EDWARD TUDDENHAM

ATTORNEY AT LAW

228 West 137th St.

New York, New York 10030-2407

Tel: (212) 234-5953 Fax: (512) 532-7780

etudden@prismnet.com

October 30, 2014

Harry Sheinfeld

Acting Deputy Associate Solicitor 

Division of Employment Training Legal Services 

Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Ave. NW Room N-2101

Washington, DC 20210

Re: Sheepherder and Range Livestock Special Procedures

Dear Mr. Sheinfeld:

It is my understanding that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has met with 

representatives of the sheepherding and range livestock industry to hear their suggestions for the 

content of the upcoming proposed rules governing the importation of H-2A Sheepherders and 

Open Range Production of Livestock (collectively referred to as “range production workers”). In 

light of this, I am writing to convey suggestions that workers and worker representatives have 

conveyed to me regarding ways the proposed rules. If you are not the proper person to receive 

these suggestions I would ask that you forward this letter to whoever in the Department is 

responsible for drafting the proposed rules. 

It is our view that the Special Procedures found invalid by the D.C. Circuit failed to 

achieve the two principal objectives of the H-2A program of: (1) employing U.S. workers rather 

than aliens; and (2) ensuring that the employment of aliens will not adversely affect the wages 

and working conditions of U.S. workers. 8 U.S.C. § 1188(a)(1). The Special Procedures have 

institutionalized a second tier of workers employed through the H-2A program with wages and 

working conditions far inferior to those required of other agricultural employers. Not 

surprisingly, a substantial number of agricultural employers have misclassified workers to take 

advantage of this two-tier system, obtaining H-2A admissions under the Special Procedures for 

ranch hands and livestock workers whose job responsibilities involve little or no “range” work. 

Revisions to the Special Procedures should eliminate this two-tiered system as well as the 

incentives for unlawful misclassification of workers. Our specific suggestions for achieving 

these goals are set forth below categorized using the same headings that appeared in the TEGL 

32-10 and 15-06.

A. Job Specification 

The current definition contained within the “Job Specification” portion of the Special 

Procedures is contradictory and lacks clarity. Although the current Special Procedures do “not 

apply to sheep and goat ranch hands who would be classified as ‘Farmworker, Livestock,’ 
Harry Sheinfeld

October 30, 2014

Page 2

410.664.010 (DOT), ” the actual job duties description contradicts that position by referring to 

attending sheep or goats on “pasture” as well as “range” and by listing a number of duties such 

as lambing, docking and shearing that are typically performed in pens under the direct 

supervision of ranch owners and foreman – i.e. work that livestock ranch hands perform. The 

definition is further confused by the undefined references to performing other jobs on “an 

incidental basis.” Employers have taken advantage of these confusing elements in the definition 

of a sheep and goatherder to employ H-2A range workers during much, if not all, of the visa 

period tending livestock in enclosed pens or pastures or on unrelated tasks.1 Employers have 

circumvented this provision by having the certified H-2A range workers perform ranch hand 

duties on more than an incidental basis (often on a substantial basis). This ranch hand work does 

not require workers to care for livestock on the range in a remote area, 24 hours per day, 7 days a 

week. On some occasions, the “incidental” work does not involve the care of livestock at all, 

and involves tasks such as maintaining ranch buildings and equipment, planting, cultivating, and 

harvesting feed grain for stock. 

To prevent such manipulation of the Special Procedures going forward, clear definitions 

are needed within the “Job Specification.” The job duties should make clear that the Special 

Procedures only apply to the kind of work that justifies the special procedures in the first place –

i.e., work that is on the range, remotely located, and by necessity requires range workers who are 

on call 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. See Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002, 1008-09 (D.C. 

Cir. 2014) (“The TEGLS reflect the Department of Labor’s belief that the unique occupational

characteristics of herding – including spending extended periods in isolated areas and being on 

call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week to protect livestock – make special H-2A 

procedures necessary”); see also Field Memorandum 74-89 (limiting sheepherding in 

guestworker applications to attending to sheep on the range, guarding sheep from predators, and 

assisting with lambing, shearing and docking). If an employment activity does not meet these 

criteria, it should not be subject to the Special Procedures. 

The best way to accomplish this and avoid confusion is for the Special Procedures to 

expressly incorporate the key concepts defined in FLSA regulations related to the “range

production of livestock” exemption at 29 C.F.R. §§ 780.323 et seq. First, these regulations 

require the work to be performed on the “range,” defined as land that is both uncultivated and 

generally unsuitable for cultivation. “[B]y its nature, range production of livestock is most 

typically conducted over wide expanses of land, such as thousands of acres.” See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 780.326. Second, the FLSA regulations also make clear that a worker is not working on the 

“range” if he works at a “headquarters ranch,” a place including “the ranchhouse, barns, sheds, 

pen, bunkhouse, cookhouse, and other buildings in the vicinity” or tends animals “near” 

headquarters. See 29 C.F.R. § 780.329. Third, and perhaps most important, the FLSA 

regulations make clear that the work must be performed under circumstances in which “the 

 1 See Suffering in the Pastures of Plenty: Experiences of H-2A Sheepherders in California’s Central Valley, Central 

California Legal Services, March 15, 2000, at 5 (over 70% of California H-2A herders surveyed stated that they 

were required to perform work other than sheepherding, including construction, fence building, cooking and 
Harry Sheinfeld

October 30, 2014

Page 3

computation of hours worked would be extremely difficult.” Id. This concept is critical because 

it is, after all, the reason that minimum wage is not required and the reason that employers of H2A range workers historically have been permitted to pay a monthly salary rather than the hourly 

AEWR. This requirement distinguishes true range workers from ranch hands who work under 

the supervision of a rancher (making computation of hours worked relatively easy).

One aspect of the FLSA “range production of livestock” regulations that should not be 

adopted because it opens the door to manipulation and misclassification under the Special 

Procedures is the determination of the status of a worker as exempt or not on an annual basis. 

See 29 C.F.R. §780.325(b) (stating that worker “who spends more than 50 percent of his time 

during the year on the range in the duties designated as range production duties would be 

exempt). Such annualized status invites employers to utilize range workers as ranch hands for 

substantial periods of time (while paying far lower sheepherder wages). There is simply no 

justification for allowing such manipulation under the H-2A program where DOL is charged 

with ensuring that foreign workers do not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of 

similarly employed U.S. workers. Instead we strongly urge DOL to apply the special procedures 

for range workers on a task-by-task basis. In other words the special procedures should only 

apply when a worker is, in fact, tending livestock on the range under circumstances that make it 

difficult to keep track of this time. Any other general ranch hand work that is performed, 

whether on an incidental or more frequent basis, should comply with the normal H-2A 

regulations governing (1) payment of the adverse effect wage rate (“AEWR”); (2) maintenance 

of payroll records as required by 20 C.F.R. § 655.122(j) and wage statements provided that 

conform with 20 C.F.R. § 655.122(k); and (3) housing that complies with the standards set forth 

in 20 C.F.R. § 655.122(d). This proposal is not onerous to administer. Most range workers go 

out on the range for weeks, if not months, at a time in the summer and winter. And they tend to 

return to the headquarters or work under direct supervision at similarly predictable chunks of 

time, such as during lambing and docking of tails in April and May. This modification of the 

FLSA rules is advantageous for ranchers, workers, and agency enforcement. It assists ranchers 

by allowing them to pay a fixed weekly salary (or a prorated salary) to workers who are out on 

the range and whose hours are difficult to measure even if the worker only does that work for 3 

or 4 months during the year. It is fairer to workers by ensuring that, during those parts of the 

year when they are living at or near headquarters performing general ranch hand duties they will 

be paid the hourly AEWR that other ranch hands receive. And it makes agency enforcement 

easier by avoiding difficult factual questions as to whether a worker performs non-sheepherder 

duties on more than an “incidental” basis over the course of a year.2 

To implement this proposal, the certification application should indicate that workers will be 

paid according to the special procedures when tending animals on the range and will be paid the 

applicable AEWR when performing other ranch duties. Employers should be required to 

 2 Although we believe that this proposal can be readily implemented on a task by task basis, it could also be applied 

on a week-by-week basis where a worker gets a weekly salary for weeks on which he spends the majority of his time 

on the range or the hourly AEWR where he spends the majority of this time at headquarters or performing tasks 

where computation of hours is not extremely difficult.
Harry Sheinfeld

October 30, 2014

Page 4

keep records of the nature of work performed each day – i.e whether range or specified 

incidental work. While it may be difficult to calculate the hours of work when a sheepherder is 

on the range, there is no reason to exempt employers from the normal H-2A requirement that 

records be kept “showing the nature . . . of the work performed.” 20 C.F.R. §122(j)(1). A simple 

contemporary notation given to the worker with his paycheck indicating for each day whether the 

worker was “tending animals on the range” or performing “incidental ranch activities near 

headquarters” or “lambing” is far from onerous. 

B. Offered Wage Rate

The low wages rates for range workers under the current Special Procedures are the result 

of a seriously flawed methodology. Under the current Special Procedures, State Employment 

Service Agencies (SESAs) are required to conduct a prevailing wage survey of U.S. range 

workers. But in recent years, SESAs tasked with conducting this survey have been unable to 

locate sufficient U.S. range workers to survey.3 For example, in a 2011 survey conducted by the 

Wyoming SESA, the monthly wage was based on the findings of six domestic workers.4 Many 

SESAs have been unable to survey sufficient workers to establish any wage, with multiple states 

simply adopting, without any evidence, the results of another state’s survey. Because the 

sheepherding market is now majority H-2A workers, the Special Procedure salary is, effectively, 

becoming the determiner of domestic wages thereby leading to self-perpetuating wage 

stagnation.

There are two possible solutions to this problem. Our preferred solution would be for 

DOL to treat range workers the same as other H-2A workers and require that they be paid the 

AEWR per hour for their work. The almost complete failure of H-2A employers to locate U.S. 

workers to fill range jobs is largely a function of the extremely low wage rates offered, as was 

noted in the Mendoza v. Perez litigation. See 754 F.3d at 1011-12 (noting that while state 

AEWRs ranged from $8.97 to $12.01 per hour, the current Special Procedures allow employers 

to pay H-2A herders’ monthly wages from $750 to $1422.52 per month).5 

 3 The first adverse effect wage rates were established in 1962 during the Bracero program after the previous 

"prevailing wages" failed to protect US workers. During the previous period, 1951-1962 growers told the DOL 

what the prevailing wages should be and DOL would respond. “[F]arm wages as a whole increased 14% between 

1953 and 1959, but remained the same in regions with braceros. In California, domestic workers earned less per 

hour in 1955 than they had in 1950.” Kitty Calavita, Inside the State the Bracero Program, Immigration and the 

I.N.S. 71 (1992). 

4 TOM GALLAGHER, WYOMING DEP’T OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, DEP’T OF LABOR FORM ETA 232 AGRICULTURAL 

IN-SEASON WAGE REPORT, NO. CH-56-00, (April 15, 2011).

5 For example, clearance orders seeking H-2A workers to tend sheep and cattle in fenced pastures lots offer the 

applicable state AEWR. See, e.g., Application H-300-14234-328390 (application by Stephen Muller of Bandera, 

Texas for an “sheep tender” at an hourly wage of $10.86 to “[g]uard, tend and feed sheep, clean pens, maintain 

fences”), and Application H-300-14237-029363 (application of Lydell Steiner, LLC of Dalton, Ohio for H-2A 

certification for a worker to “work with seasonal needs of animal husbandry (sheep, cattle) and crop farming”, with 

60 percent of the time spent in “care of sheep” and “care of cattle,” all at wage of $11.63 per hour.) 
Harry Sheinfeld

October 30, 2014

Page 5

Alternatively, if DOL concludes that a salary is necessary for range workers (at least 

while they are working on the range and their hours are difficult to calculate), then, at a 

minimum, the salary should bear some relation to the AEWR. We propose that the salary based 

on a 48 hour work week paid at the AEWR. While the length of the average workweek for a 

Range worker is subject to considerable debate, 48 hours a week is a conservative estimate using 

employer data. A survey of range workers in Colorado found that the majority of workers work 

over 81 hours per week.6 In response, the ranching industry in Colorado suggested that a typical 

work day for range workers consists of 6-8 hours of actively watching the sheep, with longer 

days of 10 hours in the spring and shorter days of 4-6 hours in the fall and winter, which 

averages to 49.5 hours per week (based on the seven-day workweek).7 The most diverse data set 

available, based entirely on employer submissions to the DOL,8 indicate a workweek of close to 

50 hours in length:

Agent Number of 

clearance 

orders

Number of 

workers 

requested

Hours of 

work per 

week, per 

Form ETA 

9142

Mountain Plains Agricultural Services 99 406 60

Western Range Association9 72 573 40

High Country Agricultural Service 17 31 45

Peak Season Labor 4 5 60

Action Visa Assistance 3 8 40

WEIGHTED AVERAGE 48.19

For a day spent in non-range work, a worker should be paid on an hourly basis at the AEWR. 

For true range activities, the worker should be paid the prorated weekly salary based on the 

AWER. Alternatively, the determination can be made on a weekly basis. If a week is 

predominately range work, the worker can get the weekly salary. If the week is predominately 

non-range, then the worker should be paid on an hourly basis with a prorated daily salary for 

 

6 In a survey of 93 range workers in Colorado, 62 percent of workers said they actively worked 81 or more hours 

per week, while 35 percent of workers said they actively worked 91 or more hours per week. See Colorado Legal 

Services, Overworked and Underpaid, January 14, 2010, at 18.

7 This statement was made in the findings of a survey conducted on behalf of the Colorado Wool Growers 

Association in attempt to counter Overworked and Underpaid. JULIE STEPANEK SHIFLETT, THE REAL WAGE 

BENEFITS PROVIDED TO H-2A SHEEP HERDERS AND THE ECONOMIC COST TO COLORADO RANCHERS (March 2010).

8 Responses to Question F(a)(2) on Form ETA 9142 for all Forms ETA 9142 posted on the Department’s ICert portal on September 16, 2014 seeking admission of sheepherders or goatherders.

9 Many Western Range Association orders are filed on behalf of multiple individual ranchers. The WRA files as a 

joint employer with its clients while the other organizations are merely processing agents for their respective clients.
Harry Sheinfeld

October 30, 2014

Page 6

range work. 

C. Earning Records and Statements

The current Special Procedures exempt employers of such workers only from the 

requirement of recording the hours worked each day and the start and end time of each work day. 

All other requirements of § 655.122(j) and (k) apply. Thus, range employers are already 

required to keep track of the nature of the work assigned each day – e.g., “range work,” “ranch 

chores,” or “lambing” – and this requirement should be kept. On days when a range worker is 

performing non-range work, then the employer should comply with all of the requirements of § 

655.122(j) and (k) for those days. 

D. Frequency of Pay

Range workers currently are paid monthly. They should be paid at least twice monthly as 

required by the H-2A regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 655.122(m).

Further, range workers sometimes have problems accessing their pay. Given the physical 

isolation of range workers, employers often arrange for payment of wages by opening up a bank 

account for the worker and providing for direct deposit. Some employers fail to provide range 

workers with a choice of how they will be paid and/or control employees’ accounts such that 

workers lack access to their own bank account. 

 

If work demands mean that a worker cannot be afforded the opportunity to deposit their 

pay checks each bi-weekly period, employers should be required to offer workers the option of 

payment of wages by check, cash, or direct deposit. If direct deposit is used, regulations should 

require that all banking information be provided to the worker (including name of the bank, bank 

contact information, bank account number), and that the worker be provided with the necessary 

bank cards or other items needed to withdraw these funds (e.g., ATM card, deposit/withdrawal 

slips). In addition, given their remote location, all workers must be provided with physical 

access to their bank, at a minimum, on a monthly basis.

E. Meals 

The Special Procedures state: “employers must offer their U.S. and foreign workers free 

food.” This requirement has resulted in many employers seeking to cut cost by providing 

inadequate food both as to quality and to quantity. Many H-2A herders complain that the meals 

provided to them by their employers are inadequate to sustain them.10 Employers should be 

held to a universally recognized standard in the food that they provide range workers. 

 10 See, e.g., Alvaro Bedoya, Captive Labor: The Plight of Peruvian Sheepherders Illuminates Broader Exploitation 

of Immigrant Workers in U.S. agriculture, Dollars & Sense, September/October, 2003, at 31 (herder rations consist 

of lamb meat, either slated or slaughtered onsite, and canned goods; one herder described his entire food supply for 

the year as “four lambs, and canned food. Nothing else.”)
Harry Sheinfeld

October 30, 2014

Page 7

The Special Procedures should be revised to require that employers must ensure that each 

range worker receives enough food to meet a minimum daily calorie requirement of 3,000 

calories (21,000 calories per week) per federal government guidelines (NIH & USDA 19–30 

years 3,000 calories, 31–50 years 2,800–3,000 calories, 51 years and older 2,400–2,800 calories). 

The food provided must be based on the USDA guidelines outlined in the “My Daily Food Plan 

Worksheet” (See Attached). Only half of the food provided can be canned. 

If range worker wages are brought up to parity with those of other H-2A workers, they 

will be able to afford to buy their own food as other H-2A workers do. In such cases, employers 

must still ensure that workers have access to food. The employer must either take the worker 

shopping or bring food to the worker on a weekly basis. The food provided must reflect the 

calorie and composition requirement of the USDA outlined above. The employer may deduct 

the cost of the food from the worker’s salary but the employer should not be allowed to deduct 

any more than the cost of the items provided or more than the “Allowable Meal Charge Rate”, 

currently $11.58 per day ($11.58 X 30 days = $347.40 per month). The employer must provide a 

copy of the receipt for the items purchased to worker with the worker’s paycheck. If the 

employer shops for several workers at once and gives all the workers the same provisions the 

prorated cost of the food can be deducted from each worker’s wages. 

F. Housing 

The current Special Procedures permit employers to self-certify that their mobile and 

fixed-site ranch housing meets applicable standards, only requiring that the SESA inspect the 

facility once every three years. It also permits employers to apply for housing variances, which 

allow employers, for example, to house two workers in one housing unit. In contrast, regular H2A employers are normally required to obtain an official SESA housing inspection for non-range 

housing each time they seek H-2A certification. There are also no variances permitted of the 

housing regulations. The rule for inspection, certification and variances of sheepherder housing 

should be the same as for regular H-2A housing.

While it is difficult given the nature of some of the work for employers to comply with 

the H-2A housing standards at 20 C.F.R. § 655.122(d)(1)(ii), many central elements of those 

standards that can still be met. To the extent it is impractical in some instances for mobile 

housing units to be equipped with running water and laundry facilities, the employer should be 

required to provide workers with access to such facilities offsite on a regular basis. 

1. Bathing, Laundry, and Hand Washing 

Regardless of the location of a worker, range workers should have biweekly access to 

hot showers, laundry machines, and toilet facilities. Foreign workers must also be 

given access to these facilities 24 hours before they are required to begin travel to 

their native country. 
Harry Sheinfeld

October 30, 2014

Page 8

2. Heating

Range workers often have problems with improper ventilation of wood burning 

stoves. Regulations should require that mobile housing be heated by an electrical or 

gas-powered heater. Electrical or gas-powered heat must be capable of maintaining a 

minimum temperature of 70 degrees. The employer should be adequate bedding 

during cold weather, such as down sleeping bags and wool blankets. 

3. Food Storage

New regulations should require that mobile housing always have a refrigerator so that 

range workers can have fresh food.11 Only when tents are required by governmental 

land use regulations may there be an exception to this rule. 

4. Access to Running Water & Laundry Facilities

Range workers should have biweekly access to running water and laundry facilities. 

At a minimum, workers should have ready access to potable water.12

G. Employer Provided Items

The H-2A regulations require employers to provide at no cost, all tools required to do the 

duties assigned. This provision has caused confusion over which items fall within this proviso 

and which items an employer may deduct from the range workers’ wages.13 Employers should 

be required to provide, at no cost, the following items to a range worker: raincoats, boots, winter 

clothing, work gloves, sunglasses, knife, flash light, bedding, communication devices, and an 

alarm clock. Due to the kind of work performed and the kind of weather conditions that are 

encountered year-round, these items are necessary to do the work, especially given the different 

climates where range workers may come from. The cost of employer provided items may not be 

deducted from a range workers’ pay. 

H. Workers’ Compensation 

Range workers frequently suffer work-related injuries or other illnesses. In such instances, 

employers sometimes fail to provide the injured worker with medical or dental care or make a 

unilateral determination that medical or dental care is unnecessary.14 Or employers may bar 

health care workers from visiting range workers.15 Given the remote location of these 

 

11 Only 29 percent of Colorado H-2A herders surveyed had a refrigerator of any kind, with the remaining 71 

percent storing their foodstuffs in boxes, coolers, drawers or the outdoors. See Overworked and Underpaid, at 14.

12 Over a quarter of Colorado H-2A herders who were interviewed reported that they had access to potable water 

“sometimes.” See Overworked and Underpaid, at 14.

13 See Overworked and Underpaid, at 19, showing an H-2A herder with net monthly wages of $88.40, in part 

because of charges for rain gear and boots.

14 See, e.g., Suffering in the Pastures of Plenty, at 10 (46 percent of H-2A sheepherders surveyed reported suffering 

work-related injury and of this group, 61 percent were not provided with any medical care). 

15 Eight-five percent of Colorado H-2A herders surveyed reported that their employers would not allow the workers 

to have outside visitors. See Overworked and Underpaid, at 15.
Harry Sheinfeld

October 30, 2014

Page 9

workers, they have no ability other means to obtain medical care. The regulations need to be 

strengthened to require employers to provide transportation to receive medical care at the request 

of the worker. They should also require that employers provide access to health care outreach 

workers to visit their employees.16

 

Range workers who suffer a work-related injury may fail to get the papers associated 

with their workers’ compensation case. Given the remote nature of the work, range workers 

often receive their mail through their employer who fails to hand over information about the 

workers’ compensation claim. While the Special Procedures require the employer to have 

workers’ compensation coverage and maintain proof of that coverage, they should further 

specify that the employer is required to provide all workers’ compensation documentation

addressed to the range worker once a claim is filed. 

I. Time Off

Range workers are currently required to work – be “on call” – 7 days per week, 24 hours 

per day. Range workers get no days off and may be employed for up to three years. Under the 

H-2A regulations, workers cannot be required to work more than 6 days per week. 20 C.F.R. 

§655.122(i)(1)(4). 

If range workers are performing non-range work, they should not be required to work 

more than 6 days per week just like other H-2A workers. 20 C.F.R. §655.122(i)(1)(4). If range 

workers are performing true range work, they may have to work continuously for several weeks 

at a time. At a minimum, these range workers should be offered time off at least once every six 

months. Employers must provide herders with at least 13 days off every six months during 

which the range worker may leave the work site.17 

J. Prohibit Retention of Documents

Range workers often have their personal documents retained by their employer.18 Employers 

allege that the documents are not being held or confiscated in violation of the H-2A regulations, 

but rather retained for safekeeping, administrative or convenience purposes. The Special 

Procedures should make it clear that the current common practice of “retaining” documents (e.g., 

passports, visas, renewal visas, I-94s, social security cards, drivers’ licenses, national identity 

documents), other than for administrative purposes for a period of 48 hours, is 

 

16 Some employers adopt policies which make it difficult for injured H-2A range workers to obtain worker’s 

compensation benefits. Insurance documents and medical reports mailed to the employer’s address often are not 

forwarded to the worker. Injured workers are sometimes repatriated before they complete their treatment, without 

any provisions made for follow-up care in their home country. 

17 Ninety percent of California H-2A herders surveyed report that they were never given a day off of work during 

the entire year. See Suffering in the Pastures of Plenty, at 5. 

18 This is not an insignificant problem. Forty-two percent of Colorado H-2A herders interviewed reported that they 

had their passports and immigration documents taken from them by their employers. See Overworked and 

Underpaid, at 15.
Harry Sheinfeld

October 30, 2014

Page 10

prohibited under 20 C.F.R. § 655.135(e)..

K. Contact Information Provided to Consulate and Range worker

Western Range Association and Mountain Plains Agricultural Service register their 

workers with the Peruvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but such registration is voluntary. 

Emergency circumstances, such as health issues arising with the range worker and/or his family, 

could be better addressed if this basic information was shared with range worker’s consulate. 

The Special Procedures should require employers to register each worker with the Consulate of 

the range worker’s country of origin within 14 days of arrival to the United States. Range 

workers should similarly be provided with the contact information of the nearest Consulate of 

their country of origin. 

L. Procedures Applicable Only to Western Range Association (WRA) Applications 

The Special Procedures state that “[w]hen a worker objects to a transfer, the WRA will 

consider the worker’s concerns and preferences. However, ultimate refusal on the part of a worker to 

a transfer may subject the worker to dismissal for a lawful, job-related reason, as provided for in 

DOL regulations.” This provision creates the penalty of deportation for range workers who refuse to 

be transferred to another WRA ranch that he was not originally contracted to work on. Because equal 

treatment requirements, this provision could also potentially allow WRA to transfer U.S. workersto 

a ranch far away from where his or her family lives, reducing the likelihood that U.S. workers would 

be willing to maintain the job. There is no justification for requiring U.S. worker (or H-2A worker) 

applicants to agree to such a draconian provision. The provision should be removed from future 

Special Procedures. 

M. Visitors and Mail

Some ranchers do not allow their H-2A employees to receive visitors. Because of the 

remoteness and isolation of their work, range workers often do not have the opportunity to interact 

with other people for several consecutive days. This is psychologically very difficult for workers. 

New regulations should require that employers allow H-2A range workers to receive visitors. 

Often the only mailing address that range workers have is the mailing address of their 

employer. Sometimes employers do not pass on to their H-2A range workers all of the mail that the 

worker receives. Sometimes rangers will even open their employee’s mail. New regulations should 

require that employer pass on to the range worker, unopened, all of the mail that the range worker 

receives at the employer’s address. 
Harry Sheinfeld

October 30, 2014

Page 11

I would appreciate it if the Department would take these suggestions into account when 

drafting the proposed rule governing H-2A sheepherders and range livestock workers. If you have 

any questions regarding these suggestions or would like to discuss them further, please let me know.

Sincerely, 

s/ Edward Tuddenham

Edward Tuddenham