Skip to content
Sign up free
News

Brown vetoes farmworker union bill

By Chris Hinyub

2-minute read

A bill that would have made it easier for farm laborers to organize was recently vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The unexpected move was seen as a concession to legislative Republicans whose minority party didn't get a say in the state's recent budget deal. As far as the United Farm Workers (UFW) and their Democratic allies in the senate were concerned, it was a betrayal of trust. The moves that career politicians will make to steer the middle-path are  sometimes despicable, sometimes admirable, depending on where you're  standing.

Similar proposals -- to have unions bargain for agricultural employees with a simple majority consent from signature cards, without elections – were unsuccessfully pushed four times during Schwarzenegger's tenor as governor. Supporters of the most recent “card check” measure, authored by state Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), thought they had a champion in the governor because of his close ties to union leaders in the agricultural sector. We are talking about the same Brown who as governor in 1975 signed the Agricultural Labor Relations Act. It was the first legislation of its kind, allowing farm workers to organize via secret ballots. Fond mentions of UFW founder Cesar Chavez in several of Brown's campaign speeches last year helped to raise expectations among union promoters.

Current UFW president Arturo Rodriguez isn't mincing words with the union's view of Brown now. "To us it's a real clear decision. This governor has decided to side with the rich against the powerless," Rodriguez says. Union leaders are vowing to keep up the fight.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the pressure on Brown to sign the bill was “intense”:

“For nearly two weeks, UFW representatives flooded the Capitol, urging Brown to approve the measure. They held protests and vigils outside Brown's office and even brought Chavez's chair to the governor, inviting him to sit in it and ratify the legislation.”

Brown's veto upset more than just labor partners.  It ruffled the feathers of fellow party leaders who've made the legislation a top priority over the past year, including the ALRA's original author, Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Vallet Village).

In his veto message, Brown defended his decision to return SB 104 to lawmakers unsigned by citing his achievements with the union over three decades ago."I am not yet convinced that the far-reaching provisions of this bill – which alter in a significant way the guiding assumptions of the ALRA – are justified," he wrote.

Supporters of the bill claim that the current system allows business owners to coerce field laborers into voting against their own interests.  Opponents of the bill included an impressive coalition of commercial and agricultural interests, including the California Restaurant Assn., the California Grocers Assn., the Western Growers Assn. and the Chamber of Commerce. They countered that the law imposed excessive fines against those who are found to commit unfair labor practices and that those fines should have applied to both sides. Steinberg's bill only penalized growers. The chance for unchecked intimidation by union organizers would have been too great, opponents said.

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Brown vetoes farmworker union bill

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us