## EDWARD TUDDENHAM

ATTORNEY AT LAW

228 West 137 th 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 Le gal 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

represen tatives 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 prod uction 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 forw ard this letter to whoever in the Department is responsible for drafting the proposed rules.

It is our view that t he 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 empl oyed 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 Spec ial Procedures should eliminat e 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 con tained 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 Shei nfeld 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. ” E mployers have taken advantage of the se 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 E mploye rs 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

. O n 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 definition s 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 TEG LS 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

- 2 A 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 ac tivity doe s 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 a t 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 prod uction 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 ranc h, ” a place including “ the ranchhouse, barns, sheds, pen, bunkhouse, cookhouse, and other buildings in the vicinit y” or tends animals “near” headquarters. See 29 C.F.R. § 780.329. Third, and perhaps most important, the FLSA regulations make clear that th e 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 , Centr al 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 andHarry 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 req uired and the reason that employers of H

2A 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 determin ation 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

exe mpt). 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 oth er 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 incidenta l 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 en forcement 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 spend s 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 th at 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 “in cidental 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 Specia l 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 surve y. 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, wit hout 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
stagn ation.

The re 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 emp loyers 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, t he 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 Ca lifornia, 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 T OM G ALLAGHER

, W YOMING D EP ’ T OF W ORKFORCE S ERVICES

, D EP ’ T OF L ABOR F ORM ETA 232 A GRICULTURAL

I N

- S EASON W AGE R EPORT , N O . 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 (applicat ion 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

cert ification 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 the y 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 t he length of the average workwe ek 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, t he ranching indu stry 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 wee k (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 Association 9 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 sp ent 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. I f a week i s 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 Col orado, 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, Overwork ed and Underpaid

, January 14, 2010, at 18.

7 This state ment was made in the findings of a survey conducted on behalf of the Colorado Wool Growers Association in attempt to counter Overwork ed and Underpaid

. J ULIE S TEPANEK S HIFLETT

, T HE R EAL W AGE
B ENEFITS P ROVIDED TO H

- 2A S HEEP H ERDERS AND THE E CONOMIC C OST TO C OLORADO R ANCHERS (March 2010).

8 Responses to Question F(a)(2) on Form ETA 9142 for all Forms ETA 9142 posted on the Department’s I

Cert 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. T hus, 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 th e 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 e mployers 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 worker s 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 w orker (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 t heir remote location, a ll workers must be provided with physical

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

E

. Meals

The Special Procedure s state: “employers must offer their U.S. and foreign workers free food.” This requirement has resu lted 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 unive rsally recognized standard in the food that they provide range workers.

10 See, e.g., Alvaro Bedoya, Captive Labor: The Plight of Peruv ian S heepherders I lluminates B roader E xploitation of I mmigrant W orkers 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 hi s 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 minim um 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 the ir 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

calori e 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 t he 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 st andards, only requiring that the S ESA 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 H

2A 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 s heepherder 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

standard s 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 re gular 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 2 4 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 housi ng be heated by an electrical or

gas

- powered heater. Electrical or gas

- powered heat must be capable of maintaini ng a minimum temperature of 70 degrees. The employer should be adequate bedding during cold weather, such as down sleeping bags and wool blank ets.

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 e mployers 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 require d 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

. Worke rs’ 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 ca re 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 nee d 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

work ers’ compensation claim. While t he 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 documenta tion 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 can not 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. E mployers must provi de 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 d ocuments are not being held or confiscated in violation of the H

- 2A regulations, but rather retained for safekeeping, administrative or convenience purposes. T h e Special Procedures should make it clear that the current common practice of “retaining” docum ents (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 ado pt 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 rep atriated 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 Suf fering 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 a nd 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 ea ch 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

. Procedu res 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 t o 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 o riginally contracted to work on. Because equal treatment requirements, t his provision could also potentially allow WRA to transfer U.S. workers to a ranch far away from where his or her family lives, reducing the likelihood that U.S. workers would

be willi ng 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 n ot 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 f or 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 empl oyer’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 q uestions regarding these suggestions or would like to discuss them further, please let me know.

Sincerely,

s/ Edward Tuddenham

Edward Tuddenham