resolve shortages tend to occur 

in reaction to or anticipation of immigration policy change. In addition, while the nature of the 

available supply of farmworkers is affected by factors such as the economy, available job 

opportunities, and influences over migration such as the peso devaluation, it is also influenced in 

contradictory ways by policy in more areas than immigration. 

Immigration policy related to the farm workforce, especially hired seasonal workers, has seen 

no major legislative supply expansion since 1986, but restrictive policies such as border control, 

interior enforcement, and verifying eligibility of workers have changed considerably and are a 

great concern to farmers in New York. Other policies are also relevant: labor standards might 

constrict supply if they contribute to work conditions that make jobs unattractive or expand 

supply by improving conditions. Social programs may make up for low wages or other 

unattractive conditions of work and could feasibly help workers to remain in the industry, or 

sometimes help them find employment outside agriculture. Many policies are specific to 

farmworkers or the agricultural industry, including the H-2A temporary guest worker program 

for agriculture as an example of immigration policy, agriculture industry exceptions in the 

                                                           

1 The number increased at a lower rate through 2008 to a total of 4,427 in New York and 99,454 in the U.S. 

vii
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) concerning collective bargaining rights and Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA) concerning wage and hour protections as examples of labor standards, and 

health or education services targeting migrant and seasonal workers as examples of social 

programs. Occupational specificity is just one way that policy exclusions affect the situation of 

workers, as legal status, employer size, and whether a worker migrates, all affect program 

eligibility or applicability of standards. Multiple strands of interconnected policies have 

different goals as well as different coverage, and this complexity becomes even more apparent as 

policy is implemented (see Section IV). 

Findings from in-depth interviews conducted in New York State reveal how labor market 

actors view shortages and surpluses of farm labor. Qualitative findings also suggest how policy 

and labor markets might be connected in practice with a discussion of workforce organization 

and a specific example of links among farmworker housing, policy, and labor supply. 

Because undocumented workers represent an increasing portion of the farm workforce in 

New York, worker supply is partly conditioned by immigration enforcement. In New York, 

employers are increasingly drawing on another policy-influenced supply of workers, foreign 

temporary workers in the H-2A visa program for agriculture, after experiences with immigration 

control by government. Though Jamaican H-2A workers have a long presence in the New York 

apple harvest, Mexican H-2A workers also are present in this industry. While demand for labor 

is influenced by the mix of crops, costs, the degree of mechanization, and other factors, this 

research demonstrates that policy can eventually influence demand as it shapes the type and cost 

of workers available to employers making decisions about their workforces (see Section IV). 

Assessing worker conditions was not a research goal. However, NAWS data show that wages 

have been flat while incomes increased, though well over a third sampled are below the poverty 

viii
level. The share of workers who receive each of several key benefits ranges from about 25% to 

40%. Some participating in qualitative interviews did not provide pay information, but seasonal 

and migrant workers who earned hourly wages typically reported rates from $7.15, just under the 

federal minimum, to around $9 an hour, without overtime pay. Hourly and piece rate pay varies 

by crop and farm. Most were covered by worker’s compensation but had no health insurance. 

This paper also provides a close look at policy on the ground that is useful in thinking 

through the complex nature of government involvement in the farmworker occupation and in 

low-wage work more generally. For example, qualitative interviews show that immigration 

concerns complicate actions of employers and workers, making it more difficult to maintain a 

basic level of labor conditions because of concerns about whether government action to enforce 

labor, housing, occupational safety and other standards will bleed into immigration. 

The paper concludes with points to motivate further discussion. Discussions on labor supply 

at the federal policy level often focus on how to get new workers into the same jobs with little 

emphasis on how to slow down turnover or improve jobs. Farm work in particular is extremely 

difficult physically, and an assumption that many people do not want to do the jobs goes handin-hand with the emphasis on finding new supply. Yet, despite the potential for mechanization 

on the horizon and warnings of shipping agricultural production overseas, all farm jobs are not 

going to disappear, and not all farmworkers can find other jobs even if they are served by 

policies and programs that help them to do so. In addition, some worker advocates point out that 

farmworkers may want to stay in farm work. Thus research and policy should continue 

exploring ways to improve the economic security and basic conditions of work for those who 

stay in farm work while continuing to expand options for those who wish to leave it. At the 

same time, farmers stress that they are in a very difficult industry and feel squeezed by spiraling 

ix
x

input costs, limits on what they can charge buyers, and the precarious immigration status of the 

available workforce. They believe they have no legal workforce that is dependable and that they 

cannot afford much higher wages. As many farms grow, their workforces become larger, 

exacerbating the short-term need for many workers. Consideration of policies should take into 

account such concerns. 
I. Policy and Farm Labor Markets  

A. Introduction

Farmers and industry groups regularly call for policy change to address shortages of farm 

labor. Pointing to a range of factors that shrink the potential farm workforce, these groups seek 

policy action to expand the pool of workers. Claims of worker shortages for farming and other 

low-wage occupations have persisted in the current recession (House Committee on Education 

and Labor, 2008), while many worker advocates argue that shortages are simply a function of 

low wages. Calls for intervention to address one industry’s labor market problem draw attention 

to the role of government, raising questions about other policies that relate to supply and affect 

workers and how these might be important in local labor markets. 

While a policy solution sometimes advanced for medium- and high-skilled shortages is to 

fund training, for low-wage jobs requiring limited education employers often seek immigration 

policy change. Farm employer interest groups may blame shortages on immigration policy that 

constricts supply of undocumented workers, while historically immigration policy has also 

expanded supply through programs to legalize agriculture workers or bring in temporary foreign 

workers. Despite these clear supply effects, a broad view that includes more than immigration is 

useful to inform policy conversations about how to achieve good quality farm jobs and meet 

labor needs of employers. Even where there is not a clear supply effect, looking at the state’s 

involvement in an occupation calls for attention to the range of policy affecting it. 

In order to inform discussion about policy options, this paper describes initial results from a 

mixed-method case study focused on the years since the Immigration Reform and Control Act 
(IRCA) in 1986.2

 Drawing from field work in New York State farm areas; interviews with 

policy actors; a review of government records; and data from the National Agricultural Workers 

Survey (NAWS), this study examines the following questions: 

 What policy changes since IRCA, including policies enacted specifically to address 

shortages, might have affected the supply of farmworkers in the U.S.?; and 

 How might these policies play out in labor markets in New York State? 

Policy related to the farm workforce (especially hired seasonal workers) (see Section III) 

includes immigration policy, which has seen no major legislative supply expansion for 

farmworkers since 1986. Labor standards might constrict supply (and influence employer 

demand) if they contribute to work conditions that make jobs unattractive (and hold down costs) 

or expand supply by improving conditions. Social programs may make up for low wages or 

other unattractive conditions of work by meeting basic survival needs and could feasibly help 

workers to remain in the industry, or may help them find employment out of agriculture. Many 

such policies apply only to farmworkers or the agricultural industry, including the H-2A 

temporary guest worker program for agriculture3

 as an example of immigration policy; 

agriculture industry exceptions in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)4 and Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA)5 as examples of labor standards, and health or education services 

targeting migrant and seasonal workers as examples of social programs. These multiple strands 

                                                           

2

 IRCA required employers to verify employee eligibility to work and included other provisions regarding 

unauthorized and temporary nonimmigrant foreign workers in agriculture, as well as provisions barring 

discrimination based on citizenship (Runyan, 2000, Martin, 2009, see Section IIIB). 

3

 Under this program, employers hire short-term foreign contract workers for seasonal agricultural jobs who enter 

the country under nonimmigrant visas called H-2A visas (see Section IIIB). 

4

 The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), often referred to as the Wagner Act, was enacted in 1935 to provide 

guarantees of the ability of workers to bargain collectively with support for majority-rule union elections (Skocpol 

& Finegold, 1990). See also http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/overview/national_labor_relations_act.aspx. 5

 The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 concerns minimum wage levels, allowable hours, child labor, and 

recordkeeping. It contains exemptions for agricultural employers (Runyan, 2000) described in Section IIIC. 

2
of interconnected policies have complex goals. The complexity becomes even more apparent a

policy is implemented (see Section IV). 

s 

The paper concludes with points to motivate further discussion. Supply discussions at the 

federal policy level often focus on how to get new workers into the same jobs with little 

emphasis on how to slow down turnover or improve jobs. Farm work in particular is extremely 

difficult physically, and an assumption that many people do not want to do the jobs goes handin-hand with the emphasis on finding new supply. Despite the potential for mechanization on the 

horizon and warnings of shipping agricultural production overseas, all farm jobs are not going to 

disappear, and not all farmworkers can find other jobs even if they are served by policies and 

programs that help them to do so. In addition, some worker advocates point out that 

farmworkers may want to stay in farm work. Over the long term, the nature of the work takes a 

physical toll on those who do. Thus research and policy should continue exploring ways to 

improve the economic security and basic conditions of work for those who stay in farm work, 

while continuing to expand options for those who wish to leave farm work or become physically 

unable to do it. At the same time, farmers stress that they are in a very difficult industry and feel 

squeezed by spiraling input costs, limits on what they can charge buyers, and the precarious 

immigration status of the available workforce. They believe they have no legal workforce that is 

dependable and that they cannot afford much higher wages. 

Finally, this report provides a close look at policy on the ground that is useful in thinking 

through the complex nature of government involvement in the farmworker occupation and in 

low-wage work more generally. For example, qualitative interviews show that immigration 

policy complicates actions of employers and workers, making it more difficult to maintain a 

basic level of labor conditions because of concerns about whether government action to enforce 

3
labor, housing, occupational safety and other standards will bleed into immigration. Even when 

labor market actors do not associate immigration and other policy goals, employers may be 

frustrated by overlap of enforcement efforts and negative views of the value of regulations. 

B. The Study

This paper begins with an overview of the national farm labor force, then examines the 

policy framework for farm labor markets, and finally considers policy and workforce 

organization at the level of New York State farm labor markets, drawing on the following: 

 Statistics from NAWS show trends in farm labor supply and farm jobs, both for all 

farmworkers in the U.S. and those in fruit and vegetables who do planting, harvesting, and 

post-harvest tasks (a population that corresponds to the qualitative sample). The need for this 

subgroup of workers may be increasing as demand grows for fresh fruit and vegetables, 

particularly labor-intensive organic produce (Kandel, 2008). 

 A review of government and interest group records (i.e., Congressional hearings and press 

releases or policy briefs) and qualitative interviews with policy actors tracks change in 

policies related to the farmworker occupation, especially labor supply. 

 Qualitative interviews with policy actors at the state and federal level and local government 

officials, growers, employers, and employees of organizations providing services to 

farmworkers in New York State provides information about how employers organize the 

workforce and how policy plays out at the local level. Complementary information from 

secondary sources includes statistics from the New York State and U.S. Departments of 

Labor on the H-2A worker population. 

New York is an appropriate choice for this study because of the size of its farm sector and the 

few studies focusing on farmworkers there. In 2000, it was one of five states accounting for over 

half of all farmworkers, with 4% of the total in the U.S. (Runyan, 2003). Though the state’s 

share of the H-2A agricultural guestworkers in the U.S. each year has fallen from close to a tenth 

to under 5%,6

 there is a longstanding presence of guestworkers in the State’s apple industry. 

                                                           

6

 In 1997, 9% of H-2A workers were in New York (Effland and Runyan 1998, 21); current statistics show 4% in the 

state (section IIB). 

4
Field work focused on labor intensive crops New York is a leading producer of: cabbage, 

onions, and apples.7

 Policy debate often concerns workers whose tasks are difficult to 

mechanize. Experts indicate the importance of a short growing season and the large quantity of 

fresh produce supplied to the New York City market for the state’s industry and its labor needs. 

In all 13 employers or supervisors, 23 policy actors, experts, or service and advocacy 

organization staff, and several groups of workers (a total of 58) were interviewed (see Table 1; 

all tables are in the Appendix). 

The sample for growers included a balance of H-2A and non-H-2A employers running fairly 

large operations in two regions (the lower Hudson Valley and Finger Lakes areas) identified 

through publicly available farm lists. Apple growers were in two high-producing counties 

(Ulster and Wayne) in the two regions, and vegetable growers were in Orange County (Hudson 

Valley) or one of several counties in the Finger Lakes region including Genesee, Monroe, 

Orleans, and Wayne. Orange and some Great Lakes basin counties have black dirt or muck areas 

of rich former swampland ideal for vegetable growing. Orange County is a center of onion 

production, which despite partial mechanization requires large numbers of workers for tasks such 

as planting and packing. The farms and acres devoted to onions there have declined because of 

competition and other factors diminishing profits, and onion farmers have diversified to grow 

multiple vegetables, which increases labor needs. Interview participants in the Hudson Valley 

report that the trend of consumer preference for locally-grown vegetables has helped business. 

Workers were identified through organizations providing services to farmworkers and worker 

advocates and frequently met in housing provided by employers or farm labor contractors. Most 

worked in the focus crops mentioned aside from a few in packing or corn production. 

                                                           

7 According to an extension expert, cabbage farmers are particularly concerned about shortages, while advocates 

suggested speaking to onion workers, although onions are partially mechanized on many farms. 

5
C. Labor Shortages and Calls for Policy Change

Many observers have noted frequent claims growers have made in the policy arena that they 

could not find labor to harvest crops, that shortages would drive them to leave crops rotting or 

drive production out of the country, and that government must intervene to assure a labor flow 

because of the importance of the industry. Arguing that the H-2A program is not workable, 

grower interest groups have lobbied government to create new guestworker programs, change 

the process of Department of Labor certification of an application for H-2A workers8 or other 

requirements for the existing H-2A program, and create industry-specific provisions for 

legalizing supply. Though social policy revision has not been part of their agenda, growers or 

their representatives have also said government benefits constrict supply. Such policy 

conversations call attention to the role of government in labor supply and provide context for the 

remaining discussion of policy and the farmworker occupation. 

Not all causes of labor shortage growers identify are linked to policy demands. In 

Congressional hearings, news quotes, and interviews for this study, growers describe the 

seasonality and difficulty of farm work, available workers’ inappropriateness or unwillingness to 

take farm jobs, tight labor markets, and the aspirations, socio-economic success, or work ethic of 

“American” workers. Calls to address farmworker supply problems have been most insistent 

when policy actors anticipate implementation of immigration policy (such as IRCA in 1986) or 

seek to influence legislation being formulated, including the Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA, 1996),9

 policy changes following September 11, 2001, 

and proposed legislation called The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act 

                                                           

8

 Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Department of Homeland Security may allow employers to 

bring in foreign agricultural workers to do temporary or seasonal work if the Department of Labor certifies that a 

lack of sufficient workers is available in the right time and place and that employment of the foreign worker “...will 

not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.” See 

Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 29. February 12, 2010, p. 6884. 9

 IIRIRA or P.L. 104-288 was intended to control illegal immigration. See Section IIIA. 

6
(AgJOBS).10 This statement of an American Farm Bureau representative exemplifies such 

arguments: 

Through expanded border interdiction efforts, broadened enforcement of the laws related to the 

hiring of undocumented aliens, and phase-in of a telephonic employment verification system H.R. 

2202 will affect the availability of an adequate future labor supply for agriculture.... While 

NCAE [National Council of Agricultural Employers] and AFBF [American Farm Bureau 

Federation] support the purposes, if not all of the means to achieving these immigration control 

initiatives, responsible public policy dictates that they be adopted in conjunction with 

amendments that will balance their impact on the agricultural labor supply by providing an 

effective temporary and seasonal alien agricultural worker program" (House Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration, 1995, p. 80). 

Labor shortages have been a key argument made in the past few years by those seeking 

passage of the AgJOBS bill in Congress, which provides for changes to the H-2A program 

and a path to legalization for undocumented farmworkers (Martin, 2009). In 2007, The New 

York Times reported that because of shortages in “states like California, Michigan, and North 

Carolina,” support had “re-emerged” for an “agricultural bill” (Preston, 2007). 

Requests to change policy that are linked to concerns about labor shortages relate to a basic 

effect on supply: expansion through immigration policy. However, there are additional roles of 

government in labor supply embodied in labor standards and social policy (see section IIIC), 

some references to which appear in policy discussion. Worker advocates have argued that poor 

conditions in farm work fail to attract adequate workers and that growers could raise wages to 

increase supply. They also may now agree that there is a shortage of documented workers while 

continuing to point to poor work conditions. Exclusions in labor standards law with regard to 

agriculture, which for example exempt employers from paying overtime and exempt small 

farmers from certain requirements, might constrict supply by lowering wages while also 

maintaining demand for workers. Policy actors have discussed social programs in the context of 

supply as a secondary topic or background commentary. In the following quote, a grower 

                                                           

10 This bill would change the H-2A program and provide a path to legalization for some undocumented 

farmworkers. 

7
representative said children of farmworkers would not likely want to enter farm work, adding a 

reference to social programs for migrant workers: 

And I have to raise the question, given the billions of federal dollars we have spent in this country 

over the past several decades trying to settle people out of the migrant stream, whether this is the 

policy we really want to pursue in this country (House Judiciary Committee, 1995, p 85). 

At the same hearing a Congressman pointed out that former welfare recipients might 

enter farm work following welfare reform (then on the horizon) because they would have so 

few options. Publicly and privately, farmers often state that means-tested social policy 

programs create an opportunity for workers to refuse undesirable work. These programs are 

largely unavailable to undocumented immigrants. 

II. The Farm Labor Force

This section provides an overview of basic trends in the farm workforce in the U.S. and 

estimates of the size of the H-2A workforce. Data from the National Agricultural Workers 

Survey (NAWS) from 1989-2006 show that the concentration of Mexican and undocumented 

workers increased over time but leveled off after 2000. The percentage of non-migrant workers 

has grown since the late 1990s but more slowly since 2000. Real wages in 2006 were 

approximately at the same level as in 1989, and under half the NAWS sample received most 

benefits, including insurance, free housing, worker’s compensation, and unemployment 

insurance, at most points in time, although coverage levels were higher generally in the East 

region. Government statistics (in section IIB) show that the number of workers certified to enter 

the U.S. and in New York on H-2A temporary worker visas has increased sharply since FY 

2006. From FY 2007 to FY 2008, there was a 25% increase in the number of foreign workers 

the state reported at harvest time. 

8
A. NAWS data: Trends in the Non­H­2A Workforce

Many large surveys undersample farmworkers and undocumented workers. The NAWS, a 

representative survey that has been conducted several times a year since 1989 by the U.S. 

Department of Labor (DOL), is better able to reach seasonal and undocumented workers (U.S. 

DOL, 2005).

11 This section reviews trends in the U.S. and the East region (16 states with New 

York)12 for which data were calculated in groups of two or four years.13 

1. Workforce Composition

Since 1989 the composition of the U.S. farm workforce has changed in several ways. The 

share of Mexican-born workers increased sharply from 1989 until 2000 and then leveled off 

(Figure 1; all figures are in the Appendix). In the East, the share of Mexican-born workers in 

2005-06 was far lower than in the U.S. as a whole (52% vs. 74% in the U.S.), while the 

proportion of U.S.-born workers was higher (34% in the East vs. 22% in the U.S.). Central 

American and Puerto Rican workers comprised 8.4% and 4% of the total in the East. Workers 

classified as Black/African-American accounted for only 3.75% of workers in the U.S. in 2005-

06, but in the East their presence increased over time to 11.58%, in 2005-06, vs. 3%, in 1989-90. 

This was not reflected in qualitative interviews with New York growers (see Section IVB), but 

some service agency staff reported contact with African American farmworkers. Over-time data 

on legal status (Figure 2) for workers in the U.S also show a leveling off after 2000 of the sharp 

                                                           

11 The NAWS sampling procedure entails identifying 80 clusters within 12 regions aggregated from 17 USDA 

regions and drawing a random sample of employers based on public administration records (unemployment, 

pesticide registrations, and others). Researchers speak to employers to gain access and ask a random sample of 

workers to participate, who are then interviewed in a place of their choosing such as their home. 12 States include North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 

13Combining years is recommended for regional analysis given the small sample size, which in the East annually 

ranges from 149 to 478 and was 176 in 2006 (Dept. of Labor. NAWS Public Access Data: Fiscal Years 1986-2006. 

Retrieved Dec. 7, 2009, from http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/pdf/documentation/NAWS_Public_Access_Data.pdf. 

9
increase in the proportion of unauthorized workers. In the East, the percentage of unauthorized 

workers was 11% in 1989-92, peaked at over 60% in 1993-96 and fell to 47% in 2005-06. 

NAWS data provide information on whether workers follow the crops (FTC), are “nonmigrants” (or “settled”), shuttle (or move between two locations within or outside the U.S.14). 

Figures 3a and 3b show that the proportion of settled workers has increased since 1997-2000 

nationally and very sharply since 1993-96 in the East, while that of migrants has declined since 

the 1990s. In 2005-06, 29% reported being in the shuttle category, and FTC workers represented 

under 10% (overall and in the East). The proportion of FTC workers has been highest over time 

in vegetables, where they accounted for around a fifth of workers until 2001 and 15% in 2005-

06. Vegetable workers were also more likely than those reporting work on other crops to be 

employed by a farm labor contractor (24.7%), followed by fruit/nut workers (22.72%), a figure 

well below 10% in other categories. The proportion of unauthorized, Mexican-born, and migrant 

workers is higher among those who worked in fruits or vegetables doing harvest, pre-harvest, 

and post-harvest tasks (see Table 2).15 

2. Wages, Income, and Benefits

Figure 4 shows the change in average hourly wage, which NAWS calculates using 

information about different types of pay workers report (i.e., piecerate,16 salary, or hourly rate). 

Real wages (based on 2006 dollars) were about the same in 2005-06 ($8.22 an hour) as in 1989-

90 ($8.25) after a low of $7.16 in 1996. Real income rose over time (see Figure 5). Pena (2009) 

                                                           

14 Workers who follow crops move from harvest to harvest and work in multiple locations each year. International 

shuttlers move between the U.S. and a home country where they spend over 28 days. Workers may also shuttle 

between home bases within the U.S. that are 75 miles apart. 15 The category of pre-harvest for this study is defined as “hoeing, thinning, and transplanting” and post-harvest as 

“field packing, sorting, and grading” (Department of Labor, 2005, 32-33). One problem with task breakdowns is that 

the portion categorized as doing “other” tasks rose sharply after 1997-98 to 29%. In 2005-06 22% of workers 

reported they were harvesting, a fifth reported pre-harvest work, and under 15% post-harvest work. Definitions of 

skilled and semi-skilled are unclear, but skilled production tasks include work such as irrigating fields. 

16 Piecerate pay is productivity based (Pena, 2009), i.e., pay per output unit such as the bushel, bin, or box picked. 

10
has found that workers earning piece rate rather than hourly wages may be more vulnerable to 

poverty. The NAWS data show little change over time in the proportion earning different types 

of pay. Generally around a quarter of the sample earned piece rate, about three-quarters were 

hourly-paid, and under 5% reported earning a combination. 

Real wages for U.S.-born, men, and authorized workers were significantly higher in 2005-06 

(Table 3) than those for Mexican-born, women, and unauthorized workers. For Mexican- and 

U.S.-born workers the trend was similar, but beginning in 1999, wages were higher for U.S.-born 

workers.17 Wages of Mexican-born workers and women both declined after 2004. The wage 

gap between authorized and unauthorized workers grew over time. In 2006, unauthorized 

workers earned an average of $7.35 an hour, Mexican-born workers $7.84, and women $7.49. 

Real income levels (see Figure 5) rose for all groups, but with similar disparities so that men 

earned more than women, authorized earned more than unauthorized workers, and workers in 

other tasks earned more than those involved in harvest work (“task 2”). Compared to the full 

sample, hourly wages of workers in pre-harvest work were significantly lower ($7.77) and of 

harvest workers considerably higher ($8.52). However, income levels for harvest workers were 

lower than for the full sample ($12,986 vs. $16,850). Griffith (2007) points out that workers 

may earn high pay per hour but low seasonal or annual incomes because of “forced idleness” 

(75) from factors such as weather, and harvest workers may be employed a short time during the 

year. One reason for income increases despite flat wages may be that workers are doing more 

farm work, at least for those in more labor-intensive tasks in fruits and vegetables (see Table 4). 

Workers who received or were covered by several employer- and government-provided 

benefits ranged from 20% to 50% of the sample. Just over a quarter of workers surveyed (27%) 

had health insurance in 2005-06. Under a fifth (17%) reported their employer provides free 

                                                           

17 Not including those born in Puerto Rico. 

11
housing (see Section IVD). The proportion who reported they were eligible for worker’s 

compensation was consistently above 40% after 1999 (compared to under a fourth in 1989-90).18 

Unemployment insurance (UI) coverage was 40% in 2005-06,19 and 20% reported they had 

received UI. 

B. H­2A program

Several indicators point to a sharp increase in the number of H-2A workers in recent years. 

State Department records show that the number of H-2A visas issued approximately doubled 

from about 30,000 to about 60,000 since Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 but dropped in 2009 (Figure 

6).20 Mexican workers accounted for an important part of this shift. 

Both the U.S. and New York State DOLs keep records of foreign workers. U.S. statistics 

from employer applications to be certified for the H-2A program are available publicly from FY 

2006 to 2009. Around 4% of workers in approved applications during these years were approved 

to work in New York. State records show that 4,619 workers were certified to work in New 

York for FY 2009 (vs. 4,427 according to U.S. records; see Table 5).21 Typically, more workers 

are certified than arrive. State records indicate that the number of foreign workers employed at 

the season peak in September increased from 2100 in FY 2006 to 2900 in FY 2008 (Figure 7). 

An often-quoted figure is that H-2A workers comprise just 2% of all farmworkers, but it has 

been noted that for specific subsectors the share is much higher. Farmers of crops with 

predictable harvests, such as citrus, may be more likely to employ H-2A workers (Gilbert, 2005). 

In some states tobacco, apple, peach, tomato, onion, squash, and grain growers are significant 

users of the program (Levine, 2009). Uncertainty about the total number of farmworkers makes 

                                                           

18 Survey question: If you are injured AT WORK or get sick as a result of your work, do you get any payment while 

you are recuperating (i.e., workers compensation)? 

19 i.e., workers who reported they were covered by unemployment insurance if they lost their job. 

20 Data available at: http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_4582.html. Retrieved January 26, 2010 21 The same employer may file several orders, and more workers may be certified than enter the U.S. to work. 

12
it more difficult to assess H-2A’s importance for labor markets. For example, a U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) report placed the number of hired farmworkers between 1 and 2.5 

million for 2006 and the proportion of H-2A workers that year at below 3% (Kandel, 2008). 

A very rough comparison of this figure with U.S. DOL FY 2007 statistics and New York 

records produces a much higher percentage. The USDA census reported 59,683 hired 

farmworkers in New York in calendar year 200722 of whom 35,690 worked under 150 days and 

are considered migrant workers (Hamilton 2010). The number of workers certified for New 

York according to the U.S. DOL (generally higher than the number who arrive) is 11% of the 

calendar-year census count of seasonal workers. New York State data indicate that “foreign” 

workers in peak season in September (see Figure 7) account for 22% of the total number of hired 

seasonal agricultural workers and 27% for 2008. Among apple workers in 2008 this share was 

over 40%.23 Yet the likelihood that seasonal workers are undercounted in state data means this 

number may be higher than the reality. In fact, Heppel and Amendola noted in 1992 that the 

numbers of farmworkers collected by State Departments of Labor tend to be low. 

III. Policy and the Farmworker Occupation

Public policy and other factors, such as economic cycles, economic and political 

conditions in sending countries, cross-national policy such as trade agreements, and the 

attacks of September 11, 2001, affect farmworker supply. For example, a good economy 

may draw many farmworkers to sectors such as construction; with regard to Mexican 

immigrants, both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and IRCA in 1986 

temporarily interrupted a decreasing trend of migration from Mexico to work on U.S. farms 

                                                           

22 This includes paid family members but not contract workers. 23 The number of seasonal workers is based on estimates of Department of Labor staff based in farm areas. 

13
(Boucher and Taylor, 2007), and the devaluation of the peso in Mexico contributed to an 

increase in migration to the U.S.(“California Growers,” 1995). 

Grower interest groups see immigration policy as key to maintaining supply. 

Immigration policy has expanded supply with policies legalizing workers who could show or 

attest they had worked in agriculture (1986) and programs to bring in short-term foreign 

contract workers (through H-2A visas, previously H-2 visas). At the same time immigration 

policy, including requirements to verify the legal status of workers, interior enforcement, and 

control of entry at the border, can restrict supply. Ineffective implementation may weaken 

the impact of restrictive policies or result in an even greater increase in labor supply, and this 

supply effect like others could indirectly affect work conditions. In recent years, as 

immigration control has grown, use of H-2A programs has also. 

Yet the role of policy in farm labor markets encompasses far more than immigration 

policy. Various government efforts over time have helped match workers to employers. 

Social programs and labor standards both contribute and respond to work conditions of 

farmworkers. Policy governing the ability of workers to bargain collectively, the level of 

enforcement of workplace standards, and the presence or absence of government-supported 

legal services also affect working conditions (Bernhardt, Boushey, Dresser, & Tilly, 2008). 

This section provides historical background and reviews changes in such policies since 1986. 

A. Controlling Illegal Immigration

Individual farmers may express fear of repercussions of hiring undocumented workers, but 

they and their interest groups acknowledge that a significant portion of the workforce generally 

is undocumented (Gilbert, 2005) while often stressing that they check documents for all workers 

they hire. Calls for government response to farm labor shortages often emerge in reaction to 

14
change in policy controlling entry or hiring of undocumented workers (e.g., border security, 

interior enforcement, and mechanisms for establishing that workers are legally eligible for 

employment). This section describes some of the numerous legislative and executive actions in 

this area since 1986. Policy expanding farmworker supply through immigration changed little 

until regulatory revisions of the H-2A program (see Section B below). 

1. Border Patrol and Interior Enforcement

The impetus for major immigration laws in 1986 (IRCA), 1990 (the Immigration Act)24 and 

1996 (the IIRIRA) emerged from the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy 

(Tichenor, 2002 and Zolberg, 2006). In its 1981 report, the Commission identified illegal 

immigration as a problem to be addressed first, while embracing the idea of expanded legal 

immigration as beneficial for the country (Tichenor, 2002). Step one was taken with IRCA in 

1986, which expanded farm labor supply (see Section B) but also made employers responsible 

for checking that employees were work-authorized, established sanctions for employers, and 

authorized resources for the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) as part of its goal of controlling illegal 

immigration. The 1990 legislation was expansive but also included some funding for border 

enforcement (Tichenor, 2002). IIRIRA also included enforcement funding, and was partially an 

attempt to address the perceived inability of IRCA to control illegal immigration. IIRIRA also 

denied judicial review for many deportation orders and was followed by an increase in criminal 

deportations in FYs 1998 and 1999 (Johnson, 2003). 

Toward the end of the 1990s and in 2000, a tight labor market fueled interest in alternative 

sources of labor such as guestworker programs (see Section 2), and President Bush discussed the 

                                                           

24 This law amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to among other things set immigration levels, allocate 

visas for family-sponsored immigrants, provide for diversity visas, allocate some employment-based visas (with no 

reference to the H-2A program), create a new naturalization system, and other provisions. See 

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:SN00358:@@@D&summ2=3&. Accessed July 8, 2010. 

15
possibility of a more open border with President Fox of Mexico. These discussions were 

apparently derailed by September 11, 2001, which also created another major impetus for border 

control that would further impact immigration policy. Congressional mandates and government 

reports by the 9/11 Commission and the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (in 

2000 and 2002) directed policy attention and funding to the Northern Border, perhaps in part due 

to concern that terrorists had entered the country through Canada. 

The PATRIOT Act of 200125 authorized tripling the number of Northern Border agents, and 

the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act26 required the assignment of 20% of 

USBP’s annual staff increases to the Northern Border. While the number of agents has grown 

since then, not all targets were met (Nuñez-Neto, 2008). The USBP moved to the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002 and presented a new strategy in 2005 focused 

on terrorism (Bruno, 2009), which emphasized illegal entry and smuggling, crime reduction in 

border communities, and the Northern Border (Nuñez-Neto, 2008). Yet apprehensions on the 

Northern Border declined steadily from 2004 to 2007. In summer, 2007, the Bush 

Administration announced initiatives “to improve border security, work site enforcement, and 

the modernized worker programs” (Sequeira, 2008, p. 8). Apprehensions rose again in 2008.

2. Employee Identification  

Tichenor (2002) identifies the failure to create an employee identification system as a factor 

limiting IRCA’s effectiveness. Today some growers say the absence of a workable system 

makes it harder to hire. Creating such a mechanism has been administratively and politically 

                                                           

25 The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept And Obstruct 

Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act (P.L. 107–56) was designed to control and deter terrorism. Title IV, Subtitle A, 

concerned the Northern Border. Retrieved July 8, 2010, from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf. 26 This act, passed in 2004 and amended in 2006, addressed intelligence and terrorism in a number of ways and 

included provisions related to border security. See http://www.thomas.gov/cgibin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108OEctQT:: 

16
challenging partly because of discrimination and civil rights concerns. For example, the 

Hispanic Caucus raised civil rights objections to identification cards (Tichenor, 2002) proposed 

in debate on the Immigration Act of 1990. Another approach often debated is national registries. 

The current efforts to create a system now called E-Verify27 date from pilot programs 

provided for in IIRIRA in 1996 (Levine, 2007) on a limited basis, which were expanded to all 

states in 2003 and later replaced by a web system (Westat, 2007). 

The Obama Administration is emphasizing E-Verify, but the Bush Administration sought to 

utilize social security numbers as a tool for immigration enforcement. While the U.S. Social 

Security Administration (SSA) letters informing employers that social security numbers they 

submit for workers do not match any in the database were apparently intended to reduce 

unallocated funds, Mehta, Theodore, and Hincapié argued in 2003 that they became “de facto 

immigration enforcement” mechanisms (p. 11) that caused far more dismissals than Immigration 

and Naturalization Service raids, in part because of employer confusion about the letters.28 The 

Bush Administration saw social security numbers as a resource for immigration control.29 Its 

“safe harbor rule” was first proposed by DHS in 2006 to identify procedures employers should 

follow if they received a no-match letter (Levine, 2007) and drew opposition from different 

groups concerned about job loss and burden on employers.30 The AFL-CIO filed suit to block 

the first final rule in 2007 (Levine, 2007). The district court that granted a preliminary injunction 

in fall 2007 noted among other issues that DHS insufficiently justified a change in position that 

                                                           

27 An electronic system to determine whether a prospective employee is eligible for work. 28 In 2002, SSA began sending letters to employers with any unmatched numbers rather than the previous practice of 

sending them to employers with 10 such numbers accounting for over 10% of their payroll, but stopped this practice 

again in 2003. 

29Federal Register, pp. 63843-63867. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-

25544.pdf. Also U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 8 CFR Part 274a [RIN 1653-AA501 ICE 2377-06 DHS 

Docket No. ICEB-2006-0004]. Safe Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter: 

Clarification; Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Retrieved May 8, 2010, from 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ice_no_match_letter_finalrule.pdf. 30 See http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=ICEB-2006-0004. 

17
“a no-match letter may be sufficient, by itself, to put an employer on notice, and thus impart 

constructive knowledge.”31 A new rulemaking process culminated in a final 2008 rule, which 

sought to provide a safe harbor by identifying steps employers could take so government would 

not later take enforcement action but indicated the agency could pursue sanctions for employers 

that knowingly continued to hire.32 In 2009, Secretary Janet Napolitano announced DHS would 

rescind the no-match rule “in favor of the more modern and effective E-Verify system.”33 The 

final rescission was issued in October 2009.34 

A separate policy change will result in the creation of a registry specifically for farmworkers. 

The February 2010 H-2A regulatory changes (see Section B) provided for the registry to 

“improve U.S. worker access to agricultural jobs and help growers find workers from across the 

U.S.” (ETA, 2010). 

B. Immigration Policy to Expand Farmworker Supply

Any immigration policy that expands supply could potentially increase the size of the farm 

labor force. For example, two New York growers reported that they had hired workers admitted 

legally to the country following a devastating hurricane in their home many years ago. However, 

policy specifically designed to create a pool of legal farmworkers has changed little since 1986. 

In that year IRCA, a major immigration law intended to be restrictive in nature, both revised the 

guestworker program and created other two agricultural worker programs (one of which was 

                                                           

31 See Department Of Homeland Security. 8 CFR Part 274a [RIN 1653-AA501 ICE 2377-06 DHS Docket No. 

ICEB-2006-0004 Safe Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter: Clarification; Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, p 5. Retrieved July 12, 2010, from 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ice_no_match_letter_finalrule.pdf on July 12. 32 “DHS outlines specific steps that reasonable employers may take in response to SSA no-match letters, and offers 

employers that follow those steps a safe harbor from ICE'S use of SSA no-match letters in any future enforcement 

action to demonstrate that an employer has knowingly employed unauthorized aliens in violation of section 274A of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1324a..... DHS is authorized by the HSA and the INA to 

investigate and pursue sanctions against employers that knowingly hire or continue to employ unauthorized aliens or 

do not properly verify their employees' employment eligibility” (pp. 11-12). 

33 Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1247063976814.shtm. 34 At http://www.dhs.gov/files/laws/gc_1209062535824.shtm 

18
never implemented). Current pending legislation to revise the guestworker program (AgJOBS) 

has also been linked to major immigration legislation that stalled during the Bush Administration 

and is awaiting action now. This section describes these two policy areas. 

1. Legislation to Legalize Farmworkers

The supply of farm labor was a central concern shaping IRCA (Zolberg, 2006, Tichenor, 

2002, and Martin, 2009). While a key provision of the law was an amnesty for individuals in the 

country illegally for at least five years (Martin, 2009), there was a Special Agricultural Workers 

(SAW) program providing the opportunity to workers who could show agricultural employment 

prior to 1985-86 for 90 days to apply for legal status. A change following fears of a worker 

shortage during the strawberry harvest in Oregon in 1987 allowed workers to come to the U.S. 

border to explain farm work without records, allowing over 100,000 Mexicans to obtain 

authorization to work while preparing SAW applications (Martin, 2009). In total, under SAW, 

750,000 Mexican men, 135,000 Mexican women, and 200,000 from other countries, or 1.1. 

million total, became legal U.S. immigrants. In response to arguments that these workers would 

leave farm work, Congress included a Replenishment Agricultural Worker (RAW) program in 

IRCA to provide for an additional supply of foreign workers if they were needed in the future. It 

was never used because agencies responsible for invoking the program found no shortage of 

workers to triggers its implementation (Emerson, 2007). 

Proposed legislation called AgJOBS first incorporated a RAW-like program for legal status 

in the 1999-2000 session of Congress (Martin, 2009). The current version, AgJobs 2009, 

provides for blue cards as a two-step path toward legalization. It would create a legal supply 

boost, like IRCA, with a total of 1.35 million cards in a period of five years. Eligibility would be 

based on the ability to demonstrate either a minimum of hours or days of farm work or of 

19
earnings in farm work and then continued work in three to five years after enactment for 100 or 

150 days per year (Bruno, 2009). Card holders also would be allowed to work in other industries 

during this period.35 

AgJOBS is both a standalone bill and has been folded into different proposals for broader 

immigration reform. Such proposals have also included other guestworker and legalization 

possibilities, such as visas explicitly for previously unauthorized workers and other more specific 

guestworker programs. 

2. Guest Worker Programs

The H-2A visa became a program for agricultural workers distinct from the H-2B visa in 

1986 as part of the IRCA (Griffith, 2006), which also streamlined the program (Heppel, 1995). 

Although growers’ organizations have repeatedly called for new guestworker programs or 

changes to ease requirements for employers who use H-2A at least since 1996, the only 

legislative change since IRCA was a minor 1999 revision requiring that applications be 

processed 10 days before the date of need rather than 20. Regulatory revisions were first 

proposed in 2008, and current new regulations were finalized in February 2010. Like the RAW 

program, the H-2A program is often portrayed as a “safety valve” or a backup plan designed to 

increase the certainty of employers facing supply disruptions. 

The H-2A program inherits some of its framework from World War II-era temporary foreign 

worker programs. An “Emergency Labor Supply Program” was in place until two years after the 

war (Hahamovitch, 1997); under it, the federal government assumed many expenses and 

administrative tasks including bringing in and repatriating workers. The bracero program for 

                                                           

35 Senator Chambliss of Georgia, who has opposed AgJOBS, proposed blue cards in S. 2087 in the 109th Congress 

but did not include an opportunity to change immigration status and required that workers go home after two years, 

while also allowing some to exit and reenter the country daily. 

20
Mexican workers extended well beyond the war until 1964.36 The H-2 program, which involved 

a more limited role than the Emergency Program, was provided for by Public Law 78 of 1951 

and contracts negotiated between the U.S. and individual governments (Hahamovitch 2001). 

Since IRCA, farm interests have advanced proposals to create new agricultural guestworker 

programs with the argument that they were necessary to stabilize the workforce as, or if, border 

control and other enforcement affected supply. These were considered extensively in 

Congressional hearings in the late 1990s and in some cases beyond the hearing stage,37 but 

worker advocates and others were able to defeat them. Growers and workers began negotiating 

in 1999 to move beyond this stalemate, eventually producing a bill to revise H-2A and create a 

two-stage legalization process. In later iterations the legislation expanded to address concerns of 

western growers regarding certification, housing requirements, and wages (Martin, 2009). The 

current version of (AgJOBS 2009) would ease the process of demonstrating need for foreign 

workers, freeze wage levels and change requirements such as housing, and provide a path to 

legalization contingent upon employment in agriculture. 

AgJOBS has backing from some grower38 and worker groups though grower support is 

uneven (Griffith, 2005) partly because labor needs and preferences vary with crop and region, 

and the general difficulty of immigration politics has also stymied the bill. President Obama cosponsored the bill as a Senator.39

                                                           

36 This government program brought in Mexican workers for employment in agriculture and the railroad industry 

from 1942-1964. 

37 An amendment by Rep. Pombo (CA) for a program of up to 250,000 workers, opposed by the Clinton 

Administration, was approved by the House Agriculture Committee in March 1996 (Schmitt, 1996) but defeated in 

the House of Representatives (Gilbert, 2005). 

38 As of May 2010, farmer interests supporting AgJOBS include the U.S. Apple Association, whose members are 

longtime users of the H-2A program, the National Council of Agricultural Employers, and important state-level 

organizations such as the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association. The American Farm Bureau has not endorsed it. 

39 See http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00237:@@@P. See also Martin, 2009. 

21
In December 2008, the Bush Administration published final rules revising the H-2A program 

that were effective January 17, 2009.

40 These joint DHS and DOL regulations replaced the 

process of certification (in which the DOL certifies that insufficient workers are available and 

U.S. workers will not be adversely affected by foreign workers) with a requirement that 

employers attest compliance with program requirements and submit a preliminary recruitment 

report. The rules also changed the calculation of the Adverse Effect Wage Rate that must be 

paid to H-2A workers, requiring the use of the DOL Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational 

Employment Survey rather than USDA data, with the goal of setting the wage at the “prevailing 

wage rate”, and diminished the role of State Workforce Agencies in the process (Bruno, 2009). 

In addition the regulations changed some requirements intended to prevent the program from 

adversely affecting U.S. workers and at the same time enhanced enforcement. 

The Obama Administration suspended these rules shortly after taking office, but after a 

grower lawsuit, a court ordered that they remain in place for the harvest. The Obama 

Administration initiated a new rulemaking process that led to final regulations replacing the 2009 

version, effective in March 2010, which in some respects return to those rules issued by the 

Reagan Administration in 1987 after H-2A was created. The 2010 rule also retained some 2008 

provisions for expanded enforcement, broadened related authority of DOL’s Wage and Hour 

Division, and restored or enhanced language intended to avoid adverse effects of the program on 

U.S. workers. The table below compares the 2010 rule, the 2009 rule, and AgJobs in terms of 

some areas of past disagreement over the program, which include wages, employer attestation vs. 

certification of applications, housing, and occupations or industry subsectors covered. 

                                                           

40 See Federal Register, Tuesday, March 17, 2009. Vol. 74, No. 50. Proposed Rules 11408.

22
Overview of H­2A Regulations and AgJOBS Legislation41

Wages: 

 2008 regulations 

use Occupational 

Employment 

Statistics as basis 

for wage rates, 

lowering wages; 

1987 and 2010 use 

the USDA Farm 

Labor Survey. 

 AgJOBS would 

continue using the 

AEWR but freeze 

the wage for 3 

years. 

Mechanisms for approval of 

job orders: 

 2008 regulations replaced 

certification of H-2A job 

orders based on a 

demonstrated inability to 

find workers with 

attestation procedure with 

fewer requirements and 

diminished the role of State 

Workforce Agencies 

(SWA); the 2010 final 

regulation returns to 

certification and an SWA 

role and creates a registry 

of workers. 

 AgJOBS 2009 replaces 

certification with an 

attestation requirement to 

describe jobs and make 

“specified labor 

assurances” that differ for 

jobs covered and not 

covered by collective 

bargaining agreements. 

Housing: 

 Inspection of housing 

prior to issuance of 

certification is required 

under 1987 and 2010 

regulations but not 2008. 

The 2010 rule clarifies 

that workers in 

comparable employment 

receive housing.42

 AgJOBS would permit 

employers to provide 

allowances for housing 

only, if the state governor 

certifies availability of 

housing. 

Coverage of Program 

 No cap in program under 

any regulations or the 

AgJOBS proposal (past 

legislative proposals for 

new agricultural 

guestworker programs 

specified numbers of 

workers) 

 Changes in job 

categories: 2008 

regulations reclassify 

logging from H-2B to H2A. The 2010 final rule 

maintains the change, but 

dropped a proposal to 

add other forestry-related 

occupations, and 

maintains special 

provisions for 

“sheepherders, custom 

harvesters, and other 

unique agricultural 

occupations.”43

 AgJOBS extends H-2A 

to year-round dairy 

workers. Despite 

comments requesting 

this, 2010 regulations did 

not include dairy. 

C. Policies to Improve Living and Workplace Standards  

Labor standards and social programs both contribute to and mitigate the work conditions and 

poverty of farmworkers. After the exclusion of farmworkers from key labor legislation in the 

1930s, two expansions of labor standards coverage and social programs targeting farmworkers 

were enacted in the 1960s and 1970s. This was an era of national attention to farmworkers: in 

                                                           

41 Information on AgJOBS from (Bruno, 2009; Martin, 2009; and Library of Congress (http://www.thomas.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02414:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/111search.html|). Information on regulations from ETA. 42 “In addition, the NPRM proposed to clarify that the employer’s obligation to provide housing extends both to H–

2A workers and to workers in corresponding employment who are not reasonably able to return to their residence 

within the same day.” 

43 Employment and Training Administration (March 2010) “Frequently Asked Questions.” Office of Foreign Labor 

Certification. On history see ETA Field Memorandum No. 24-01, August 1, 2001. “Special Procedures: Labor 

Certification for Sheepherders and Goatherders under the H-2A Program.” 

23
1960 the television documentary “The Harvest of Shame” focused on their plight, and the War 

on Poverty, beginning in 1964, coincided with rising concern about this group (Martin, 2009) 

and with the end of the bracero program. Since 1986, little has changed in federal law in this 

area with regard to farmworkers. 

The question of how labor standards and social programs might affect labor supply becomes 

extremely complicated in the case of farmworkers because their coverage or exclusion from 

them is so complicated, varying by occupation, immigrant status, and employer size, among 

other criteria (Ontiveros, 2007).44 Coverage differences according to jobs mean one farm 

subsector or even the same task (e.g., packing as described in the next section) may or may not 

be entitled to overtime (Schell, 2002). In addition, H-2A workers are covered by a different set 

of requirements including a higher wage, but others doing comparable employment on a farm in 

many cases must receive the same benefits as the H-2A workers. This creates a motivation to 

maintain separate workforces. Undocumented farmworkers face a double barrier, as neither the 

occupation nor the immigration status has protection. Both the NLRA’s exclusion of agricultural 

workers and the Supreme Court’s Hoffman decision in 2002 (Ontiveros, 2007) related to the 

ability of undocumented workers to organize limit the ability of farmworkers to bargain 

collectively unless state law provides bargaining rights.45 These complexities mean workers on 

the same farm could potentially face very different outcomes because of the policy framework 

affecting them. 

Many federal social programs target only workers who migrate, thus leaving out the growing 

group of settled farmworkers. Different farmworker programs have different eligibility rules, 

                                                           

44 See Ontiveros (2007) for categories of exclusions under labor law especially applying to immigrant women. 45 In 2002, the Hoffman Plastics, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (533 U.S. 137) decision by the Supreme 

Court upheld illegal firing of workers who tried to form a union because of undocumented status because providing 

back pay would “trench on” immigration laws. 

24
some related to immigration status and some due to their inability to meet the needs of the full 

target population (Martin, 2009). Many farmworkers are also excluded from federal meanstested poverty-alleviation programs that restrict immigrant access (though states have some 

discretion). There has also been in at least one case government action to prevent farmworkers 

from being excluded from other programs and to ensure assistance to them: in 1974, a court 

order required the establishment of a “Monitor Advocate” function in the U.S. DOL and a 

requirement that the Department provide “equitable services, benefits, and protection” to 

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers (MSFWs) following complaints against the Rural Manpower 

Service and U.S. Employment Service.46 This followed longstanding tension over the Labor 

Department’s role in the allocation of farm labor that still exists today in relation to the 

Department’s role in the H-2A program. 

The different ways these programs and requirements apply to different groups, and the finite 

funding and reach for programs and standards enforcement, affect which workers are able to 

continue in farm work despite the low annual incomes and flat wages most earn, which are able 

to find alternative employment, and which cost employers more. This section describes these 

policies and suggests how they might relate to supply and demand. 

1. Labor Standards

Many worker advocates argue that better working conditions would increase worker supply, 

which might imply that more stringent labor standards would do so. To the extent it saves labor 

costs, a separate set of standards for farmworkers might raise demand for workers. In fact, 

growers argue that if such exclusions are removed or changed, for example, through the 

extension of overtime pay being considered in the New York State legislature, demand for 

                                                           

46 “History of MSFW Program.” Retrieved June 14, 2010, from 

http://jfs.ohio.gov/Agriculture/HISTORYOFMSFWPRORAM.PDF. 

25
workers will decrease because labor will become unaffordable. Historically, labor standards 

exclusions have operated to produce supply as well:47 for example, the farmworker exemption 

from child labor restrictions in 1938 allowed children to continue working in agriculture. 

One issue mentioned on occasion in two decades of policy discussion of farm labor supply is 

that unauthorized workers are a readily exploitable population, who will work for substandard 

wages and, therefore, may drive down wages and conditions in a labor sector. Less often, 

mention is made of the importance of enforcing labor standards to prevent that from happening. 

a. Federal

Farm and domestic workers were excluded from major legislation enacted in the 1930s to 

provide bargaining rights, child labor law protection, and wage and hour requirements as part of 

a compromise with Southern lawmakers (Domhoff, 1990). Standards applying to farmworkers 

have been added in a piecemeal fashion over the years yet remain quite different than those for 

other workers. 

Farmworkers are excluded from rights to organize and bargain collectively that are protected 

in the NLRA of 1935 (Wiggins, 2009), but California and a few other states have extended such 

rights to farmworkers. Farmworkers’ exemption from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime 

requirements in 1938 to some has set the tone for its exceptional status under the law since 

(Wedemeyer, 2007). Subsequent legislation in 1966 included farmworkers in minimum wage 

protections (but not overtime) with a lower rate than other workers; in 1977, the federal 

minimum wage was guaranteed for workers at larger farms (Schell, 2002). 

Despite these expansions, many smaller farms are exempt from a number of standards in the 

law (Schell, 2002). Farmworkers generally still do not receive overtime pay, though overtime 

                                                           

47 As pointed out by a longtime worker advocate interviewed for this report. 

26
coverage is applicable for certain industry and occupation descriptions. For example, for 

packing and processing workers, it depends on whether the entity packs only the owner’s 

commodities (agriculture labor and thus not covered) or packs produce from other farmers as 

well (nonagricultural labor and covered) (Schell, 2002); similarly, the former category is covered 

under H-2A and the latter in the H-2B program for nonagricultural seasonal workers. Workers 

may receive piece rates, but wages are not intended to fall below the minimum wage when they 

are paid in this manner. Child labor laws for agriculture differ from those in other industries 

under rules added in 1966 after passage of child labor laws in 1938. For certain types of work 

outside school hours under certain conditions (i.e., working with parents or applying for waivers) 

children are permitted to work at younger ages than in other industries and to perform hazardous 

tasks over the age of 16 (Schell, 2002).48

A 1978 amendment to the Social Security Act included farmworkers in unemployment 

compensation, with coverage exemptions based on size and period of hire (Schell, 2002). Other 

legislation has addressed the conditions of farm work separately. In 1963, the Farm Labor 

Contractor Registration Act responded to awareness that contractors were often associated with 

poor conditions. In 1983, the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) 

replaced this law and extended obligations to growers by designating most workers as employees 

rather than independent contractors and growers as joint employers with farm labor contractors 

(Wiggins, 2009). The MSPA required minimum standards for housing, employment, and 

transportation. It maintained contractor requirements in the Farm Labor Contractor Registration 

Act and required employers to verify that contractors are registered. 

                                                           

48 The Children's Act for Responsible Employment of 2009 has been introduced to expand restrictions against hiring 

children in agriculture. See http://www.thomas.gov/cgibin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdsjTg:@@@D&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php|. Retrieved July 8, 2010. 

27
Executive policy changes since 1986 affecting farmworkers (Wiggins, 2009) include a 1987 

requirement by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that employers of 11 

farmworkers or more provide drinking water and toilet and hand-washing facilities, which 

followed over a decade of federal litigation over the absence of standards for most agriculture 

jobs following the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. With regard to pesticide 

exposure, a common hazard for farm work, the Field Sanitation Standard of 1987 exempts 

workers on small farms. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revised the Worker 

Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides in 1992.49

b. State

New York has legislated a higher level of protection for farmworkers than most states 

(Schell, 2002). Although fifteen states do not require workers compensation for farmworkers, 

compensation in the case of injury on the job is guaranteed in New York for most farms.50 Farm 

laborers who have worked in the country legally for 20 or more weeks in the prior year are 

eligible for unemployment insurance.51 New York passed legislation in 1998 extending equal 

minimum wage protection to farmworkers and mandating sanitation in the fields52 with a stricter 

requirement than the federal standard (Wiggins, 2009, p. 206). The Farmworker Fair Labor 

Practices Act, which would provide collective bargaining rights and overtime pay, passed the 

State Assembly most recently in June 2009, and is currently pending in the State Senate.53 

                                                           

49 See http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/health/worker.htm. Retrieved July 8, 2010. Wiggins (2009) argues there is no 

system to track exposure. 

50 In New York, workers compensation is for farms with a payroll of $1,200 or more in the calendar year but 

excludes farmers’ spouses and children not under contract. 

http://www.wcb.state.ny.us/content/main/onthejob/CoverageSituations/farms.jsp. Retrieved September 10, 2009. 

Compensation entails “full payment of medical expenses and in many cases partial payment of lost wages.” See 

http://www.farmworkerlegalservices.com/Legal%20Rights%20of%20Farmworkers.pdf. Retrieved July 8, 2010. 51 http://www.farmworkerlegalservices.com/Legal%20Rights%20of%20Farmworkers.pdf. Retrieved July 8, 2010. 52 See http://www.justiceforfarmworkers.org/pages/history.html. Retrieved September 10, 2009. 53 See http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A01867. Retrieved October 3, 2009. 

28
2. Social Programs

In total, federal spending is at least $1 billion annually on programs to help farmworkers and 

their children (Martin, 2009). Programs targeting migrants focus on education including Head 

Start, job training, and health. Eligibility rules differ, and programs serve a small portion of their 

potential target. Federal programs generally target migrants (MSFWs) who have moved certain 

minimum distances within certain time periods. New York State has its own services including a 

farmworker health program begun in the 1980s and a child care program, which is unusual in 

that it serves other eligible farmworkers (such as settled workers) in addition to MSFWs.54 In 

interviews, one respondent who places workers reported that this Agribusiness Child 

Development Program is an attraction for women seeking farm jobs, and housing is another 

benefit that draws people into the occupation. Federal and other government funds support 

farmworker housing and government regulates it both for migrants and H-2A workers (described 

in Section IVD). Training programs such as the National Farmworker Jobs Training Program 

could potentially affect supply in several ways for farmworkers by helping people gain skills 

needed to move out of the industry, by preparing people for skilled jobs within the industry, and 

by providing “supportive services that help farmworkers remain and stabilize their employment 

in agriculture.”55 DOL services may also help workers find employment that bridges the gap 

between seasons among other services. Within the Department, as noted in the introduction to 

this section, the Monitor Advocate’s office has sought to ensure that all such services are 

provided equitably to farmers since the 1970s. 

                                                           

54 See 

http://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1275482791&.rand=547dtvbdf1saq#_pg=showFolder&fi

d=%2540B%2540Bulk&order=down&tt=41&pSize=50&.rand=1058643570&hash=b28d30d83891bc350d4ec3ad71

0d4fc0&.jsrand=3557204

55 ETA (November 2009). National Farmworker Jobs Program Fact Sheet. Retrieved May 26, 2010, from 

http://www.doleta.gov/MSFW/pdf/TwoPager-11-2009.pdf. 

29
One area of social policy change affecting farmworkers is rules about immigrant eligibility. 

This has long been a point of contention. For example, Reagan and his allies worried about 

whether the cost of social programs would rise once undocumented immigrants took the 

opportunity for amnesty and gained citizenship after IRCA. They were particularly interested in 

making sure legalized immigrants were not eligible for welfare too soon (Tichenor, 2002). In 

1996, the IIRIRA and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act cut immigrant 

access to public benefits, but political reactions from immigrant and Latino voters helped to stem 

further federal legislation in this direction and contributed to removal of some restrictions. In 

1997, Supplemental Security Income was restored to many immigrants in the country prior to 

1996, and in 1998, immigrants regained food stamp eligibility. Many states have also chosen to 

provide assistance to immigrants (Tichenor, 2002, p. 287). “Nonimmigrants” under the H-2A 

guest worker visa program are not generally eligible for federal public assistance aside from 

Medicaid emergency services (Bruno, 2009). 

IV. Policy and Local Farm Labor Market Dynamics  

Section III pointed to areas in which policy may be related to farm labor supply and demand. 

This section presents findings from in-depth interviews conducted in New York State on how 

local actors view shortages and surplus of farm labor. Qualitative findings also suggest how 

policy and labor markets might be connected in practice with a discussion of workforce 

organization and an example of links among farmworker housing, policy, and labor supply. 

A. New York’s Shortages and Surplus

A 2008 survey of New York State farms and agricultural representatives found either 

adequate supply or surplus in the state that year but ongoing uncertainty about supply 

because of immigration enforcement and perceived lack of skilled workers (Maloney, Smith, 

30
& Dudley, 2009). The survey report pointed out the availability of unemployed workers 

especially in western New York but questioned their willingness to do farm work and cited 

employer concerns about training these workers. Interviews with employers for this study 

yielded similar findings. In addition, employers emphasized policy constraints on 

documented worker supply, in some cases, a surplus of undocumented labor, and in two 

cases, challenges finding skilled workers. Some employers stressed the perceived 

inadequacies of the unemployed or other local groups some might consider prospective labor. 

Several employers said their workers had papers but they could not be sure the workers all 

are eligible to work, and they spoke of how immigration activities such as raids and audits had 

affected their workforce (see next section). One employer interviewed in fall 2009 cited a period 

when he was worried on a daily basis about where to find labor: “Three, four, five years ago 

there was nobody” but noted that today there are more people looking for workers than he has 

seen in perhaps ten years. Another employer echoed a common theme that labor supplies the 

farm relied on before Mexican workers were the majority of its labor force preferred to be on 

“welfare” or did not want to work. 

Shortage of which? Of farmworkers? Yes. ...Locally we just don’t have the people with 

the skills to harvest, plant. They’re not willing to work the hours ...basically during the 

planting season we start at 7 and work [un]til 8, we plant every day. It probably goes on 

about a month. If it’s not raining we’re planting. If it rains and we start after lunch, we 

start after lunch...people that work every day when there’s work available. .... 

There was some evidence that the recession had drawn workers from other industries, which 

key informants had predicted. One grower reported that during the late-1990s tight economy, a 

worker who typically migrated from Florida stayed there for construction work. Two workers 

had previously been in construction. One did not like the work and was taken advantage of by 

an employer, so he found a year-round farm job. Another worker had held a range of jobs in a 

31
large city, and after being laid off there from a factory came to rural New York because of 

contact with family acquaintances. He reported that many are returning to farm work from other 

jobs. 

Reports of people who seek farm work unsuccessfully were more common from employees 

of service and advocacy organizations who interact with workers. Citing the likelihood that local 

people apply for farm jobs without success, one advocate reported speaking to workers who no 

longer bothered to apply for jobs at farms that hired H-2A workers. A service worker reported 

that in fall 2009 there was a surge of people looking for jobs at the conclusion of the harvest, as 

the work that usually sustained them off-season (for example, in restaurants or retail) was not 

available this year. A different kind of surplus, which some have argued is common to the 

industry, involves waiting. An advocate indicated that a large employer sometimes promised 

work to encourage employees to stay but did not provide it. One worker staying in employer 

housing with no work was more or less stranded because he had recently arrived from Mexico, 

too late in the harvest season, and his colleague stayed in the same employer housing without 

work after an injury in the fields in order to receive care and wages (apparently through workers 

compensation and with the employer’s assistance). Others wait for weather to change to return 

to the fields to earn. At the end of the season, workers wait until they can arrange transportation 

to the next job. 

Yet many farmworkers said people are always able to find farm work, or they had not 

generally had trouble. One person at a service agency said workers return to it because they can 

always get a job. While many workers believed they could return to the same farm for next 

year’s harvest, two first-time workers preparing to depart said that people always come, so their 

32
large employer does not have to worry about finding people year to year. At the conclusion of 

the 2009 harvest, arrangements for many workers were in flux. 

B. The Organization of Farm Workforces

A range of factors shape labor needs and workforce organization, including the mix of crops, 

mechanization level, local worker networks and supply, housing, climate, and employer 

preferences. As shown, policy influences include local variation in immigration policy, practices 

of local government actors involved in extension, immigration, or labor issues, and the overall 

regulatory framework for the occupation. These can shape employer decisions about labor. 

Information about different groups of workers emerged in interviews with employers, 

workers, and staff of organizations that advocate for or provide services to workers. The shifting 

makeup of farmworkers contributes to changes in workforce organization. Farms typically 

employ a handful of year-round or nearly year-round workers and a larger number of seasonal 

workers. The share of migrants in these regions has declined, according to several informants, as 

more settle. However, a key informant who conducts research in the industry suggested the 

imprecision of such categories, as workers do not necessarily know how long they will stay: 

Because of immigration enforcement people who used to go home once or twice a year 

have been here for 6, 8, 10 years .... The whole business of settled or not settled is very 

much upset by immigration enforcement. 

A minority of workers interviewed harvest several crops in several states or follow the crops 

(FTC) along the Eastern Seaboard as many workers did historically. Consistent with NAWS 

data, more workers, especially longer-term farmworkers, move between one New York location 

and another state, often Florida.56 At least one worker had transitioned from FTC status to a 

more settled status but still shuttled between two locations. 

                                                           

56 It is possible that the qualitative sample was skewed toward more stable workers with longer histories in the area 

because these are more likely to be aware of the service organizations through which they were reached. 

33
Most farmers reported that their non-H-2A workers are primarily Mexican or MexicanAmerican. Key informants reported a much smaller number of Guatemalan, Haitian, and Puerto 

Rican workers in the state (and two Guatemalan workers were in the sample). The growing 

employment of H-2A workers in the state includes Jamaican and Mexican workers. Jamaican 

workers have long been a central part of the New York apple harvest (Griffith, 2006), but on two 

farms, Mexican H-2A workers harvested apples. The employment of H-2A workers in 

vegetables and Mexican H-2A workers in apples may be growing. One grower reported H-2A 

workers from other countries over two decades ago. 

In New York the presence of Mexican workers is more recent than in western states. 

Historically African American migrant workers from the south had an important presence in the 

state. For example from World War II until IRCA, most migrant workers in apple production in 

Wayne County were from this group (Heppel & Amendola 1992). Many respondents in this 

study described a similar succession of workers from the 1970s onward, which included this 

earlier presence of African-American migrants, smaller numbers of other immigrant groups such 

as Central Americans or Haitians,57 some hiring of local students who previously worked on 

farms as a matter of local practice (in the 1970s or 1980s for example), to a lesser degree an 

earlier presence of retired people,58 and finally the increasing presence of Mexican workers for at 

least the last twenty years. There was some variation in the list reflecting ad hoc solutions to 

assembling a workforce. For example, one farmer reported hiring hippies when the Vietnam 

War depleted the labor force. Many farmers said that students and retirees could not help them 

much with seasonal work for various reasons, though several mentioned an exception to this 

                                                           

57 Haitians were in the migrant stream from Florida in the 1980s following boat lifts (Heppel & Amendola 1992). 

58 One grower had hired retired or semi-retired coal miners from outside the state. 

34
rule.59 Some tie this to a cultural shift. For instance, one farmer said that local teens who 

occasionally do work for him do not want to tell people they work on the farm, instead saying 

they work in the market, because the presence of migrants means people “do not want to ....be 

stereotyped as farm labor.” Supervisors were often “Anglo” locals and settled Mexicans. 

Although shortages are often associated with the seasonality of labor needs, one farmer 

reported that it was very hard to find full-time workers. Several have one or more highly valued 

long-term employees, some of whom act as liaisons to other labor especially for hiring. 

Employee preferences also affect whether they are attracted to long-term employment or to 

return to the area, though some workers certainly have fewer choices than others. Weather and 

opportunities elsewhere (i.e., in one case, the better quality of English as a Second Language 

instruction for children in Texas) are factors said to be related to some workers’ preferences to 

leave the state part of the year, whereas housing availability might provide a reason to stay for 

others. An expectation of higher wages in New York than Florida drew one seasonal worker. 

The following remark from a vegetable grower is typical in terms of its reference to the 

uncertain status of workers. 

There’s not enough people for all the jobs available. That’s what I would say. There’s always 

times when we could use a few hands but that’s something you just can’t find...We’re kinda lucky 

in one respect, we’ve had a group that’s been pretty reliable, it’s tough because, you know 

they’re afraid, and we’re afraid also. You invest virtually millions of dollars in your crop to 

plant your crop, and one day it could be all over because government could basically come in 

and take all your people. We hire people with all their paperwork and properly documented and 

all that but do we know for sure they’re legal, obviously not. 

This speaker’s experience provides an example of how immigration control policy or local 

variations in its implementation can affect workforce organization. A visit in the mid-90s from 

immigration enforcement agents prevented the farmer from hiring the same workers the 

                                                           

59 A small farmer who was not in the Hudson Valley or the Finger Lakes area, whose harvest is in the summer, hires 

only students, “housewives,” and other local workers. 

35
following year. After one attempt at hiring H-2A went badly (the workers left) the farmer 

resumed hiring workers identified locally, through contacts in other states, or through labor 

contractors. 

Immigration was uppermost in the minds of many interviewed but is a particular subject of 

concern in the Finger Lakes area. Respondents (growers, workers, and others) reported that 

workers in the 2009 harvest season and prior years have often been stopped while driving or 

around places of business and detained or deported as in the case of a farmer who reported losing 

some crops after 12 workers were deported. 60 One reason for this is the location of the Finger 

Lakes area within 100 miles of the border, where the USBP has expanded authority. Almost all 

workers in the Finger Lakes (but not the Hudson Valley) area knew one or several people who 

have been detained. However it is not always clear when speaking to growers or workers which 

agency stops immigrants, and the way local law enforcement handles encounters with 

immigrants varies. In the Hudson Valley, two farmers mentioned raids or audits over five years 

ago. 

Immigration and other exogenous and policy factors influence the choices of growers as they 

cobble together different strategies to assure a labor force. For example, two farmers reported 

hiring a group of employees one year who were granted legal status after a hurricane in their 

home country. One of the farmers has employed Puerto Rican workers for years who return 

home off-season. The presence of Guatemalan workers in New York is a legacy of political 

turmoil in Central America. The economy and enhanced difficulty crossing the border also 

influence worker availability. Finally, there is even some legacy of the SAW program evidenced 

by the presence of a worker legalized through it in the Hudson Valley. 

                                                           

60 Some local papers also reported raids or arrests in 2006 and 2007. 

36
C. The Incorporation of the H­2A Program into Workforces

Use of the H-2A program and opinions about its value varied among farmers interviewed, 

though all but one who used it (and several who did not) said it was cumbersome or expensive. 

Extension and farm experts in one area said the profit margin on some vegetable crops was too 

low for farmers to be able afford to hire H-2A workers. In fact very few farmers use the H-2A 

program in Orange County, a center of onion growing. 

Yet farmers and other experts did report an increase in the use of the H-2A program because 

of immigration enforcement. Several farmers interviewed had recently joined it. One cited 

extreme difficulty finding workers during the strong economy of a few years ago as the reason he 

and others in his area first used the program; he also said the work ethic of employees had 

suffered in the slack economy. One farmer who never had used the program took the step of 

completing the paperwork for 2009 but withdrew it. Most farmers employed migrants or settled 

workers (likely including many undocumented workers) either with H-2A or to compose an 

entire workforce. The importance of immigration enforcement in the Finger Lakes region for 

employer decisions is indicated in this quote from a farmer new to H-2A. 

We’ve had a lot of immigration raids and had our help deported so we can no longer take the risk 

that the walk-in help will be adequate for our needs. Last year they took 12 people and they 

stopped our .....harvest for about a week and we never got done. ....that was about a $250,000 

dollar loss. ....I feel we have no choice to get part of our workforce secured. 

While immigration or the economy may be the impetus to begin hiring H-2A workers, many 

growers become accustomed to this workforce and continue drawing on it. At the same time, a 

key informant who works with farmers believes higher wages in new H-2A regulations may push 

growers out of the program in the future. Among farmers who did not use the H-2A program 

(about half the sample), one felt pushed to start and two said it was too costly, consistent with 

37
findings of a survey of New York farmers (Maloney et al., 2009). A grower who views the 

program as a magnet for lawsuits had avoided it for many years until several seasons ago. 

One farmer who had tried H-2A once over ten years ago (already mentioned) was 

disappointed. He said his workers came from a city in Mexico, were unprepared for farm work, 

and left on their own. The cooperative that helped process his application was able to find him 

new workers for that season. While this farmer was not involved in selecting the workers, it 

appears common today (based on grower and worker interviews) to hire the same workers 

through the program year after year. Networks come into play in recruiting. For example, one 

group of Mexican H-2A workers interviewed had obtained their jobs through a contact in their 

home town. Two Jamaican workers reported that at the season’s end they may suggest names of 

other workers for the following year that their employer can then request. 

Because of this preference for returning workers or at least referrals, restrictions against 

issuing H-2A visas to people who have worked in the country illegally are one factor that deters 

growers from using the program to hire Mexican workers. An interview with one farmer 

knowledgeable about the program in New York implied that over time previous undocumented 

workers have been less able to come in through the program, which means it brings in fewer 

workers with U.S. farm experience and thus is less attractive. Farm jobs may be seen as lowskill jobs, but farmers value rural experience and skills such as the commonly-mentioned ability 

to pick an apple without bruising it (companies that buy apples demand a very low percentage of 

bruising) and the ability to do very physically taxing work (often mentioned is lifting very heavy 

bags of apples). All H-2A workers interviewed were men. 

Some Mexican workers seek to come to the U.S. with an H-2A visa after being in the country 

illegally despite the risks, which often fails, resulting in penalties that bar workers from applying 

38
to the program for several years. Workers and growers complain about the sometimes corrupt 

process of obtaining a visa as being arbitrary, giving the impression that not only workers who 

were previously undocumented can be refused a visa but also workers who say the wrong thing 

(one group said they avoid wearing American-looking clothes with English words that hint at a 

previous U.S. presence). Some farmers hire agents to recruit in Mexico or manage the process. 

Farmers interviewed complain, as in settings such as Congressional hearings, that processing 

involves delays that threaten their harvest. In the 2009 and 2010 season, farmers and key 

informants reported more denials of applications for H-2A so that it has become more difficult to 

get the same workers again, though on appeal applications are usually approved. One expert 

who works with farmers predicts that this could drive farmers to abandon the program, while 

another said higher wages required under the new regulations would do so. 

D. An Example of Policy Implementation: Housing  

Government is involved in farmworker housing, which is important for attracting supply and 

is required by the H-2A program, in a number of ways. Government funds support housing 

construction and renovation; government inspects and licenses some housing, and regulations 

require that housing be provided to comparable workers where H-2A workers are employed. 

The perceived need to provide housing and related policy can become interspersed with 

workforce organization. For example, growers cited housing as a reason for preferring workers 

without families and men over women. With regard to H-2A, growers and their interest groups 

have sought to eliminate the requirement to provide worker housing in favor of providing 

allowances. There also may be conflict over controlling what happens at worker housing, often 

located on-farm, which in New York has involved the state: an opinion produced in the 1990s 

clarified that workers have rights of tenants in employer-provided housing, which means for 

39
example that farmers do not have the right to restrict visitors. Housing can also be the site of 

immigration enforcement activity. 

Workers Receiving Free Housing 

(NAWS data) 

1993-94 2005-06

East 62% 27% 

U.S. 28% 17% 

The table above indicates that the share of workers who report that their employer provides 

free housing (though the worker may pay for utilities) has fallen since 1994. Many workers 

interviewed for this study were met in worker camps, and the great majority reported receiving 

free housing. Two paid for employer-provided housing, and it was not clear if workers in 

housing provided by contractors did or not. In New York, Rural Opportunities, Inc. reported in 

2000 (Bucholz) that the number of farmworkers living off-farm was growing and that there were 

inadequate beds to meet demand. Both on-farm and off-farm housing was overcrowded, and 

funding from government at different levels was inadequate to provide assistance. 

Many farmworkers in New York live in substandard conditions, and where the number of 

farmworkers has increased, the number of farm beds has not kept pace (Hamilton, 2010). 

Several individuals interviewed for this study cited the importance of housing for attracting a 

workforce. One person who helps farmworkers find jobs in the Hudson Valley area indicated 

that among mostly Mexican workers who lived in nearby relatively urbanized areas, housing was 

sometimes a motivation for applying for a farm job, yet farmers in that area are seeking to “get 

out of the housing business,” preferring to pay more instead. A worker in this area said housing 

was one factor keeping in a job about which he had complaints. 

40
A key source of government funding for farmworker housing is the USDA 514/516 Rural 

Development – Farm Labor Housing Loan and Grant Program. It supports purchase, 

construction, improvement or repair (Wiggins, 2009) but does not serve H-2A workers and is 

limited to legally admitted residents and citizens, and funding levels are inadequate to meet 

demand (Hamilton, 2010). Other programs that are not reserved for farmworkers may serve 

them. These include the USDA Rural Housing Service Self-Help Technical Assistance Program 

(Section 523), which seeks to build homeownership with a “sweat equity” approach, and the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rural Housing and Economic 

Development Program, which supports housing and economic development (Vallejos, Quandt, & 

Arcury, 2009). Other federal and state programs provide funding opportunities, including HUD 

block grants for community development and affordable housing,61 the Farmworker Housing 

Program (FHLP) created in 1995 and administered by the New York State Division of Housing 

and Community Renewal;62 and low income housing tax credits (Hamilton, 2010). 

Though New York may have less funding assistance available for the improvement of 

farmworker housing than other states (Hamilton 2010), it is one of several eastern states with 

codes for migrant housing that are stronger than the federal OSHA standard (Schell, 2002). The 

MSPA sets minimum standards for housing (Hamilton 2010). 

Farmers asked in interviews when they encountered government representatives frequently 

mentioned housing inspectors, along with people who audited records or inspected workplaces. 

Among workers, there were more reports of enforcement of housing than of any other 

                                                           

61 These include Community Development Block Grant funds that states and cities may use for housing and 

community projects benefiting low and moderate-income people and HOME federal block grant funds to state and 

localities to support low-income housing; both benefit some counties in farm regions. Farmworkers must be part of 

the state’s consolidated plan for funds to target this group; these funds also must be supplemented by others. 

(Hamilton 2010 and http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/, retrieved July 10, 2010). 62 See http://www.nysdhcr.gov/Programs/FarmWorkerHousing/QandA.htm. Retrieved July 15, 2010. 

41
regulations. Inspection of housing for five or more migrant employees is conducted by the New 

York State Department of Health (DOH) through an agreement with the federal government, but 

the DOH does not inspect year-round housing (Bucholz, 2000). For H-2A workers, “processor 

housing,” and (if a violation is reported) housing for fewer than five workers, the U.S. DOL has 

jurisdiction over inspection prior to occupancy (Bucholz, 2000 and Hamilton, 2010). 

H-2A housing is generally identifiable because it is listed on foreign certification 

applications. One advocate interviewed indicated that H-2A housing is more often inspected, 

and that farmers may seek to avoid inspection of migrant housing by saying it is for year-round 

workers. Hamilton (2010) included in a list of recommendations to improve farmworker housing 

in New York that inspectors treat year-round housing the same as seasonal, that county health 

departments visit all farms to identify unreported housing, and that housing be inspected after 

occupancy. The experience of one farmer interviewed for this study indicates that the goal of 

improving housing quality may be complicated by concern about immigration activity: he was 

surprised that his workers had been picked up by immigration officials while sitting in the 

driveway of housing he said he was not required to report because of the number of occupants. 

Housing may structure the degree of interaction among the workforce as well, with groupings 

and divisions of workers that may correspond to the allocation of tasks on the farm. Workers 

employed by some large farms west and east of Rochester seemed not to know how the overall 

workforce of their farm was composed. Housing for the same business, like the land it farms, 

may be scattered around a large area, and housing may be organized by group. On one farm in 

the Finger Lakes area, living quarters were separate for Mexican and Jamaican H-2A workers, 

and the Mexican workers knew there were Jamaicans on the farm but not where they lived. 

Housing for migrant and year-round workers is often separate from H-2A housing. Finally, a 

42
lack of space to accommodate families and the perceived and real tensions or difficulties 

resulting from having men and women in the same housing can contribute to a preference for 

hiring single men. 

V. Discussion

This paper has shown that concerns about farm labor supply have consistently drawn the 

attention of federal policymakers since IRCA’s passage, and calls on government to resolve 

labor shortages tend to occur in reaction to or anticipation of immigration policy change. While 

the nature of the available supply of farmworkers is affected by factors such as the economy, 

available job opportunities, and influences over migration such as the peso devaluation, it is also 

influenced in contradictory ways by policy in areas including but beyond immigration. 

A. Policy and Farm Labor

Employers feel squeezed in a difficult, increasingly competitive industry and faced with 

limited options because of rising costs, limits on increasing prices, and the precarious legal status 

of the only workforce they believe to be viable. As immigration control efforts restrict access to 

this workforce, employers have increasingly drawn on another source of labor, the H-2A 

program, though some say they cannot afford it. While the nature of employer demand for labor 

is partially influenced by costs, the mix of crops, the degree of mechanization, and other factors, 

Section IV of the paper showed that policy can also eventually influence demand as it can shape 

the type and cost of workers available to employers making decisions about their workforces, the 

amount of regulation involved in hiring, and the likelihood that workers will be deported. 

Familiarity with specific workers is an important part of employer preferences, and this 

research shows that employers place a premium on skills and experience with rural areas and 

farm work and also come to appreciate a certain group of workers as they build a history 

43
working with them. Some growers interviewed for this research believe that American society 

no longer produces the work ethic and appreciation for farming necessary for good workers and 

pointed to many experiences with “locals” who were not good employees. Local (especially 

non-immigrant) workers rarely apply for jobs and in the view of farmers have begun to look 

down on farm work, while young people no longer have time for it. Growers themselves often 

work long hours and may have little patience for unwillingness to accept the erratic schedule of 

farm work. Thus in New York State, where the heavy presence of immigrants in farm work is 

more recent, farmers feel for many reasons that immigrants are a good option, and to some the 

only option, because of the unavailability or inadaptability of other workers. In this case, a 

remaining decision becomes whether to employ H-2A workers (and within that Mexican or 

Jamaican workers) or others. 

Policy actors at the federal level describe the H-2A program, the use of which is increasing, 

as a safety valve or backup plan, but in fact it is not something that growers seem to use or not 

year to year as the economy or inability to find other workers encourages it. Instead, perhaps 

because of the advantages of a workforce that is certain to stay throughout the harvest, fear of 

losing undocumented workers, the investment of time and experience required, the planning for 

H-2A, or the fact that workers in the program become known and incorporated into a specific 

farm workforce, growers interviewed for this research who entered the program stayed in for 

subsequent years or in one case gave up after one season’s experience with it. Recourse to the 

program may in some cases be driven strictly by the economy and labor market, but depends 

more for most respondents on the level of immigration enforcement, given that raids and 

detainment of workers most often drove the first use of the H2a program. 

44
The most prominent element that dissuaded employers from using H-2A was cost (while the 

adverse wage rate and housing, transportation, and other costs are high to some employers, the 

absence of certain employer taxes for H-2A employers is a cost-saving factor). The apple 

industry lends itself better to the program though some apple growers said they could not afford 

it. One employer stressed that he would not have jobs for a workforce he has spent years building 

if he hired through H-2A. This desire to hire the same workers, partly to save training time, is 

key in shaping both the use of H-2A and resistance to it. To some degree, the rural background 

of H-2A workers means some see them as qualified before being trained. Corruption in Mexico 

and the difficulty of bringing in workers who had been in the country before were concerns that 

influence the choice of Mexican or Jamaican workers, while some employers might hire workers 

from both countries. 

Although farmers in New York are falling back on H-2A more, as the 2010 H-2A regulations 

are being implemented there are predictions that the higher wage rate they require or the 

perceived inability to hire the same workers year after year (because of experiences with 

application denials) may cause employers to stop using the H-2A program. 

B. Improving the Situation of Farmworkers

Assessing worker conditions was not a research goal, but the study did show that wages have 

been flat while incomes have increased (perhaps due to more work time and longer hours) 

though well over a third surveyed by NAWS are below the poverty level. The share of workers 

who receive each of several key benefits ranges from about 25% to 40%. Seasonal and migrant 

(non-H-A) workers participating in qualitative interviews typically reported wages ranging from 

just under the federal minimum effective July 24, 200963 to around $9 an hour, without overtime 

                                                           

63 Several workers reported earning $7.15 an hour, which was the minimum wage in 2009 prior to July 24. 

45
pay and not during rain that prevents work (though some employers provide other indoor work 

when weather is bad). Most frequently they reported earning close to minimum wage, though 

one year-round worker earned $10 an hour. Most did not receive health insurance but appeared 

to be covered by worker’s compensation. 

Just as policy solutions to the problem of farm labor supply involve finding new workers for 

the same jobs, often solutions to the dilemma of low-wage workers involve training workers for 

different jobs requiring a higher skill level rather than improving existing ones. Observers of 

farm labor markets also point out that if wages were higher there would be more mechanization 

of harvesting so less labor would be required. Yet it is crucial to farmworkers and their children, 

and more generally for how policymakers think about low-wage jobs, to seek to improve the 

conditions of farm jobs themselves, and others often categorized as low skill, in order to reduce 

turnover while improving living standards. 

This study suggests areas to explore in order to learn how policy could contribute to 

improved conditions. As noted elsewhere (Kandel, 2008), this research indicates that some jobs 

(including those of H-2A workers) may be stretching out longer in the year with other tasks 

added to harvesting or the addition of greenhouse production. The workforce investment system 

already may help workers find employment that bridges harvest seasons or provide other 

services for those who prefer to stay in agriculture (while also offering training and services that 

can help workers leave the industry). Research on possibilities for leveraging the workforce 

system to work further with farmers and workers on creating jobs of longer duration, though 

these represent a minority of farm jobs, could be valuable. However, it would also be beneficial 

to study whether such farm jobs create sufficient economic security and job quality to merit 

policy investment, whether they are desired by employers or workers, or whether such efforts 

46
can benefit both farmers and workers. This study indicates some workers may not wish to be 

employed year-round in New York agriculture: several interviewed did not want to stay in 

winter, and an employer said women packing workers preferred not to work in summer. Others 

believe workers want to return to Mexico in the off-season. 

Immigration policy complicates efforts to improve jobs, just as the focus on immigration as a 

supply solution tends to obscure other policy areas. That is, many have argued that the presence 

of undocumented workers creates an incentive for exploitation that can bring down the floor of 

conditions for all workers. Yet fears of being detained for workers impede the enforcement of 

labor standards while the ongoing threat of having workers detained may make employers 

reluctant to have their records scrutinized or may create an incentive not to inform government 

of the presence of worker housing that otherwise should be inspected. Yet maintaining a focus 

on enforcement of labor, safety, housing, and other laws and regulations might diminish 

incentives to exploit workers. 

The U.S. DOL in its implementation of the H-2A program is to determine “whether the 

employment of H–2A workers will adversely affect the wages and working conditions of 

workers in the U.S. similarly employed.”64 This may in practice mean workers who are men, 

perhaps single men, and perhaps of a certain age. While this study did not seek to ascertain 

whether women had been turned away from farm work, there was evidence that women in farm 

work earn lower wages than men (NAWS data) and are generally assigned to tasks associated 

with women. Also, interviews suggested that employers often prefer not to have women or 

families in worker housing, that women are rarely hired for harvesting jobs, and, as shown in 

other studies, that women may be hired in connection with partners in the same labor force. 

                                                           

64 Federal Register, Tuesday, March 17, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 50. Proposed Rules, p. 11410

47
More information on how women are incorporated into the farm workforce and whether they 

face discrimination in applying for farm jobs is needed. 

Greater insight into how the H-2A program is used might shed more light on both how to 

meet labor needs of employers and possibilities for improving the situation of workers. Local 

government staff have expertise on how this program is used already, but program data 

collection could provide more information. For example, the job titles that are listed on H-2A 

applications are overlapping and not particularly meaningful, as they may or may not indicate 

whether workers harvest fruit or vegetables or work in horticulture. In addition, while this 

research did not reveal any instances of employing women as H-2A workers, more information 

on what is or is not being done to allow women opportunities in this program would be 

beneficial. 

In conclusion, this paper has shown that the status of workers doing labor intensive tasks in 

the fruit and vegetable industries remains somewhat precarious. This research has also provided 

an overview of the policy framework for farm labor markets and illustrated some of the complex 

ways in which policy influences farm labor supply, employer preferences, and workforce 

organization. It also points to factors that constrain the choices of labor market actors, including 

employers, workers, and policy makers. Additional research directions are suggested to assist in 

further understanding and meeting the employment and other needs of this specific population of 

low-wage workers, along with a recommendation that solutions aim to improve the quality of 

farm work while also seeking to increase the choices that farmworkers have in organizing their 

work lives. 

48
Appendix: Tables and Figures  

Table 1: Qualitative Interviews

State & Federal Policy

Actors (9) Washington,

New York State‐level

• 2 state interest group

• 4 federal interest group

• 2 researchers

• 1 state legislature

Service Organizations (9)

• 2 legal services

• 2 health

• 2 housing

• 3 education/training

Local Advocates &

Researchers (5)

• 3 advocates

• 2 researchers

Employers (13) • 11 employers

• 2 supervisors  

Workers (58) • 3 groups of H2A workers (16 people)

• 27 migrant undocumented

• 4 migrant documented

• 11 settled (mixed citizenship status)

Table 2: Comparison of Fruit/Nut and Vegetable Workers with Full Sample

All workers

2005‐06

Pre‐harvest, harvest, or post‐

harvest work in fruit/nut or

vegetables

2005‐06

Follow‐the‐crop (FTC) 7% 13%

Shuttle but not FTC (intl or in U.S.

75 miles away) 29% 37%

Unauthorized 53% 70%

Born in Mexico   74% 89%

Family income below poverty level 30% 40%

49
Table 3: Differences in Real Wages and Income by Group

2005‐06 Real Wage (in 2006 dollars)

Unauthorized

7.76

Authorized

9.01

t = ‐14.07

p = 0.00

American‐born

9.32

Mexican‐born

8.13

t = 10.91

p = 0.00

Men

8.52  

Women

7.86

t = 5.8

p = 0.00

2005‐06 Real Income (in 2006 dollars)

Unauthorized

13,246.08

Authorized

18,289.33

t = ‐17.07

p = 0.00

American‐born

19,060.28

Mexican‐born

15,113.01

t = 11.13

p = 0.00

Men

17,173.59

Women

11,927.34

t = 14.02

p = 0.00

Table 4: Time Spent in Farm Work for Pre­harvest, Harvest, or Post­harvest Work in

Fruit/Nut or Vegetables

1997‐98 2005‐06

Farmwork weeks 23.38 29.64

Nonwork weeks 11.41 8.01

Weeks abroad 13.20 11.46

Non‐farm work weeks 3.49 2.57

Hours last week at current farm job 36.96 44.41

Days per week current farm job 4.95 5.60

Table 5: Government Records of Foreign Labor Presence

Source FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Workers certified: U.S. total U.S. DOL 72,510 89,575 94,401 99454

Percent increase 23.5% 5.4% 5.4%

Workers certified for NY as employer state   U.S. DOL 3,153 4,013 4,181 4,427

Percent increase 27.3% 4.2% 5.9%

NY employer state as percent of U.S.   4.35% 4.48% 4.43% 4.45%

Workers certified   N.Y.  State DOL 3,452 4,040 3,875 4,619

“Foreign” workers employed in peak period

(September)

N.Y.  State DOL 2100 2401 2994

Percent increase 14.3% 24.7%

50
Figure 1: Place of Birth

Figure 2: Legal Status of Workers

51
Figure 3a: Change in Presence of Migrants in the U.S.  

Figure 3b: Change in Presence of Migrants in the East

52
Figure 4: Average Hourly Wages of Crop Workers, Nominal and Real (2006) Dollars,

1989­2006  

Figure 5: Real Income (2006 Level)

  

53
Figure 6: H­2A Visas Issued by Fiscal Year  

Source: U.S. Department of State 

Figure 7: Foreign Workers Employed in Peak Period (September)

Source: New York State Department of Labor

54
References

Agricultural Guest Worker Programs: Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Risk 

Management And Specialty Crops of the Committee On Agriculture and the Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 

104th Congress, 1st Session, (1995). Washington: U.S. G.P.O.: Retrieved from 

http://www.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/cul/resolve?clio7616568 

The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 1999: Hearing before the 

Subcommittee on Immigration of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 106th Congress. 

2nd Session (2001). 

Bernhardt, A. D., Boushey, H., Dresser, L., & Tilly, C. (2008). An introduction to the "glovesoff economy." The Gloves-Off Economy: Workplace Standards at the Bottom of America’s 

Labor Market (1st ed.). Champaign, IL: Labor and Employment Relations Association, 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

Boucher, S. R., & Taylor, J. E. (2007). Policy Shocks and the Supply of Mexican Labor to U.S. 

Farms. Choices, 22(1), 37-42. 

Bruno, A. (2009). Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs. No. 

RL32044). Congressional Research Service. 

Bucholz, Sue. Housing for Farmworkers in New York: Analysis and Recommendations. Rural 

Opportunities Inc. 2000 

California Growers Push Guest Worker Program - Illegal Immigrants Would Increase, Critics 

Say. (1995, July 2). St. Louis Post-Dispatch/San Francisco Chronicle.

Decker, S. H., Lewis, P. G., Provine, D. M., & Varsanyi, M. W. (April 2009). Immigration and 

Local Policing: Results From a National Survey of Law Enforcement Executives. In M. 

Malina (Ed.), The Role of Local Police: Striking a Balance Between Immigration 

Enforcement and Civil Liberties. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation. 

Do Federal Programs Ensure U.S. Workers are Recruited First before Employers Hire from 

Abroad? Hearing before the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of 

Representatives. 110th Congress. 2nd Session. (2008). 

Domhoff, G. W. (1990). The Power Elite and the State: How Policy is Made in America. New 

York: Aldine de Gruyter. 

Emerson, R. D. (2007). Agricultural labor markets and immigration. Choices, 22(1), 57-66. 

Erickson, C. L., & Mitchell, J. B. (2007). Monopsony as a Metaphor for the Emerging PostUnion Labour Market. International Labour Review, 146(3/4), 163-187. 

55
Finding farmworkers. Editorial. (2010, February 17). Los Angeles Times. 

Gilbert, L. (2005). Fields of hope, fields of despair: Legisprudential and historic perspectives on 

the AgJobs bill of 2003. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 42(2), 417-482. 

Gray, M. (forthcoming). When Inequalities Cross Borders: A Case Study of Hudson Valley 

Farmworkers. In P. Gootenberg, & L. Reygades Robles (Eds.) 

Griffith, D. C. (2007). Guestworkers, Enganchadores, and Changing Labor Relations in U.S. 

Rural Communities. The Journal of Latino-Latin American Studies, 2(4), 74-86. 

Griffith, D. C. (2006). American Guestworkers: Jamaicans and Mexicans in the U.S. Labor 

Market. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. 

Guest Worker Programs: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the 

House Committee on the Judiciary: 104th Congress, 1st Session (1996). Retrieved from: 

http://www.columbia.edu.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/cgi-bin/cul/resolve?clio7616931 

Hahamovitch, C. (2001). "In America Life is Given Away": Jamaican Farmworkers and the 

Making of Agricultural Immigration Policy. In C. M. Stock, & R. D. Johnston (Eds.). The 

Countryside in the Age of the Modern State: Political Histories of Rural America (pp. 335). 

Ithaca, N.Y. London: Cornell University Press. 

Hahamovitch, C. (1997). The Fruits of their Labor: Atlantic Coast Farmworkers and the Making 

of Migrant Poverty, 1870-1945. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 

Hamilton, E. R. (2010). Farmworker Housing in New York State: Obstacles and Options. 

Heppel, Monica. Testimony at Guest Worker Programs: Hearing before the Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Claims of the House Committee on the Judiciary. 104th Congress, 1st

Session (1996). Retrieved from: http://www.columbia.edu.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/cgibin/cul/resolve?clio7616931. 

Heppel, M. L., & Amendola, S. L. (1992). Immigration Reform and Perishable Crop 

Agriculture: Compliance or Circumvention?. Lanham, Md.; Washington, D.C.: University 

Press of America; Center for Immigration Studies. 

Horrigan, M. W. (February 2004). Employment Projections to 2012: Concepts and Context. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections. 

Juliana Barbassa Associated, P. W. (2006). Shortage of Farmworkers Hitting Organic Growers 

Hard. The Evening Sun (Norwich, NY), pp. 015. 

Levine, L. (2007). Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy. No. RL30395. Congressional 

Research Service. 

56
Kandel, W. (2008). Hired Farmworkers a Major Input for Some U.S. Farm Sectors. Amber 

Waves, 6(2). 

Levine, L. (2009). The Effects on U.S. Farm Workers of an Agricultural Guest Worker Program.

No. 95-712. Congressional Research Service. 

Local news. (2006, October 10). The Daily News. (Batavia, NY), pp. 3A. 

Maloney, T. R., Smith, M. A., & Dudley, M. J. Labor Outlook for New York Agriculture 2009. 

(pp. 8-1 - 8-10) 

Martin, P. L. (2009). Importing Poverty? Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural America. 

New Haven: Yale University Press. 

Martin, P. L., Fix, M., & Taylor, J. E. (2006). The New Rural Poverty: Agriculture and 

Immigration in California. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. 

Mehta, C., Theodore, N., & Hincapié, M. (November 2003). Social Security Administration’s 

No-Match Letter Program: Implications for Immigration Enforcement and Workers’ Rights. 

Chicago: Center for Urban Economic Development. 

Ngai, M. M. (2005). Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. 

Princeton, N.J.; Woodstock: Princeton University Press. 

Nuñez-Neto, B. (2008). Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol. No. RL32562. 

Congressional Research Service. 

Ontiveros, M. L. (2007). Female Immigrant Workers and the Law: Limits and Opportunities. In 

D. S. Cobble (Ed.), The Sex of Class: Women Transforming American Labor (pp. 35-57). 

Ithaca: ILR Press. 

Patrick, J. (2002, May 12). Some Farmers Fret about Labor Shortage. The Daily Gazette 

(Schenectady, NY), pp. A-01. 

Pena, A. A. (2009). Poverty, Legal Status, and Pay Basis in U.S. Agriculture. Stanford Center for 

International Development. Working Paper 377. 

Preston, J. (2007, August 3). In Increments, Senate Revisits Immigrant Bill. The New York Times 

(NY), pp. 1. 

Preston, J. (2006, September 22). “Pickers are few, and growers blame Congress.” The New York 

Times. (NY), pp. 1. 

Protecting U.S. and Guest Workers: The Recruitment and Employment of Temporary Foreign 

Labor: Hearing before the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of 

Representatives. 110th Congress. 1st Session. (2007). 

57
Rot in the Fields: As Farmworkers Become Scarcer, Congress Dithers. (2007, December 3). The 

Washington Post. (Washington, D.C.), p. A16. 

Rothenberg, D. (1998). With These Hands: The Hidden World of Migrant Farmworkers Today

(1st ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace. 

Rubery, J. (2005). Labor Markets and Flexibility. In S. Ackroyd (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of 

Work and Organization (pp. 31-51). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 

Rubery, J. (2006). Segmentation Theory Thirty Years On. Unpublished manuscript. 

Runyan, J., & Effland, A. B. W. (October 1998). Status Report: Hired Farm Labor in U.S. 

Agriculture. Agricultural Outlook, AGO-255, 19-22. 

Runyan, J. (2003). The Dynamics of Hired Farm Labor. Amber Waves, 1 (3), 11. 

Schell, G. (2002). Farmworker Exceptionalism under the Law: How the Legal System 

Contributes to Farmworker Poverty and Powerlessness. In J. Thompson Charles D., & M. F. 

Wiggins (Eds.), The Human Cost of Food: Farmworkers' Lives, Labor, and Advocacy. 

Austin: University of Texas Press. 

Sequeira, Leon. Testimony. Do Federal Programs Ensure U.S. Workers are Recruited First 

Before Employers Hire from Abroad? Hearing before the Committee on Education and 

Labor of the House of Representatives. 110th Congress. 2nd Session. (2008). 

Thompson, J., Charles D., & Wiggins, M. F. (Eds.). (2002). The Human Cost of Food: 

Farmworkers' Lives, Labor, and Advocacy. Austin: University of Texas Press. 

Tichenor, D. J. (2002). Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America. 

U.S. Department of Labor. (March 2005). Findings from the National Agricultural Workers 

Survey (NAWS) 2001-2002: A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farm 

Workers. Research Report No. 9. 

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1985: Hearings before the Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Refugee Policy of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 

99th Congress, 1st Session, on S. 1200. June 17, 18 and 24 (1985). Washington: U.S. G.P.O. 

Varsanyi, M. (2008). Immigration Policing through the Backdoor: City Ordinances, the "Right 

to the City," and the Exclusion of Undocumented Day Laborers. Urban Geography, 29(1), 

29–52. 

Wedemeyer, J. (2006). Of Policies, Procedures, and Packing Sheds: Agricultural Incidents of 

Employer Abuse of the H-2B Nonagricultural Guestworker Visa. The Journal of Gender, 

Race, and Justice, 10(1), 143-192. 

58
59

Wells, M. J. (2004). The Grassroots Reconfiguration of U.S. Immigration Policy. International 

Migration Review, 38(4), 1308-1347. 

Westat (2009). Findings of the E-verify Program Evaluation. Report Submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security. Rockville, Maryland. 

Quirina M. Vallejos, Sara A. Quandt, and Thomas A. Arcury. The Condition of Farmworker 

Housing in the Eastern United States. In T. A. Arcury, & S. A. Quandt (Eds.) Latino 

Farmworkers in the Eastern United States. New York, NY: Springer. 

Wiggins, M. F. (2009). Farm Labor and the Struggle for Justice in the Eastern United States. In 

T. A. Arcury, & S. A. Quandt (Eds.) Latino Farmworkers in the Eastern United States. New 

York, NY: Springer. 

Zolberg, A. R. (2006). A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America. 

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.