This article describes the Labor-Religion Coalition's Fast in March of 2000. The issue for that year's fast was the minimum wage which had been unchanged for many years at $5.15 per hour. It took a lot of organizing and lobbying work, and it took a few years, but with the efforts of unions, religious groups, and community organizations, the increase was won in 2004, and the wage was finally raised in 2005, to $6.00 per hour. In 2006, it went to $6.75 and then to $7.15 on January 1, 2007.
By comparison, the Federal minimum wage was raised last year to $5.85 and is scheduled to go to $6.55 in July and to $7.25 in July, 2009.
The effects in NY have been good -- the increase benefited thousands of low-wage New York workers. And, contrary to the warnings of opponents of the minimum wage hike, employment in industries employing large numbers of low-wage workers grew significantly. And hours worked increased, too.
[http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/publications2007/FPI_NYSMinWageJan2007.pdf]
Currently in NY, business organizations like the National Federation of Independent Businesses are again fighting a bill to raise the rates again and to index them to inflation:
"This year, a bill has passed out of the Assembly's labor committee to raise the wage in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The proposed legislation also mandates annual minimum wage increases starting in 2012, indexing the raises to a formula combining inflation rates and the consumer price index. Two-thirds of NFIB survey respondents opposed that idea. Under the bill, the minimum wage would rise to $7.75 in 2009, $8 in 2010 and $8.25 in 2011." [http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2008/02/04/daily1.html]
The NFIB is also fighting a bill to mandate paid family leaves, which passed the State Assembly (controlled by Democrats) and is stalled in the State Senate (controlled by Republicans).
The struggle for equity and living wages continues -- the new minimum wages are still below Living Wage standards for NY. Religious groups will continue to share an economic justice agenda with labor.
------
From the New York Times, March 31, 2000, Friday,
METROPOLITAN DESK
Going Hungry to Make a Point;
A Fast for Poor Laborers Is a Sign of New Interest in an Old Technique
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE (NYT) 1418 words
On college campuses and farmers' fields, in churches and immigration detention centers, and across a range of religious and political beliefs, people are fasting. They do it to make a statement, to prove a point, to draw attention, to make a personal kind of peace.
Indeed, across New York State this week, more than a thousand people, from the Roman Catholic bishop of Albany to janitors in Buffalo, have joined one of the country's largest fasts, this one to protest low wages and abuses in the workplace.
Fasting, of course, has been a spiritual undertaking and sociopolitical tool for centuries, and the lineup of famous fasters is vast and varied: Gandhi, Cesar Chavez, Dick Gregory and, of course, Jesus of Nazareth. But fasting, it appears, is seeing a modest revival.
''There's been a definite increase in fasting,'' said Kim Bobo, executive director of the National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice. ''Fasting has always been in the Christian, Jewish and Muslim tradition, and as people of faith seek increasingly to struggle for justice in this time of abundance, it's a natural outgrowth that fasting would be something they do.''
To many, the power of fasting, personal and political, feels especially strong in New York, where many of the streets, beginning with Wall Street and extending deep into the suburbs, seem to be awash in money and an obsession with wealth and excess.
Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany said New York's religious and labor leaders came up with the idea of a 40-hour fast because they were upset that the problems of poor workers were drawing so little attention, while high-tech billionaires were getting all the publicity. Fasting, he said, is a way to make an unmistakable moral statement when so much of the populace is preoccupied with stock options and sybaritic consumerism. And what better time to do it, he said, than during the Christian penitential season of Lent?
''Everybody is mesmerized these days by the soaring stock market and how people seem to be doing so well economically, yet the gap between the richest and the poorest is wider than it's been in decades,'' said Bishop Hubbard, co-chairman of the New York State Labor-Religion Coalition, which organized the fast. ''Very often those not participating cannot speak for themselves, and we feel as religious leaders and members of the labor movement that we have to be a voice for the voiceless.''
In Albany, Brockport, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and New York City, hundreds of clergy members, labor leaders, college students and others began fasting at 8 p.m. Wednesday. Subsisting on only water and juice, they have prayed together and joined street demonstrations to draw attention to a group they call ''invisible workers.''
These workers include janitors in Buffalo who earn $5.25 an hour, farm workers in Sullivan County who are required to work 70 hours a week and cafeteria workers at the State University of New York in Albany who cannot afford medical coverage. These workers, the fasters say, often do not earn enough to feed their families adequately.
Hallie Williams of Buffalo, who worked for 18 years as a unionized building cleaner before she was laid off and replaced by a nonunion janitor earning the minimum wage, applauded the fast. ''We can't do anything if somebody don't help us because if somebody don't help us, we're just out there without a paddle,'' she said.
The New Yorkers are fasting during the same week that six students at Purdue University in Indiana are doing so to pressure the university's administration to do more to ensure that clothing bearing the Purdue name is not made in sweatshops.
Last spring, six students at the University of California at Berkeley fasted for eight days to demand more instructors for the ethnic studies department. In 1998, half a dozen tomato pickers in Immokalee, Fla., fasted for a month to protest low wages, while janitors and labor leaders at the University of Southern California shunned food to protest the university's failure to sign a union contract.
Fouad Jabar, a graduate student at Purdue who began fasting on Monday, said, ''At other schools, there have been sit-ins and protest demonstrations, but instead of being confrontational, we chose to do a fast to show how serious we are about the sweatshop problem.''
The Rev. Kevin Irwin, a professor of theology at the Catholic University of America who has written extensively on fasting, said the recent upsurge is a healthy development, healthier than a trendier type of fasting that he has little patience for.
''The recent trend in fasting in our society was rather narcissistic -- we fast to lose weight, we fast to look good,'' Father Irwin said. ''The purpose of the fasting we're seeing now regarding social concerns is healthier. It is dependent on God and raises very important values in society.''
Those who choose to fast have many role models. In the Bible, the prophet Isaiah fasted to loose the bonds of wickedness and to undo the yoke of the oppressed, and Jesus fasted for 40 days to proclaim good news to the poor and to give sight to the blind and health to the sick.
Gandhi fasted to draw attention to Britain's colonial domination and harsh treatment of the Indian people. Cesar Chavez, founder of the United Farm Workers, held repeated fasts of three weeks or more to make the public focus on the low wages and miserable conditions of thousands of farm workers.
''It's a commonly accepted practice: one afflicts one's own body as a sign of identifying with the pain of another,'' said Balfour Brickner, rabbi emeritus at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in Manhattan. ''The fast in New York is appropriate because these people, these workers, are hungry. They're hungering for economic and social justice, and our fast is a manifestation of our identity with their cause.''
Brian O'Shaughnessy, statewide coordinator of New York's labor-religion coalition, acknowledged that it was hard to count how many people were participating in the fast. But he said close to 1,500 people had told the coalition that they would participate.
The coalition chose to make the fast 40 hours because 40 is freighted with symbolism: the 40 days of Lent, the 40 days of rain in the Great Flood, the Jews' 40 years in the desert, and the 40-hour workweek.
This is the fifth year the coalition has held the fast. Last year, after the participants focused on the plight of farm workers, the State Legislature raised the minimum wage for farm workers. This year the fast began two days after the New York State Catholic Conference held its annual lobbying day in Albany, and it will end at noon today.
''Fasts like this highlight problems and highlight the need for us to continue to address the inequities in many provisions of the labor law,'' said Nicholas Spano, a Westchester County Republican who is chairman of the State Senate Labor Committee. ''We are listening, we are responding, and we have to do more.''
The participants say they want to press the Legislature to raise the state minimum wage above the federal minimum of $5.15.
Bishop Hubbard said he hoped the fast would grow in future years, and some labor and religious leaders say they will try to spread it to other states. The fasters, Bishop Hubbard said, were following in the footsteps of Jesus, who, the Bible said, fasted to prepare for his public ministry to help the needy.
''I think we have the same mission in today's society,'' he said. ''The issues may be different, but the call to reach out to those who are neediest and most vulnerable among us is every bit as much a part of our religious mandate as it was when Christ walked the face of the earth.''
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
http://www.labor-religion.org/fast_nyt_march2000.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
A longer version of a piece I wrote that ran in a number of newspapers across NYS.
Advocacy Inc.
Over the past few years much press attention in New York State has been generated about farmworkers by the New York State Labor Religion Coalition (NYSLRC), the Mid-Hudson/Catskill Rural & Migrant Ministry (RMM), and the Centro Independiente de Trabajadores Agrícolas (CITA). These organizations have put great pressure on the New York State legislature. Their lobbying is ever ongoing. Yet elected officials, the media, and the public know next to nothing about them. Since these groups are so intrinsically involved in the public policy process it only stands to reason the public has a right to know more about them.
These organizations act as "self-appointed advocates" on behalf of farmworkers. Real farmworkers have neither elected nor chosen the organizations or their designated leaders to represent them. Only a token one or two farmworkers actually serves on their various Boards of Directors. For the most part real farmworkers do not attend these organizations' meetings nor help plan their events. This fact was admitted by Rev. Richard Witt, Executive Director of RMM, in sworn testimony before the NYS Lobby Commission in October 2001. Witt admitted that though any farmworker who wants to be on RMM's planning committee could be on it, on average only two or three actually serve on the committee. The investigator for the Lobby Commission remarked, "does that sound strange to you? ... In the advocacy advocating for these people, any one of them, as you testified, can serve on the committee, and the most you got is three?" When actual farmworkers do participate, they're usually paid to be there. In his testimony Rev. Witt admitted that the few farmworkers that were bussed into Albany were paid $40 at the end of their lobbying event.
So, who do these organizations truly represent? They represent the organizations that created them and still primarily fund them. In the case of the NYSLRC it is the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and the NYS United Teachers union (NYSUT) (both the NYSLRC and the NYSUT have the same address). In the case of RMM it is primarily the Episcopal Diocese of New York as well as the Roman Catholic Dioceses of Albany and Rochester, amongst others. CITA is merely a sub organization of RMM. It was directly created by RMM and it is still controlled by that organization. Their respective literature clearly bears this out.
For years the NYSLRC, RMM and CITA lobbied extensively without bothering to register as lobbyists or familiarize themselves with NYS lobby laws. It wasn't until after they were investigated and fined by the Lobby Commission that they registered.
http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2002/07/30/camfined.htm
The 3rd, CITA, was recently scheduled before the Commission for a civil penalty hearing (but they must have settled before the hearing):
http://www.nylobby.state.ny.us/091503pr.html
Their disregard for the law also extends to their federal tax filings. All three organizations file as tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. According to the IRS, "To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization Š may not engage in carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities." Even the most casual review of the copious materials generated by these organizations reveals that engaging in propaganda and lobbying is neither a small part nor even a "substantial" part but in fact constitutes the bulk of their activities. All three organizations make numerous statements regarding lobbying, both in their own literature as well as in the press and they have claimed substantial legislative lobbying victories. Yet despite all of this lobbying all three organizations up until their 2001 yearly 990 tax returns claimed they did not lobby AT ALL.
In the United States, all citizens have the right to petition the government. At the same time all citizens that engage in that right have the responsibility to know and follow the law. These organizations are abusing their federal tax designation to accomplish their agenda. Essentially you and I, the tax-paying public, are heavily subsidizing them. It should be noted that these three NY organizations are not small time "mom & pop" groups that raise miniscule amounts at weekly church bake sales. In 2001 they collectively raised $1,071,343, which was an increase of $531,628 over 1998.
Furthermore, while these organizations as well as the gigantic religious institutions that primarily fund them are pointing their fingers dictating how the agriculture industry should treat their workers, they don't seem to be interested in applying those standards for their own workers. This past year much media attention has been focused on the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brownsville, Texas. It seems the Bishop there supports workers in other industries to be a part of a labor union but has ruthlessly fired his own Diocese secretarial and support staff for attempting to join an union.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A10304-2003Jul4¬Found=true
http://www.themonitor.com/NewsPub/News/Stories/2003/06/21/10562509691.shtml
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/church/explanation
I e-mailed the various Dioceses that primarly fund RMM, CITA and the NYSLRC, asking them where they stand on the issue of their respective Diocese support staff being unionized. Most refused to respond. A spokesperson for the Episcopal Diocese of New York stated, "the staff of the diocese is not unionized and to my knowledge it has never been an issue." It seems to me that if you are going to aggressively lobby for certain laws or conditions for workers outside of your industry, then you should be leading by example for employees in your own industry.
Another example of hypocrisy is regarding overtime pay. Under NYS labor law non-profit organizations, at the time of their formation/incorporation, can elect to apply for an exemption to pay overtime. So, odds are, the above named larger religious institutions as well as the individual churches that are prompting/backing RMM, NYSLRC and CITA and calling on farmers to pay overtime to farmworkers are probably EXEMPT AND NOT PAYING OVERTIME TO THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES.
Not enough hypocrisy for you? Check out the webposting on the New York State Labor Religion Coalition website entitled "New York City area: Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition" (this is the page devoted to the New York City area: Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition, which is a local New York State Labor-Religion Coalition affiliate) (http://www.labor-religion.org/local_greater_ny_bar.htm).
Rabbi Michael Feinberg (who is a close ally of Executive Director Witt of Rural and Migrant Ministry) runs this local New York State Labor-Religion Coalition affiliate and is most likely the author of the excerpt from his website which appears below. The website states:
"Over 130 attended the lunch forum for religious leaders about the living wage in late February 2002. In the fall of 2001, the living wage steering committee decided to change its approach. Since the city will have a large deficit because of Sept. 11, the proposed ordinance will exempt non-profits. This means that fewer workers will be covered, but there is a better chance of winning. With a high moral message, 'A Living Wage--Rebuild with Dignity' union allies will be easy to rally. This approach ties nicely with other campaigns such as Justice for Janitors. 3/4 of New York City Council members were newly elected in November. The LW steering committee will work to establish coalitions by January when new Council members and the new mayor take over."
Let that sink in for a moment. Yes, to make the living wage ordinance more palatable, more likely to pass, Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition Executive Director Feinberg and friends have decided to "exclude" (I mean exempt) non profits from the proposed ordinance. Though "fewer workers will be covered" they are willing to suffer, and, make that sacrifice, to get the ordinance passed. It's oh so "Machiavellian" of them, isn't it? Of course as they make this sacrifice they will be taking the "high moral" ground in their overall approach in getting the ordinance passed.
Spare me.
These organizations have little to no understanding of agricultural production, marketing or public policy realities. They lobby in a narrow-minded vacuum instead of in terms of a global economy. They haven't a clue as to what impact their proposed legislation will have on the rural or overall economy of the state. If what they advocate for puts farmers out of business and devastates farming, how does that help the very people they purport to advocate for - farmworkers? And they have no interest in applying many of the things they have decided farmworkers require, to themselves and their own industry/organizations.
One has to seriously question organizations that take it upon themselves to advocate in behalf of people that haven't asked for their help or for things they neither fully understand nor actually follow themselves. Hmm..., maybe farmers across New York State should rally for the workers rights of the various churches and appoint ourselves as their saviors.
Christopher Pawelski
Here is some material regarding how and why what these organizations (Rural & Migrant Ministry, CITA, NYS Labor-Religion Coalition) are doing is wrong/illegal in connection with their lobbying activity:
The Internal Revenue Service publication entitled "LOBBYING ISSUES" by Judith E. Kindell and John Francis Reilly ( found on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/topic-p.pdf ) clearly outlines Internal Revenue Service code in connection with what constitutes lobbying and how much lobbying an organization that files as a 501(c)(3) can lawfully engage in before 501(c)(3) status is lost or revoked. Here is a portion of it:
"Attempts to influence legislation are not limited to direct communications to members of the legislature ('direct' lobbying). Indirect communications through the electorate or general public ('grass roots' lobbying) also constitute attempts to influence legislation. Of course, whether a communication constitutes an attempt to influence legislation is determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the communication in question. Both direct and grass roots lobbying are nonexempt activities subject to the IRC 501(c)(3) limitation on substantial legislative action.16 Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(ii).17 Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(ii) also provides that, more generally, advocating the adoption or rejection of legislation constitutes an attempt to influence legislation for purposes of the IRC 501(c)(3) lobbying restriction. This provision was tested in the case of Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v. United States, 470 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1972); cert. denied, 414 U.S. 864 (1973). Christian Echoes National Ministry published articles and produced radio and television broadcasts that urged recipients to become involved in politics and to write to their representatives in Congress to urge that they support prayer in public schools and oppose foreign aid. The organization argued that attempts to influence legislation would occur only if legislation were actually pending. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the regulation properly interpreted the statute, and that the organization was engaged in attempting to influence legislation, even if legislation was not pending.
The IRC 501(c)(3) regulations provide that an organization is not operated exclusively for exempt purposes if it is an 'action' organization. Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3) uses the term 'action' organizations to describe both organizations that attempt to influence legislation and organizations that intervene in political campaigns. For purposes of the lobbying restriction, an organization is an 'action' organization on either of two distinct grounds. The first occurs if a substantial part of the organization's activities involves attempting to influence legislation. Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(ii) states that an organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it does the following: (A) Contacts, or urges the public to contact, members of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or (B) Advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation. The second ground is found in Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iv), which provides that an organization is an 'action' organization if it has the following two characteristics: (A) Its main or primary objective or objectives (as distinguished from its incidental or secondary objectives) may be attained only by legislation or a defeat of proposed legislation; and (B) It advocates, or campaigns for, the attainment of such main or primary objective or objectives as distinguished from engaging in nonpartisan analysis, study, or research and making the results thereof available to the public. In determining whether an organization has these two characteristics, all of the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the articles and all activities of the organization, are to be considered.
Nevertheless, while neither the Service nor the courts have adopted a percentage test for determining whether a substantial part of an organization's activities consist of lobbying, some guidance can be derived from Seasongood and Haswell. Under Seasongood, a five percent safe harbor has been frequently applied as a general rule of thumb regarding what is substantial. Similarly, lobbying activities that exceed the roughly 16 to 20 percent range of total activities found in Haswell are generally considered substantial."
Further, the Internal Revenue Service's website states, quite plainly, the following regarding "Exemption Requirements" for organizations to file as a 501(c)(3) :
http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
"To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates.... The exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.... An organization will be regarded as "operated exclusively" for one or more exempt purposes only if it engages primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of the exempt purposes specified in IRC Section 501(c)(3). An organization will not be so regarded if more than an insubstantial part of its activities is not in furtherance of an exempt purpose.... An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not engage in carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities. Whether an organization has attempted to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities is determined based upon all relevant facts and circumstances. However, most IRC Section 501(c)(3) organizations may use Form 5768, Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible Section 501(c)(3) Organization to Make Expenditures to Influence Legislation, to make an election under IRC Section 501(h) to be subject to an objectively measured expenditure test with respect to lobbying activities rather than the less precise "substantial activity" test. Electing organizations are subject to tax on lobbying activities that exceed a specified percentage of their exempt function expenditures."
Regarding education versus propaganda the IRS makes the following distinctions in Publication 557, "Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization":
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf
"Advocacy of a position.
Advocacy of a particular position or viewpoint may be educational if there is a sufficiently full or fair exposition of pertinent facts to permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion. The mere presentation of unsupported opinion is not educational.
Method not educational.
The method used by an organization to develop and present its views is a factor in determining if an organization qualifies as educational within the meaning of section 501(c)(3). The following factors may indicate that the method is not educational.
1) The presentation of viewpoints unsupported by facts is a significant portion of the organization's communications.
2) The facts that purport to support the viewpoints are distorted.
3) The organization's presentations make substantial use of inflammatory and disparaging terms and express conclusions more on the basis of strong emotional feelings than of objective evaluations.
4) The approach used in the organization's presentations is not aimed at developing an understanding on the part of the intended audience or readership because it does not consider their background or training in the subject matter."
In some discussion sites and/or in publications I see a lot of rah rah type comments regarding lobbying by 501(c)(3) organizations (amount, type, etc...). For some balance I urge all to check out this website:
http://www.publicinterestwatch.org/eye.htm
From the link above:
"Perhaps one of the most frequently violated provisions of the federal tax code is IRC 501(c)3. This is the law that grants special tax-exempt status to nonprofit organizations that are operated for charitable and certain other public benefit purposes, such as education. In addition to exempting an organization from income tax, 501(c)3 status entitles a group to solicit tax-deductible contributions (and thereby tap into a form of taxpayer funding).
How is the law being abused? It's being routinely violated by ideological and social action groups that improperly obtain 501(c)3 exempt status by describing their purposes to the IRS as "educational." While the IRS has so far done virtually nothing to stop this form of abuse, federal tax laws and the IRS' own regulations make it very clear that propaganda campaigns or efforts to force social action do not qualify as education. Those who wish to undertake such crusades have every constitutional right to do so, but when they use tax-deductible contributions to fund such activity they break the law and violate the free speech rights of taxpayers who don't support their causes.
Under the tax laws, social action groups may be established as tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, but not as 501(c)3 organizations. Instead, such groups are exempt under IRC 501(c)4, which provides exemption from income taxation but does not confer eligibility to collect tax-deductible contributions.
The law on tax-exempt "educational" organizations:
* Under federal tax law IRC 501(c)3, organizations that are "organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable ... or educational purposes" are exempt from taxation. Exemption under this section gives these groups the right to solicit tax-deductible contributions.
* "Educational purposes" are defined in the regulations implementing the statute. Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(3) defines education as follows: "The instruction or training of the individual for the purpose of improving or developing his capabilities; or the instruction of the public on subjects useful to the individual and beneficial to the community."
With regard to education as it relates to social issues, the regulations further provide that "An organization may be educational even though it advocates a particular position or viewpoint so long as it presents a sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts as to permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion. On the other hand, an organization is not educational if its principal function is the mere presentation of unsupported opinion."
* In determining whether an organization that advocates a particular point of view is educational or not, IRS examiners are supposed to follow Revenue Procedure 86-43, 1986-2 C.B. 729. These guidelines further clarify the distinction between education and propaganda. They provide that the presence of any of the following factors in presentations made by an organization is indicative that the organization is not educational:
1. The presentation of viewpoints unsupported by facts is a significant portion of the organization's communications.
2. The facts that purport to support the viewpoints are distorted.
3. The organization's presentations make substantial use of inflammatory and disparaging terms and express conclusions more on the basis of strong emotional feelings than of objective evaluations.
4. The approach used in the organization's presentations is not aimed at developing an understanding on the part of the intended audience or readership because it does not consider their background or training in the subject matter.
* For a detailed discussion of the law on what constitutes impermissible propaganda by a 501(c)3 organization, see the IRS's discussion brief Education, Propaganda, and the Methodology Test.
* An organization whose methods are educational does not qualify as an educational organization if its principal objectives are legislative and it advocates in any way for them. Even if the group does not engage in direct or grassroots lobbying of legislators, it still violates the law if it publicly advocates its position and that position can only be attained through legislation.
Reg.1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iv) provides that an organization is not an educational organization, but rather an "action" organization (which cannot qualify for exemption as a 501(c)3 organization) " if it has the following two characteristics: (a) Its main or primary objective or objectives (as distinguished from its incidental or secondary objectives) may be attained only by legislation or a defeat of proposed legislation; and (b) it advocates, or campaigns for, the attainment of such main or primary objective or objectives as distinguished from engaging in nonpartisan analysis, study, or research and making the results thereof available to the public."
http://www.publicinterestwatch.org/
From the link above:
"PIW asks for congressional hearings. In September we asked the House Ways and Means Committee to investigate abuses of laws regulating charities by ideological and advocacy groups. Read our letter! Last year, 285,733 self-described charitable organizations collected over one hundred billion dollars in tax-deductible contributions (meaning taxpayers footed between 35% and 45% of this amount). The IRS examined just 835 (or 0.29%) of them. For more on the lax oversight of nonprofits see the GAO's report, Tax-Exempt Organizations."
From what I have seen and personally experienced, where clearly "action" organizations that are not "educational" in any way, shape, or form and are lobbying up the wazoo (way beyond a "substantial part" of their activities), and are gaining significant legislative lobbying victories (despite claiming for years, quite incredibly, that they did not lobby at all), those hearings need to be held by Chairman Thomas. Tax dollars should not be heavily subsidizing the aggresive legislative and/or political agenda of groups that clearly should not hold that tax exempt status. And this is not a "right" or "left" issue. As the PIW website shows, organizations on both sides are grossly violating the law.
You want to lobby as a 501(c)(3)? Great. Then follow the statute and regulations and don't lobby beyond a "substantial part" of your activities and don't pretend your propoganda (if that's what you primarly spread, as defined by relevant IRS Code) constitutes "educational" material. If you want to dissemenate propganda or lobby extensively, fine, then change your tax status and stop violating my free speech rights by using my tax dollars to heavily subsidize your legislative agenda and message. Congress never intended the 501(c)(3) tax designation for such purposes.
One day, someone or some group is going to file a lawsuit about this, like some of the various ag checkoff programs that recently have been filed suit against in the courts as being unconstitutional violations of free speech, you are going to see the same thing happen regarding this issue. Then watch the "you know what" hit the fan.
Chris
How do these religious organizations, like the New York State Labor-Religion Coalition, and the larger organizations/institutions that fund them and clearly pull their strings, including the various Catholic and Episcopal Diocese, explain the blatant and offensive hypocrisy of their trying to dictate and impose rules regarding the employment of agricultural employees which they don't apply to themselves?
I find this blatant hypocrisy to be equal parts appalling, disturbing and offensive. Why doesn't anyone challenge them on this? I mean, the Lord did. Didn't Jesus direct the religious priests of his day to "remove the planks from their own eyes" before trying to remove "the speck" from their brother's eye?
And they are really big on removing the "exclusions" or exemptions found in our laws. Great. Then let them lead by example by removing one of the biggest, most egregious exemptions found in our laws, the tax exclusions that these religious organizations benefit so greatly from.
George Carlin really has it right about these guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8evsSNdXcs
C.
If interested in exploring the blatant hypocrisy of these religious and quasi-religious organizations, that want to impose rules and laws on other industries they don't often want applied to themselves and who benefit from a number of labor law and tax "exclusions" than I urge you to read the 5 part series "In God's Name" by Diana B. Henriques that ran in October of 2006 in the New York Times.
IN GOD’S NAME: As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/08religious.html?pagewanted=all
IN GOD’S NAME: Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/business/09religious.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all
IN GOD’S NAME: Religious Programs Expand, So Do Tax Breaks
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/business/10religious.html?pagewanted=all
IN GOD’S NAME: Religion-Based Tax Breaks: Housing to Paychecks to Books
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/business/11religious.html?pagewanted=all
IN GOD’S NAME: Ministry’s Medical Program Is Not Regulated
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/business/20religion.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all
These articles are quite illuminating and the hypocrisy they expose are equal parts nnauseating and appalling .
C.
Chris Pawelski, who doesn't allow public viewing of his blogspot profile, is not an unbiased commentator. He's an onion grower and an influential member of the NYS Farm Bureau, a steadfast opponent of labor rights for farmworkers.
Note that the NYS Labor-Religion Coalition is unionized, with staff being members of CWA Local 1104.
The NYSLRC would like to see other not-for-profits unionize. Staffs and unions recognize that this is a difficult area, as budgets are often very lean. It's an ongoing project.
The NYSLRC is registered as a lobbying organization and complies with the law. The issue had always been the percentage of their work that was considered lobbying. Although much of the printed and online material has to do with legislation, most of the actual work of the organization and its local affiliates is in supporting unions in their organizing efforts and during strikes, and through such things as holding Workers Rights Board hearings on worker justice issues.
When I was the staff person for the Capital District affiliate, we could only afford 10 hours per week of paid work. I was grilled intensely by the NYS Temporary Commission on Lobbying about how I spent my time. Although less than 5% of my time and our budget was spent on national and state lobbying efforts, and the rest on local labor issues, the NYSLRC decided to register me and the staff members of other local affiliates as lobbyists so as to eliminate any uncertainties about compliance.
Brother Billy says:
"Chris Pawelski, who doesn't allow public viewing of his blogspot profile, is not an unbiased commentator. He's an onion grower and an influential member of the NYS Farm Bureau, a steadfast opponent of labor rights for farmworkers."
1. My blogspot profile has nothing in it. I'm anything but secretive. I never post anonymously and anyone can e-mail me for more information or can google my name.
2. Farm Bureau is not a "steadfast opponent of labor rights for farmworkers." First, there are laws upon laws upon laws, on the local, state and federal level, regarding the laws connected to the living and working conditions of farmworkers. The ag industry is one of the most regulated industries out there. Farm Bureau supports the few exemptions regarding ag employment that do exist and I'll post after this post my talking points regarding those exemptions. I am very comfortable in defending those exemptions, I, though, am not like those in the "amen business" who cry for the exemptions to end for the ag industry but have no problem keeping many of those same exemptions for their employees. Blatant, appalling hypocrisy. And of course those in the amen business benefit from a whole series of tax "exclusions" that other industries don't have. If "all exclusions to the laws are bad" like they goofily assert why don't they champion the end of all of the exemptions, including the tax law exemptions they benefit from. What did the lord say, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them."
Brother Billy says:
"Note that the NYS Labor-Religion Coalition is unionized, with staff being members of CWA Local 1104."
Yes, but what about the religious institutions and organizations that primarily fund them? See http://rochester.indymedia.org/newswire/display/2393/index.php and see above.
Brother Billy says:
"The NYSLRC would like to see other not-for-profits unionize. Staffs and unions recognize that this is a difficult area, as budgets are often very lean. It's an ongoing project."
Yeah, right. As Kim Bobo has said: "'It’s unfortunate that many of our religious institutions -- not just Catholic -- often respond poorly when workers choose to organize,' said Kim Bobo, executive director of the Chicago-based National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice. 'Somehow they take it that the workers are opposed to the institution, that they don’t respect the leadership. In reality, workers just want to have a collective voice to affect their future.'” http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-106475697.html
As the National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice website further states: "Engages Religious Employers: Religiously-affiliated non-profit institutions, such as hospitals and nursing homes, should model the highest standard of employer-employee relations. Unfortunately some religious institutions hire union-busting "consultants" and engage in unethical, and sometimes illegal behavior toward workers when they attempt to form a union. IWJ has developed resources to educate people of faith about this issue." http://www.iwj.org/aboutus/aboutus.html
So, Brother Billy, why don't you guys start with the religious and quasi-religious, blatantly hypocritical non-profits first and then work your way towards the other non-profits. And don't just work on the unionization, how about ending the overtime exemption that all non-profits that choose to benefit from in NYS?
Brother Billy says:
"The NYSLRC is registered as a lobbying organization and complies with the law. The issue had always been the percentage of their work that was considered lobbying. Although much of the printed and online material has to do with legislation, most of the actual work of the organization and its local affiliates is in supporting unions in their organizing efforts and during strikes, and through such things as holding Workers Rights Board hearings on worker justice issues."
Oh, Billy, puhhleeeeze. The NYSLRC is registered because a detailed complaint backed with tons of documentary evidence was filed and your organization, along with Rural and Migrant ministry was then investigated and hauled in for a deposition, then you were both fined and forced to register. Neither the NYSLRC nor RMM's lack of compliance had anything to do with a misunderstanding of the lobby laws or how much lobbying constituted a requirement to register and comply with NYS lobby laws but had everything to do with excessive lobbying and maintaining your 501(c)3 tax exempt status. I know this because I spoke extensively with the Lobby Commission and read the NYSLRC and RMM depositions before the Lobby Commission. This concern over losing the 501(c)3 status comes though loud and clear in the depositions.
By the way, your organizations' excessive lobbying as well as your work "supporting unions in their organizing efforts and during strikes, and through such things as holding Workers Rights Board hearings on worker justice issues" should disqualify you from holding the lucrative 501(c)3 status. I'll also post a piece on how both organizations, due to their excessive lobbying and engaging in social action type activities, disqualify them from holding 501(c)3 status.
Brother Billy says:
"When I was the staff person for the Capital District affiliate, we could only afford 10 hours per week of paid work. I was grilled intensely by the NYS Temporary Commission on Lobbying about how I spent my time. Although less than 5% of my time and our budget was spent on national and state lobbying efforts, and the rest on local labor issues, the NYSLRC decided to register me and the staff members of other local affiliates as lobbyists so as to eliminate any uncertainties about compliance."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha .......... That is so funny. I do know when your organization and RMM was first contacted by the Lobby Commission and asked if you lobbied both organizations initially lied to the Lobby Commission. It was after the Lobby Commission was provided detailed evidence that mucho lobbying was being done did the aggressive investigation then ensued. I do know you were supposed to be deposed but didn't you claim you had a heart attack and couldn't make it for the deposition? O'Shaughnessy, not you, was eventually deposed. When, exactly, did your "grilling" take place? And, once again, "the NYSLRC decided to register me and the staff members of other local affiliates as lobbyists" because the Lobby Commission's investigation found your organizations were breaking NYS Lobby Laws and you were required to register. Please, don't mislead people to believe your respective organizations compliance was willing or voluntary. That's simply not true, "Brother Billy."
I'll post my response to the exemptions as well as how these various 501(c)3s are grossly violating the code.
Take care,
C.
.... or as the self-appointed and hypocritical advocates refer to them in rhetorically charged terms, "the exclusions."
Day of rest
A codified day of rest for agriculture is illogical and impractical due to the "nature" of the business. There is NO comparison to any other business for what a farmer faces. An entire crop, an entire year's income, can be put at risk simply because it was not planted soon enough or harvested fast enough. No other business or industry faces this kind of pressure. During planting and harvesting farmers themselves do not take a day of rest. However, from the end of April through the end of July, which is the majority of the growing season, we invite anyone to drive through the black dirt area here in Orange County on a Saturday afternoon or Sunday. Few farmers and their farmworkers, if any, are working. Days of rest also occur naturally when bad weather occurs, breakdowns, etc....
Overtime pay
Again, farm work is not comparable to making "widgets" in a factory. A factory can more easily structure their work schedule according to the supply of materials and demand for their product, and adjust the work schedule accordingly so as to minimize more easily the increased costs associated with overtime pay. In agriculture the work frequently happens in brief periods of time (planting and harvesting) which is heavily dependent on the weather and the season or time of year, two things a farmer cannot control. In other words, I have a small window of time to plant and harvest and I have to work longer hours at those periods of time and nothing I can do can change that.
What a farmer can do is cut back the hours during non peak periods so as to be able to afford the overtime pay during the peak periods which can't be avoided. And here is where the self-appointed advocates do not take into account potential unintended consequences of what they are lobbying for. If the overtime exemption ends and farmers significantly cut back hours during the non peak periods between planting and harvesting to compensate for the increased labor costs that can't be minimized during the peak periods, then this reduction in hours may lead to a real reduction in wages for farmworkers. So, in terms of pay earned eliminating the overtime exemption may (and probably will) lead to less overall pay earned in a season. This also might lead to less workers traveling to NYS, which will only exacerbate an already acute labor shortage.
In the end, everyone loses, the workers actually have less take home pay and the farmers have less workers available. Farms may eventually go out of business, costing the farmworkers their jobs. But the self-appointed advocates, who have pushed for this, walk away paying no consequences for their actions.
Collectively bargain
This exemption for collective bargaining exists for a number of legitimate reasons. Due to the acute and ongoing labor shortage, farmworkers would have a potentially devastating advantage. A strike either in the middle of planting or harvest, exacerbated by an acute and ongoing labor shortage, could cripple an operation and quickly put the farmer out of business. It would be a distinct and unfair negotiating advantage. It also is a potential threat to our ability to continue to provide a safe and abundant food supply for the populace at large.
Though the ability to negotiate collectively is not codified in state law, farmworkers can and often do negotiate various aspects of their living and working conditions as individuals or as groups on a farm by farm basis.
Further, New York State is not a "Right to Work" state. As the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc.'s website states:
"You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees. Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.
Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an 'agency fee.') Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time."
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm
One has to wonder if the above facts have been thoroughly explained to farmworkers, that being in a union isn't "free?" That a portion of their paycheck will be deducted each week to pay for their union membership? Have they been told how much those potential union dues may be each paycheck? Have they been told that New York State isn't a "right to work state," therefore though they may not be required to be a union member, they still may be required to pay "agency fees" as detailed above?
Or, has unionization been presented by the self-appointed farmworker advocates as a panacea that has no costs or potential drawbacks associated with it? Have farmworkers been given the entire picture? I seriously doubt it.
Farmworkers in New York State, according to relevant federal statistics, earn roughly $9.50 per hour. Factor in the free housing and all that free housing entails (that includes generally free gas & electric, and free tvs and free DirecTV Para Todos service which I pay for on our farm), the free healthcare clinics all around the state, the free migrant daycare centers, the free migrant education programs, amongst other things, and they are earning a decent wage. And this is for, in most cases, TEMPORARY SEASONAL JOBS. They are providing for themselves and their families back home.
Farmers like myself would love to pay our workers even more. We'd love to provide healthcare coverage. But, when I'm getting paid, dollar for dollar and not adjusted for inflation, the same price for a 50lb bag of onions that I was paid over 20 years ago ($6), and when we in this country spend less than 11% of our disposable income on food and farmers typically receive less than 20% of that retail dollar, farmers like myself are doing all we can. This is the contextual reality that the self-appointed advocates never deal with. This issue must be addressed within that reality, not from a void.
What on earth will a union do for a farmworker? You can't get "blood from a stone," unless you take into account the union dues or "agency fees" that will be deducted from a farmworker's paycheck each week to go into the pockets of the union.
Unemployment insurance
Farmers must provide unemployment insurance if they have a payroll of $20,000 or more in any calendar quarter, if the farmer employed 10 or more persons on at least one day in each of the 20 different weeks during a calendar year or the preceding calendar year, or if they are liable under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act. Fruit and vegetable farms tend to employ large amounts of people for a short amount of time. The threshold, originally established at the federal level, exists largely because of the seasonal and transitory nature of our labor force. Migrant farmworkers who follow the harvest season are going to employment in other states, and will not stay in New York collecting unemployment insurance.
Some larger local operations, including those that pack onions year round, do meet the threshold and do provide unemployment compensation, which is appropriate.
But, with the elimination of the $20,000 threshold exemption, does the government want to encourage persons that would normally travel to another region and work to instead stay put, not work when normally they would, and collect unemployment insurance? That strikes me as being bad social policy.
Disability insurance
New York is one of only six states that require disability insurance, which covers injuries that occur outside of the workplace and during non-working hours. I, and many other farmers, simply cannot afford to provide disability insurance for ourselves, let alone for our employees. And since I am the employer, I am not covered by worker compensation. I have to pay for my own health insurance, which is extremely expensive. To provide disability insurance to seasonal, temporary employees, defies logic.
I have a friend that was a salesperson for over 20 years. Many years ago he bought 2 disability insurance policies. Recently he has been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. There is no question as to the accuracy of the diagnosis. He clearly has it and the disease is clearly affecting his ability to work. Yet, both insurance companies are fighting him "tooth and nail" in regards to actually paying on the policy.
Who honestly believes that insurance companies are going to readily and easily pay out off the farm injury related claims for persons who may or may not be documented and who migrate to multiple locations during the year?
Finally, a little observation regarding hypocrisy on the part of these self-appointed advocate organizations:
In the summer of 2003, after Bishop Pena of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brownsville, Texas fired a number of his employees in response to their attempts to join a labor union, I contacted the various diocese and other large religious institutions (of various faiths) that primarily fund RMM et al, asking them where they stood on the issue of their employees joining a labor union. Most ignored and refused to respond to my repeated attempts to solicit their views/positions on this issue. Only the Episcopal Diocese of New York remotely attempted to answer my questions. Their spokesperson said:
"The Episcopal Diocese of New York has a history of advocacy for the rights of all people and lives out this belief in advocating for the rights and dignity of all workers. The staff of the diocese is not unionized and to my knowledge it has never been an issue."
Translation: "Do as I say, not as I do."
It seems to me that if you are going to aggressively lobby for certain laws or conditions for workers outside of your industry, then you should be leading by example for employees in your own industry.
If these religious institutions, including the Episcopal Diocese of New York are so keen on unionizing workers why don't they start by unionizing the workers that work for their various organizations and affiliated institutions (churches, schools, hospitals, etcŠ)?
It should be emphasized that religious based institutions, including their private schools and hospitals, have a long, rich tradition of being anti-union. Or should I say, they are pro-union, unless it is people that happen to work for them, that is. From the National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice (NICWJ) website:
"Engages Religious Employers: Religiously-affiliated non-profit institutions, such as hospitals and nursing homes, should model the highest standard of employer-employee relations. Unfortunately some religious institutions hire union-busting 'consultants' and engage in unethical, and sometimes illegal behavior toward workers when they attempt to form a union. NICWJ has developed resources to educate people of faith about this issue." (http://www.nicwj.org/pages/aboutus.html)
Maybe what's motivating these institutions is what they might get out of the deal. Will union dues or "agency fees" be poured into the coffers of the Episcopal Diocese of New York and these other organizations that primarily fund and control the proxy organizations like Rural and Migrant Ministry and CITA? Maybe they aren't so keen on their own employees unionizing because that will take money out of their pockets, versus putting it in.
Their hypocrisy also involves overtime pay. Under NYS labor law non-profit organizations, at the time of their formation/incorporation, can elect to apply for an exemption (or "exclusion," as the self-appointed advocates put it) to pay overtime. So, odds are, the large religious institutions as well as the individual churches that are prompting/backing RMM, NYSLRC and CITA and calling on farmers to pay overtime to farmworkers are probably exempt and not paying overtime to their own employees.
They say that the best defense is a good offense, so Chris Pawelski has mounted a good defense of the Farm Bureau's position on labor rights by attacking the Labor-Religion Coalition. That, however, distracts from the migrant worker justice issues that the Labor-Religion Coalition and its allies have raised. These continue to stand on their own merits.
Chris has removed his last comment, which was the text of the IRS publication titled "Lobbying Issues" [http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/topic-p.pdf], plus some of his own concluding comments. They illustrate the difficulty of the law, which depends on the vague concept of "substantial part" of an organization's activities, and on the impressionistic differentiation of "education" from "propaganda".
Nevertheless, for the record, Chris:
I see that you blogspot profile is now accessible. Previously, the response had been that the profile is private and not accessible. You're right, though: it's not informative.
I've never had a heart attack but have been hospitalized for severe cardiac arrhythmia -- now I have a pacemaker, after having almost died twice one day some years ago, so I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say I missed a deposition because of a heart attack.
I was interviewed by David Grandeau, the executive director of the NYS Temporary Commission on Lobbying, sometime in 2001. He and a commission lawyer grilled me for about an hour. As I left, he apologized for his aggressiveness, saying that he was really a nice guy in private life. To substantiate how little lobbying I did, I sent him all the minutes of the Capital District Coalition's meetings. Our budget was about $15,000, my salary was about half of that, and there was no way that my time and other minor costs could have added up to $2,000 worth of lobbying the NY State Government.
Most of our income didn't come from big religious organizations. 2/3 of our budget came from our annual awards dinner and the rest from dues paid by some unions, a few congregations, and a smattering of individual pledges.
I assume that most of the NYs Labor-Religion Coalition's regional affilates' finances are similar to ours. Nevertheless, in response to the investigation, the state-wide coalition decided to register us all as lobbyists since it would be be simpler than trying to detail the time we spent on every project or campaign, since it was obvious the Farm Bureau would continue to attack us. (Note that I hadn't claimed this was unrelated to the investigation and thus 'voluntary': I hadn't disputed your account of the investigation that the Farm Bureau's complaint had touched off.)
For anyone who's reading this far, here's a basic story on what happened, using the first article that Chris Pawelski linked to in his first comment.
http://archive.recordonline.com/archive/2002/07/30/camfined.htm
July 30, 2002
Farm worker advocates fined over lobbying violations
By Chris McKenna
Times Herald-Record
Two groups that advocate on behalf of New York farm workers have been fined for violating state lobbying rules.
A state agency that oversees lobbying found that both non-profit organizations failed to register as lobbyists and file required financial reports in 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Both groups negotiated settlements with New York Temporary State Commission on Lobbying in May before their scheduled penalty hearings.
Mid-Hudson Catskill Rural and Migrant Ministry Inc., based in Poughkeepsie, paid a $5,500 fine, and the Albany-based New York Labor-Religion Coalition paid $5,000.
"We weren't aware that some of the things we were engaged in were considered lobbying," the Rev. Richard Witt Jr., executive director of Rural and Migrant Ministry, said yesterday.
"It's not like we ever tried to hide anything. We were always up front with what we were trying to do."
Both groups registered as lobbyists last year after the commission began investigating them.
But the filings were "incomplete, inaccurate and in violation of the law," Ralph Miccio, a commission lawyer, said in a memo in February.
Among other activities, the groups have supported legislation to improve working conditions for tens of thousands of migrant workers who tend fields in the mid-Hudson region and elsewhere in New York.
They've urged state lawmakers to pass laws letting farm workers form unions and collect overtime pay and assuring them a day of rest each week. In May, Rural and Migrant Ministry led 200 marchers past the New Paltz office of state Sen. John Bonacic, R-C-Mount Hope, to call for labor reforms.
Farmers oppose the measures, saying they would be too expensive and disruptive.
Anyone who spends $2,000 or more in a year to support or oppose legislation in Albany must register as a lobbyist and submit bi-monthly financial reports. New York has roughly 2,930 registered lobbyists.
Each year, more than 100 lobbyists are fined for filing late reports. Only 10 or so are fined for filing no reports at all, said David Grandeau, executive director of the lobbying commission.
Brother Billy says:
"They say that the best defense is a good offense, so Chris Pawelski has mounted a good defense of the Farm Bureau's position on labor rights by attacking the Labor-Religion Coalition. That, however, distracts from the migrant worker justice issues that the Labor-Religion Coalition and its allies have raised. These continue to stand on their own merits."
Actually, I'm defending the exemptions that exist and at the same time pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of those in the "amen business" that point their fingers here and there attempting to dictate standards upon others they don't often apply to themselves.
For example, in your previous post you state, regarding the exemptions your industry benefit from:
"The NYSLRC would like to see other not-for-profits unionize. Staffs and unions recognize that this is a difficult area, as budgets are often very lean. It's an ongoing project."
You see, when I make the economic argument that my industry can't afford ending the exemptions you are attempting to dictate should end because I can't afford it you wrongly and hypocritically cry "injustice." The fact is that in this country less than 11% of disposable income is spent on food and the farmer receives less than 20% of the food dollar, and what that translates to, in real terms, is that I am getting paid for my onions the same, dollar for dollar and not adjusted for inflation, the same amount for my onions (average of $6 for 50 lbs) as I was paid over 25 years ago. So, it's "wrong" for me to make the economic argument to defend my situation but you clowns turn around and make the same argument ("budgets are often very lean") for yourselves. I really hate your attempts to inject "morality" into your arguments. Wo died and made you the arbiter of what is "right" or "moral" or "just?" I didn't cede that authority to you. Then you turn around and use the very same argument I use to defend my position to defend your exemptions, well, that's disturbing and despicable. And let me tell you something, the public is on my side on this. People are getting sick and tired with you smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous religious hypocrites, on both ends of the political spectrum, attempting to dictate your sensibilities and positions on the rest of us. One day that position of the people will be reflected when the IRS totally eliminates your tax exemptions (apart from your current blatant violations of the code).
Finally, you have no direct connection to agriculture. You do not know nor understand historical or current market and production realities affecting our industry or the broad social policies (mainly on the federal level) that have shaped it over the last 70 or 80 years. You don't have the foggiest clue how what you are attempting to dictate on my industry, if enacted, will affect my industry, including my employees. You don't know the consequences, let alone unintended consequences, of your whims. How dare you. You could screw my industry, put a lot of farmers and their employees out of business and work. And you just walk away after the fact and say "oops." It's not just a bad or foolish way it's a dangerous way to craft and enact public policy.
Brother Bill says:
"Chris has removed his last comment, which was the text of the IRS publication titled "Lobbying Issues" [http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/topic-p.pdf], plus some of his own concluding comments. They illustrate the difficulty of the law, which depends on the vague concept of "substantial part" of an organization's activities, and on the impressionistic differentiation of "education" from "propaganda"."
Yeah, I removed it because I realized after I posted it that I already posted it on this webpage. I urge everyone to read it for it is anything but "vague." The article points out, and backs with court precedent, what is and isn't "substantial." The piece I cited in part states:
"Nevertheless, while neither the Service nor the courts have adopted a percentage test for determining whether a substantial part of an organization's activities consist of lobbying, some guidance can be derived from Seasongood and Haswell. Under Seasongood, a five percent safe harbor has been frequently applied as a general rule of thumb regarding what is substantial. Similarly, lobbying activities that exceed the roughly 16 to 20 percent range of total activities found in Haswell are generally considered substantial.""
Regarding propaganda versus education it states:
"Regarding education versus propaganda the IRS makes the following distinctions in Publication 557, "Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization":
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf
"Advocacy of a position.
Advocacy of a particular position or viewpoint may be educational if there is a sufficiently full or fair exposition of pertinent facts to permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion. The mere presentation of unsupported opinion is not educational.
Method not educational.
The method used by an organization to develop and present its views is a factor in determining if an organization qualifies as educational within the meaning of section 501(c)(3). The following factors may indicate that the method is not educational.
1) The presentation of viewpoints unsupported by facts is a significant portion of the organization's communications.
2) The facts that purport to support the viewpoints are distorted.
3) The organization's presentations make substantial use of inflammatory and disparaging terms and express conclusions more on the basis of strong emotional feelings than of objective evaluations.
4) The approach used in the organization's presentations is not aimed at developing an understanding on the part of the intended audience or readership because it does not consider their background or training in the subject matter."
I can provide dozens upon dozens upon dozens of examples of the NYSLRC, RMM and CITA engaging in lobbying activities and disseminating propaganda versus educational information. I am not exaggerating. Hundreds of examples. As I said, their violations of the code are egregious and the evidence is overwhelming.
And again, let's not mislead people Billy. You knew what did and didn't constitute lobbying and your respective organizations did not want the IRS knowing how much lobbying you've done. I have your tax filings over a number of years as well as the NYSLRC's original application to the IRS for 501(c)3 designation. As you know the IRS initially and correctly DENIED the NYSLRC 501(c)3 status.
Brother Billy says:
"Nevertheless, for the record, Chris: I see that you blogspot profile is now accessible. Previously, the response had been that the profile is private and not accessible. You're right, though: it's not informative."
Google my name or e-mail me at evep@warwick.net and I'll send anyone all sorts of information. My reputation proceeds me on my being open. In fact, I encourage anyone to e-mail me and one thing I'll send you is my paper entitled "A Farmer's Response to the work of Margaret Gray." Gray is a nitwit that sits on RMM's board of directors and did her Ph.D. research on these advocates and their activities. My paper is a response to it, especially the section that deals with the "backlash" to their activities, ie my response. It is a great overview of these organizations, their misleading rhetoric and hypocritical tactics as well as their questionable claims on their tax returns. Anyone is welcome to e-mail me and I'll be happy to send it, along with a wealth of other related material.
Brother Billy says:
"I've never had a heart attack but have been hospitalized for severe cardiac arrhythmia -- now I have a pacemaker, after having almost died twice one day some years ago, so I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say I missed a deposition because of a heart attack."
When the Lobby Commission contacted you to be deposed you begged out over a heart attack or your condition. This is what Lobby Commission staff at the time told me.
Brother Billy says:
"I was interviewed by David Grandeau, the executive director of the NYS Temporary Commission on Lobbying, sometime in 2001. He and a commission lawyer grilled me for about an hour. As I left, he apologized for his aggressiveness, saying that he was really a nice guy in private life. To substantiate how little lobbying I did, I sent him all the minutes of the Capital District Coalition's meetings. Our budget was about $15,000, my salary was about half of that, and there was no way that my time and other minor costs could have added up to $2,000 worth of lobbying the NY State Government."
He was "aggressive" because, as I said, when the staff for RMM and the NYSLRC were first contacted by the Lobby Commission and asked if they lobby they LIED and said no. When the reporter in the piece you copied below later contacted Grandeau and asked him about the status of the investigation Grandeau asked his staff and they said the organizations don't lobby. The reporter then faxed Grandeau a bunch of documents that plainly detailed a bunch of lobbying activities and then the investigation ensued with vigor. And the reason for the aggressiveness, once again, is because the Lobby Commission was initially lied to. They were angry and I don't blame him. Grandeau is a nice guy, but, more importantly, he has integrity and did his job well. He wasn't nice if you were caught lying to him.
Brother Billy says:
"Most of our income didn't come from big religious organizations. 2/3 of our budget came from our annual awards dinner and the rest from dues paid by some unions, a few congregations, and a smattering of individual pledges."
I told the Lobby Commission they needed to focus on the main organization first then branch out to the affiliates. Which they eventually did withtheir investigation.
Brother Billy says:
"I assume that most of the NYs Labor-Religion Coalition's regional affilates' finances are similar to ours. Nevertheless, in response to the investigation, the state-wide coalition decided to register us all as lobbyists since it would be be simpler than trying to detail the time we spent on every project or campaign, since it was obvious the Farm Bureau would continue to attack us. (Note that I hadn't claimed this was unrelated to the investigation and thus 'voluntary': I hadn't disputed your account of the investigation that the Farm Bureau's complaint had touched off.)"
In response to the fine levied. What was interesting was then you were all forced to admit to the iRS you lobbied, something that you all had lied about to the IRS for years (when you checked that box year after year on your 990 tax returns that asked whether or not your organization lobbied).
Brother Billy says:
"For anyone who's reading this far, here's a basic story on what happened, using the first article that Chris Pawelski linked to in his first comment."
And anyone can e-mail me and I'll gladly provide even more back story. What I'll also post here is material related to RMM and CITA's tax filings that point to possible fraud being perpetrated by both organizations. These are the organizations that the NYSLRC works with. After you read it ask yourself the question: are these the sorts of organizations I should be working with and supporting financially?
Chris
I have all the documentation, tax returns, etc ..., to back everything I state in the piece below. These are the groups that claim to represent farmworkers but DO NOT in NYS. To state they are shady is an understatement.
C.
Investigate these self-appointed advocates
Here are some financial fun facts about RMM & CITA, culled from their tax filings and literature produced by and about them, that supporters/enablers should, if they aren't already are, be aware of.
Overall financial status:
RMM's 2004 tax return claimed the organization raised $442,160, and total expenses amounted to $571,499, leading to a deficit of $129,339. RMM's 2003 tax return claimed the organization raised $468,237, and total expenses amounted to $587,647, leading to a deficit of $119,410. That's a 2 year deficit of $248,749. Doesn't that seem excessive?
Three questions are raised by this financial disclosure:
a. How or why did they have such losses?
b. How were they able to continue to operate despite such losses?
c. Why weren't donors ever notified of such losses?
Religious programs:
From 1996 though 2004 the primary program expenditure claimed by RMM is the following:
"Accompaniment - To provide for the religious needs of the migrant farmworker community in the Mid-Hudson as they work to improve their living and working conditions."
In 2004 this figure alone totaled $216,788. They have claimed to have spent, from 1996 through 2004, $1,084,989 on providing for the "religious needs of the migrant farmworker community."
Let me be perfectly blunt, this claim is total fiction. RMM does not provide any sort of program or service which "provides for the religious needs of the migrant farmworker community." Let me repeat, this claim is f-i-c-t-i-o-n. I have, I believe, virtually all of their literature going back to the mid 1990's and I haven't come across a single article or even reference to any sort of program that can even be remotely misconstrued as "providing for the religious needs of the migrant farmworker community." In fact, the few times RMM Exec. Dir. Witt has mentioned religious type programs or services it is the context of a dismissive if not mocking tone. The only time it is mentioned as such is on RMM's yearly tax returns.
Can RMM substantiate this claim that it has spent over $1 million dollars since 1996 on programs that "provide for the religious needs of the farmworker community?" Can RMM produce any examples, even a single example, backed with credible documentary evidence, of a religious themed or related program?
What is it called when you make a claim of spending a substantial amount of money on a program or type of program that you aren't really spending it on?
Youth programs:
In a fundraising letter written by Witt, combined with a sermon he gave in 2005, it can be determined that a mere 27 or so students have "graduated" from RMM's "Youth Arts Group." RMM's tax returns report that RMM, from 1996 through 2004, has expended some $729,429 on their "youth arts group/youth empowerment program."
There are and have been literally hundreds upon hundreds, if not a thousand or more children of migrant farmworkers that have lived in the lower Hudson Valley from 1996 through 2004. Doesn't it bother anyone that:
1. RMM has been able to enroll a measly 30 children or less in their signature youth program over the years?
2. They have claimed to have spent close to $700,000 on 30 children or less?
Do these claims sound plausible? How many of these children are actually the children of migrant farmworkers? One, five, nine? Has anyone asked that? Why are there so few participants in or graduates of this program? What have they spent over $700,000 on over the past few years, for roughly 27 graduates?
Where is the money really going or being spent on?
Excessive compensation:
In Part VI of the 2004 return ("Other Information"), under 90b it states "Number of employees employed in the pay period that includes March 12, 2004" states that RMM employed 14 persons. In the 2003 return they reported 13 employees.
With a reported deficit of $248,749 doesn't a payroll of 13 or 14 people seem somewhat questionable, if not excessive?
In 2003 RMM reported they spent on compensation of officers, other salaries and wages, pension plan, other employee benefits, and payroll taxes, a total of $300,827. Now if you add the "accounting fees" of $33,841 and the $64,106 paid to "consultants" and you have a total of $398,774. This figure represents nearly 68% of reported expenses. Is that typical? Of this amount $60,446 was earmarked to the Executive Director Witt alone. That's roughly 11% of total expenses. Is that typical?
In 2002 RMM reported they spent on compensation of officers, other salaries and wages, pension plan, other employee benefits, and payroll taxes, a total of $266,293 (this not take into account reported "accounting fees" of $22,913). This figure represents over 50% of reported expenses. Of this amount $59,225 was earmarked to the Executive Director Witt alone.
In the separate independent auditor's report (performed by the CPA firm of Sedore & Company) that was filed with RMM's 2004 tax return one finds a page entitled "Statement of Functional Expenses for the Year Ended December 31, 2004." The form reports the following program service expenditure totals:
Salaries
Executive Director: $40,189
Administrative Coordinators: $65,341
Resource Coordinators: $52,499
Advocacy Coordinators: $6,503
Youth Empowerment Coordinators: $44,308
Total salaries: $208,840
Fringe Benefits
Payroll Taxes: $14,754
Medical Insurance: $46,400
Pension, Executive Director: $8,771
Total fringe benefits: $69,925
So, expenditures related to these employees amounts to $278,765 and this figure accounts for roughly 49% of RMM's total expenses. Adding the $25,086 earmarked for "Consultants" and this expense figure rises to $303,851 or roughly 53% of total expenses. Executive Director Witt alone accounts for $48,960 or 8.5% of total expenses.
Don't these figures and percentages seem somewhat questionable, if not excessive, especially when one considers how serious the"financial difficulties" RMM is facing and how large their reported deficits have been as reported in their 2003 and 2004 tax returns? Does this accurately represent how sound, responsible and honest non-profits are generally or typically run?
This page also reports "Travel" expenses of $12,978, "Telephone" expenses of $13,148, "Computer/internet" expenses of $7,074 and "Copies and printing" expenses of $14,307.
For an organization that operates statewide (barely & limited) and not nationwide, don't these reported expenses raise legitimate questions?
CITA program expenditure claims:
Here is what the RMM created and controlled sub-organization CITA reports each year on their tax return as to what their program services are:
"TEACH SAFE PESTICIDE HANDLING; TRANSLATION SERVICES; INCREASING PUBLIC AWARENESS OF LIVING CONDITIONS; TRANSPORTATION AND RECREATION FOR IMMIGRANT FAMILIES; AND ATTAINING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FOR FARMWORKERS"
As I have stated repeatedly, CITA was created and originally based in my backyard. "Pesticide handling," "translation services," "transportation and recreation" are bogus program services and I would bet the farm they could not substantiate the claimed expenditures regarding these program service claims, which are, on face value, dubious if not excessive.
On the other hand, "attaining fundamental rights for farmworkers" is simply not an activity of a true 501(c)3. It's the activity of either a labor union or a 510(c)4.
For CITA's 2003 return they reported expenses totaling $234,611. Of that amount $111,983 went to pay the salaries of 4 employees. If you add in the $11,430 for other salaries and wages, $19,094 for other employee benefits, $10,386 for payroll taxes, $23,700 for professional fundraising fees and $1,900 for accounting fees the total is $178,493. That's roughly 76% of expenses. That's typical? And that year one Board of Director member, Salvador Solis, who CITA reported worked less than 5 hours a week, was paid $27,583. That's typical?
For CITA's 2004 return they reported "total revenue" of $187,548 and total expenses of $251,120. That led to a deficit of $63,572. Like RMM this is a financial fact that CITA has not bothered to formally notify its dues paying supporters of.
And though they reported a significant deficit, they managed to significantly increase their employee compensation expenditures. In fact, the organizations 4 key employees were paid $140,333, which was an increase of $28,350 over 2003. If you add in the $8,361 for other salaries and wages, $23,884 for other employee benefits, $14,089 for payroll taxes, $18,000 for professional fundraising fees and $3,250 for accounting fees the total is $207,917. That's roughly 83% of reported expenses. That's typical? Or is it typical, when going from a year that reported a surplus of $15,035 to a deficit of $63,572, to increase employee related compensation expenses some $29,424?
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe those four key employees are spending the bulk of each day teaching pesticide handling, translating and transporting farmworkers around. Or, maybe not. Shouldn't they be able to produce some sort of receipts or other credible evidence to back these claims?
Rural and Migrant Ministry board member Margaret Gray's dissertation, entitled "Harvesting Expectations: Farmworker Advocacy in New York," was submitted by Gray in September of 2005 and was evidently accepted by CUNY (in connection with her completing her Ph.D. work) in 2006.
As Gray freely admits in her dissertation she has long been heavily involved with the self-appointed advocate organizations, especially RMM. Her dissertation contains some startling comments and admissions.
Her dissertation somewhat acknowledges the facts regarding CITA's creation and relationship with RMM. She states regarding CITA's creation:
"the organization was born of efforts begun by RMM, which has, since then, been a primary supporter of CITA, especially in offering staff time and expertise."
As my response to her paper delivered in Omaha stated, the truth involves far more direct control and influence of RMM on CITA.
On page 218 of her dissertation Gray states the following regarding CITA's evident lack of success:
"My research suggests that JFW (the "Justice for Farmworkers Coalition," the RMM contrived and quasi-fictional creation which tries to make RMM's activities appear to be broader based and supported; comment mine/CP) and the legislative campaign has gained a life and a tempo of its own which is not complemented by success at the level that CITA's organizing has expected to achieve."
She later adds the following stunning observation:
"I do not recommend that JFW abandon the legislative and advocacy work. Rather, it seems advocates must attend to the balance of worker power and advocate power. Since they cannot compensate for worker power, how might advocates redirect their resources to build worker power? One obvious answer might be to give more resources to CITA. This has been considered, but has not been promoted because of mistrust, lack of leadership and accountability at CITA, added to its limited organizing success.... The reality of farmworkers' lives is that they have little formal education and even less exposure to the type of professional skills required for operating a successful nonprofit, including grant writing, grant reporting, office administration, and staff management.... CITA has been run since its inception on a shoestring budget and, at times, financial restraints have meant laying off staff. CITA is not run as a professional nonprofit and for many years has been in survival mode."
To repeat, these comments are stunning.
1. What are the facts regarding the amount of funds CITA has raised over the years. Is it really a "poor" organization operating on a "shoestring budget?"
In the 990 tax filings in my possession for CITA they report the following amounts under:
Part 1 Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets or Fund Balances; 1 Contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts received; d total:
2004 $172,931
2003 $232,226
2002 $232,635
2001 $214,323
2000 $241,119
1999 $180,816
1998 $174,606
In seven years CITA has raised $1,448,656. For comparison, over the same period the New York State Labor Religion Coalition has raised $1,612,352. Either figure can hardly be described as represnting funding levels that would comprise "shoestring budgets."
2. I find it to be stunning that evidently CITA's creator and controlling organization RMM does not feel comfortable steering more funding CITA's way because of "mistrust, lack of leadership and accountability at CITA, added to its limited organizing success." What does that imply? If RMM has mistrust, questions CITA's leadership and CITA's lack of accountability (let's keep in mind the numerous legitimate questions regarding RMM's own dubious program expenditure claims on phantom religious programs they don't provide, for a literal handful of children who are most likely not the children of farmworkers, on excessive compensation for employees, amongst other questionable expenditures reported on the annual 990 tax filings) then one has to wonder if maybe supporters of RMM should dig a little deeper regarding RMM & CITA and their expenditures.
3. Regarding "lack of organizing success," if CITA can't substantiate via credible records and evidence it has spent significant resources on such activities as pesticide handling instruction, transportation and recreation for immigrant families, and translation services, and they have had limited success organizing, what or where are their funds being spent on? What are they doing with their funds? Why the lack of success?
4. Typical for Gray and her cohorts at RMM is the not so subtle bit of racism employed to explain away problems with their activities. Remember, Gray blames CITA's fiscal woes on farmworkers having "little formal education and even less exposure to the type of professional skills required for operating a successful nonprofit, including grant writing, grant reporting, office administration, and staff management." The problem with this attempt to misdirect culpability is that non hispanic anglos (hand picked and in conjunction with RMM) have essentially run CITA over the years. CITA, RMM and other allies' produced literature, press accounts, as well as CITA's tax returns and even Gray's dissertation report the following non-hispanic (and would assume formally educated) individuals that have run CITA over the years include:
* Joseph Regotti
* Carolyn Mow
* Jennifer Adler
* Charles Barrett
* John Solberg
* Ami Kadar (a grant writer for CITA and current interim director)
Yet Gray places the blame on the poor, uneducated "brown people" at CITA for their evident financial mismanagement. Shameful. Either way, the obvious questions are raised:
Where is their funding going and what are they expending their resources on, and why haven't they disclosed any of this to the people and organizations that donate to CITA (and RMM)?
To all those Borg-like supporters of RMM out there, you should read this material closely and do some investigating before you do their lobbying for them, either directly or indirectly via your financial support.
And by the way, once again I'll emphasize, these self-appointed advocate organizations have not been elected, selected, designated, requested or chosen by the overwhelming majority of farmworkers in NYS to represent them or speak in their behalf. They do not represent the needs or concerns of genuine farmworkers (a fact found in a recent survey/study conducted by Cornell University researchers). Farmworkers do not, for the most part, participate in the planning activities of these organizations and the paltry few that have shown up at their orchestrated lobbying events were paid by RMM for their participation, filling the role of "prop" or "extra." And these religious and quasi-religious institutions do not apply to themselves much of what they want to impose on agriculture. When you do RMM's bidding don't fool or kid yourself, you are not helping genuine farmworkers. You are not doing what farmworkers want or have expressed they need. You are doing what the self-appointed advocates at RMM (and those that back them financially) think is best for farmworkers, in the grandest tradition of Kipling's "white man's burden."
On that note I urge all to read the following recent NY Times articles by Diana B. Henriques: As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation (10/8/06); Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights (10/9/06); Religious Programs Expand, So Do Tax Breaks (10/10/06); Religion-Based Tax Breaks: Housing to Paychecks to Books (10/11/06).
Quite illuminating.
Billy, you stated the following:
"They say that the best defense is a good offense, so Chris Pawelski has mounted a good defense of the Farm Bureau's position on labor rights by attacking the Labor-Religion Coalition. That, however, distracts from the migrant worker justice issues that the Labor-Religion Coalition and its allies have raised. These continue to stand on their own merits."
That's not accurate. I'm trying to wrap my head around you people. Maybe you can help me out.
I've read virtually all of the propaganda produced by the NYSLRC and RMM regarding farmworkers and the labor law exemptions and the fundamental argument/position of the NYSLRC and RMM et al is this:
"Exclusions" (I say exemptions) to the law are "bad/unjust/immoral," etc.... Just look at your comment above, it's a question of "justice."
The thrust of your position isn't one of an economic, or geo-political or even social position, it's one of morality. Opposition to what you want is "immoral" or "unjust" and your side gets to decide what is moral or good or just.
This ability to define what is and isn't moral/good/just is the "merit" of your position. Therefore, for your position to have any merit you have to be on solid footing in regards to being a final arbiter of what is moral/good/just. That being said, what on earth goes through your head when you read the pieces in that NY Times series I referenced by Diana Henriques in 2006? As that series points out, in well documented detail, your industry benefits from a large number of exemptions to the laws, including labor and tax laws. Many of these exemptions which you want to eliminate for other industries you want to keep for your own. The hypocrisy of this is self-evident. How can you or anyone else with a straight face defend this?
What I am doing is pointing out that on the basis of your blatant hypocrisy you have no legitimate ability to defend your position on the basis that you are "just" and you get to decide what is and isn't "just" for others. Strip this away and what are you left with?
Well, what you are left with are the fields I want to be on regarding this issue, economic, historical public policy, production realities, etc.... In other words, the real world context. And it's something you automatically fall back on when challenged on your own hypocrisy ("The NYSLRC would like to see other not-for-profits unionize. Staffs and unions recognize that this is a difficult area, as budgets are often very lean. It's an ongoing project.") to defend your industry's exemptions.
Just tell me, what goes through your head when you read the NY Times's pieces? How do you defend your dialectic in the face of this blatant hypocrisy?
Chris
Clearly, the NYS Temporary Commission on Lobbying has confused cardiac arrhythmia with a heart attack, as I never told them, or anyone else, ever, that I've had a heart attack. I'm not sure if I was "deposed", but I certainly was interviewed. So that's a non-issue.
Re: RMM and CITA -- I'm not a part of those groups and don't know anything about their finances or how they operate day-to-day. I can say that by looking at what you report, their salaries are low by private industry standards.
Re: NYSLRC tax returns -- I worked for a regional affiliate, a non-incorporated association, and wasn't involved in checking off boxes concerning the NYSLRC's lobbying activities. I didn't qualify as a lobbyist, though, as I mentioned, the LRC decided to register me and the other staffers for regional affiliates -- after the investigation started and before the small fine was imposed.
Re: non-profits' exemptions -- I haven't defended them. As I said, unionizing them is an ongoing project. It's something that the Labor-Religion Coalition supports and endorses.
For the rest, readers can judge for themselves. The argument will continue elsewhere out in the real world. While I'm sympathetic to the situation of small farmers and other small businesses, the answer to their problems never lies in exploiting workers. I owned my own small printing business at one time, before it wrecked my health, and when I had gone from a one-man shop to having 6 employees, I invited a union in to organize them, and I provided health insurance. Most years, they earned more than I did, but it was the fair thing to do. We all worked hard, together.
Why don't you start your own blog, Chris? You'll probably get more readers than you'll find here. But keep commenting if you wish. I suggest shorter, more focused comments though, if you want a dialogue. When you send three long comments at a time and they cover so many points, it discourages readers, including me, from wading through it all.
If you just want to blast away, that's okay, too. Sometimes I'll respond. Sometimes I'll just let it be.
Brother Billy says:
"Clearly, the NYS Temporary Commission on Lobbying has confused cardiac arrhythmia with a heart attack, as I never told them, or anyone else, ever, that I've had a heart attack. I'm not sure if I was "deposed", but I certainly was interviewed. So that's a non-issue."
Obviously I don't wish ill health on anyone so I hope you've made a successful recovery and are in good health now. You were deposed if you met with them in person, swore under oath to tell the truth and a written deposition or record was taken of your interview. I don't think that happened to you. It did to O'Shaughnessy and Witt.
Brother Billy says:
"Re: RMM and CITA -- I'm not a part of those groups and don't know anything about their finances or how they operate day-to-day. I can say that by looking at what you report, their salaries are low by private industry standards."
Well, since your parent organization is a big-time supporter/enabler of these organizations I think you would want to know more details about their shady finances. Are their salaries low in comparison with how much money they raise? Why did Witt apparently lie about his salary when he was deposed by the Lobby Commission?
In Witt's deposition the following exchange (on pages 24-25) between Miccio and Witt took place:
Q. Reverend Witt, you are paid by the Catskill Mid-Hudson Rural and Migrant Ministry?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your income from that?
A. My income is roughly $19,000.
Q. $19,000, okay. And the organization files include tax returns concerning its expenses including your pay; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Okay, the figure of $19,000 is a claim he will be hard pressed to reconcile with what he states year after year on RMM's tax returns.
According to Rural and Migrant Ministry's 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 tax filings (990 returns), ...
(By the way, you can verify this on Guidestar's website. Registration for the site is free and I believe they have RMM's tax returns going back to 1997):
http://www.guidestar.org/
RURAL & MIGRANT MINISTRIES
http://www.guidestar.org/controller/searchResults.gs?action_gsReport=1&npoId=49901
CENTRO INDEPENDIENTE DE TRABAJADORES AGRICOLAS INC
http://www.guidestar.org/controller/searchResults.gs?action_gsReport=1&npoId=672557
NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELIGION COALITION INC
http://www.guidestar.org/controller/searchResults.gs?action_gsReport=1&npoId=107147
.... Witt's reported salary was exactly $35,252, $35,547, $39,305, and $40,242 and the contributions to his benefit plans & deferred compensation was exactly $14,544, $11,329, $6,619, and $6,864, making his average salary $37,586.50 and the average contribution to his benefit plans & deferred compensation $9,839. This makes the average for his annual income $47,425.50. This figure for his annual income is over double his sworn testimony of "roughly $19,000.
To compound this is that in Rural and Migrant Ministry's 2001 990 tax filing, under Part V (List of Officers, Directors, Trustees and key Employees) in an attempt to either deceive, inveigle, or obfuscate, Rural and Migrant Ministry no longer provides the specific details as to what is Witt's compensation as well as the contributions made to his benefit plans & deferred compensation. One must look to "Statement 8" (which is regarding Part V of the 990 return), where it states under the listing of "Total Compensation Paid" that $48,488 was paid in compensation and $8,055 went towards benefits. One can safely assume all of this amount, all $56,543, was devoted to Witt. If so, either he is lying in his sworn deposition to the Lobby Commission where he reported income of "roughly $19,000" for 2001 or in his 2001 tax filing (which was signed under penalty of perjury), where his presumed reported income for 2001 is nearly 3 times greater. Which is the truth?
RMM's 2002 return (which they finally submitted in Nov. of 2003) reports that Witt's salary is now $50,205 and his compensation package is $9,020.The 2002 return also contains this statement:
"The Ministry has made contributions of $9,021 and $8,055 in 2002 and 2001, respectively, to The Church Pension Fund of the Episcopal Church for the benefit of the Executive Director who is an ordained minister. No other employees of the Ministry are eleigible under this plan."
This confirms that the reported salary and compensation figures in the 2001 and 2002 returns, though not specifically stating so (like they did in previous years' returns) is entirely directed to Witt.
His apparent lie regarding his income, since it was done under oath for a deposition, is better characterized as perjury.
His apparent lie was foolish for it should have been very very very apparant (at this point during the deposition) to Witt that that when Miccio asked this question Miccio already had the facts/evidence/answer. Miccio had copies of RMM's tax returns going back to 1997. Witt should have realized they probably had RMM's tax returns. Again, foolish on his part.
The Lobby Commission could have busted Witt for perjury. Unless he is lying on the tax return to the IRS. That's perjury also.
By the way, an income of $59,225 demonstrates that self-appointed farmworker advocacy work pays quite well. It certainly pays better than what Witt's counterpart, Stash, receives at the local Farmworker Community Center here in Orange County. It's also much more than what the average farmworker he purports to represent earns, for that matter. I also wonder if Witt also gets free housing?
This is the organization and individuals you are supporting. You and others like you should do a little more investigating before you chose to support someone or some group. This is just one example of Witt's sleaze. I have more examples. How about the offensive story he told in the RNN documentary about the boy that was run over and killed. The overwhelming majority of the story he told was bs. It was shameful and it was disgusting. And he has never corrected it or apologized about it. This is what you are supporting.
And again the reason why I emphasize this is because the primary argument by these groups is that the issue is one of "justice" and they have the moral authority to make that determination. And I'm saying that's a bunch of hooey, they have no moral authority, certainly not to decide or proclaim what is or isn't "just" outside of their own industry, the "amen business."
Brother Billy says:
"Re: NYSLRC tax returns -- I worked for a regional affiliate, a non-incorporated association, and wasn't involved in checking off boxes concerning the NYSLRC's lobbying activities. I didn't qualify as a lobbyist, though, as I mentioned, the LRC decided to register me and the other staffers for regional affiliates -- after the investigation started and before the small fine was imposed."
It was actually more than a small fine. It was significant in terms of how many groups they investigate and the amount of fines usually levied. I know you didn't check that box on the 990 return for the NYSLRC but someone did and what they were reporting was not true. It was a lie. And again, for groups that want to impose their sensibilities upon others, on the basis of being morally superior or in a position to be "the deciders" of what is and isn't just, well, habitually lying doesn't do much to bolster that credibility.
Brother Billy says:
"Re: non-profits' exemptions -- I haven't defended them. As I said, unionizing them is an ongoing project. It's something that the Labor-Religion Coalition supports and endorses."
I commend you for that but you are an exception. And I continue to take exception to those in the "amen business" who have no direct connection to my industry, who don't understand it, who don't know the fundamental facts regarding our historical and current production and marketing realities, who don't know the public policy history or the political and real world context regarding our issue, who then want to impose what they think is best on us and who fight tooth and nail to stop those rules from applying to them. I find it to be offensive and shameful and disturbing.
Brother Billy says:
"For the rest, readers can judge for themselves. The argument will continue elsewhere out in the real world. While I'm sympathetic to the situation of small farmers and other small businesses, the answer to their problems never lies in exploiting workers. I owned my own small printing business at one time, before it wrecked my health, and when I had gone from a one-man shop to having 6 employees, I invited a union in to organize them, and I provided health insurance. Most years, they earned more than I did, but it was the fair thing to do. We all worked hard, together."
You see, that's what drives me nuts. The flippant comment on your part that I or other farmers routinely "exploit" our workers. We don't. It's a sweeping, deeply offensive smear. We pay competitive wages and treat our employees well. There are over a dozen local, state and federal agencies that oversee a plethora of laws connected with the living and working conditions of farmworkers. I don't think there is a more regulated industry in connection with their employees than agriculture.
Do you realize that I am getting paid for my onions the same amount that I was paid 25 years ago? Dollar for dollar, not adjusted for inflation. Do you realize there have been years where I lost my crop due to weather disasters and what I salvaged plus my crop insurance didn't equal my production costs, let alone living expenses? I had to take out loans to pay my bills. My employees earned more money then me in those years. How often did that happen with your business? Over the years my production expenses, my fuel, my fertilizer, my pesticides, my seed, my repairs, my rent, my taxes and my labor expenses have all greatly risen yet I'm still getting paid the same price as 25 years ago. Can you grasp this?
I don't "exploit" my employees. farmers don't typically "exploit" their employees. Are there some bad apples? Sure, but you can't take the few bad examples and extrapolate it out to be the norm. If you do, then can I claim the majority of all priests, padres, ministers, rabbis, shaman, etc... must be sexual predators/pedophiles because of the few that have been exposed to be sexual abusers of children in the "amen business?" If not, why not? Why can't I claim that priests, padres, ministers, rabbis, shaman, etc... typically sexually abuse those in their charge? It's exactly what you are doing when you throw that "farmworkers are typically exploited" smear.
You want more benefits for farm employees? So do I. How do you pay for it? Deal with the issue within our production and marketing contextual realities. To deal with this issue outside of our contextual reality is intellectually disingenuous and dishonest. It's the intellectual equivalent of passing gas. What's the plan?
And lets' also keep in mind that our laws, our criminal and civil codes are filled with exemptions. Different types of jobs require different sorts of skill sets. To argue that all sorts of jobs and employment should have all the same rules is asinine. As I said in my Maggie Gray paper:
"What the self-appointed advocates do, consistently, is compare farmworkers in the U.S. to workers in other industries (factory, retail, etc...) which is an 'apples to oranges' comparison. They want to take the labor laws and make comparisons outside the contextual framework of reality.They don't take into account the differences in the work, including how affected by external and in many cases uncontrollable circumstances (like climate and seasons), or the different qualifications required for the jobs (being a police officer requires an entirely different skill set versus picking apples). Or how governmental policy, which is a reflection of societal priorities, affects the rules and laws for employment (for example: a safe and abundant and cheap food supply is considered important to national
security). Or what the current marketing realities are. None of these factors are taken into account.The argument is simply 'all other workers have this' (of course 'all' isn't a true statement either). So, I argue that if and when a farmworker compares his or her situation to a counterpart working as a farmworker in their home country, and their priorities and positions on certain issues are based on that,well, that's more appropriate than a self-appointed advocate comparing a farmworker outside of reality to a worker in another industry. I've never understood why the self-appointed advocates haven't taken these comparisons and arguments to a different level. Why compare the farmworker (and the rules and laws regarding employment and everything associated with it) to just workers in the construction, retail or manufacturing sector? Why not compare them to an airline pilot, or the CEO for a transnational pharmaceutical company, or an agent for the FBI? Why simply make the argument that 'farmworkers should get overtime pay like the factory worker' or similar example? Why not, 'farmworkers should earn six figure salaries and have private restrooms like the CEO of Nestle Corporation' or 'farmworkers should be able to assassinate foreign operatives like CIA agents?' Why does the flat, out of context comparison end with the factory or construction worker? On its face, their current dialectic is nearly just as illogical and nonsensical."
And you in the "amen business" clearly don't have the moral or any other authority to decide what exemptions are good or bad outside of your own industry. You don't.
Billy says:
"Why don't you start your own blog, Chris? You'll probably get more readers than you'll find here."
I'm actually working on that and hope to have it up soon.
Brother Billy says:
"But keep commenting if you wish. I suggest shorter, more focused comments though, if you want a dialogue. When you send three long comments at a time and they cover so many points, it discourages readers, including me, from wading through it all.
If you just want to blast away, that's okay, too. Sometimes I'll respond. Sometimes I'll just let it be."
On that level I want to once again commend you. You don't dump my posts and I have a great deal of respect for you. On my blog I won't dump anything unless it is filled with obscenities. I've been on some sites that don't allow any dissent. On one site that kept dumping my posts I asked the RMM enabler why dump my post? If God is on their side and I'm not posting the truth why not refute what I'm stating with facts and evidence? Why dump what I'm saying?
It's because they aren't honest and have no integrity. You obviously have integrity. My hat's off to you.
As far as posting short, I have a hard time with that. I hate speaking with cliches or slogans, simplifying an issue to a point that it's misleading. I'm a stickler for facts and evidence to back my position. I can't do what people like Witt do, speak in simplistic slogans and not back what I state with credible evidence.
Why don't you e-mail me and I'll send you my Maggie Gray paper. Read it and then tell me what you think about this issue. I think you might be surprised by what you find in it.
Talk with you soon,
C.
evep@warwick.net
Just one issue for today, Chris. You said that references to the exploitation workers drives you nuts.
You think it's a flippant and sweeping generalization, and a smear. I , unflippantly, think it applies wherever people are paid less than a living wage.
Yes, "living wage" is a debatable concept and is different from place to place. But it's something that needs to be wrestled with. The fact that a wage is "competitive" isn't enough. We have to look at what forces are shaping the terms of competition.
Before moving back east, I lived for 25 years in East Central Illinois in the region of corn and soybeans. I have some knowledge of what you're saying, despite the fact that conditions for commodity crops are very different from the ones you face.
In my printing business, I generally wound up as the lowest paid person -- on an hourly basis, by far the worst paid.
But, one thing that needs to be pointed out about that, and which applies to farmers, is that my business had grown in value. When I got sick and had to sell, I was able to live off the proceeds during the years of my recuperation. Surprise! Capital is a factor in a capitalist system.
How have your land values fared in comparison to the dismal history of onion prices?
Brother Billy says:
"Just one issue for today, Chris. You said that references to the exploitation workers drives you nuts. You think it's a flippant and sweeping generalization, and a smear. I , unflippantly, think it applies wherever people are paid less than a living wage. Yes, 'living wage' is a debatable concept and is different from place to place. But it's something that needs to be wrestled with. The fact that a wage is "competitive" isn't enough. We have to look at what forces are shaping the terms of competition."
What I pay per hour, combined with the free housing and all that entails, free gas & electric, free satellite tv service, etc..., is a "living wage." We are talking about seasonal employment and the individuals that work for me not only provide for themselves but are also providing for their families back home.
Let's also keep in mind that agricultural work is not career employment in this country. It's entry level work. In many cases it is temporary, seasonal work. Few people want to make a career working on farms, and that includes the children of farmers.
The blanket statement that farmworkers are typically "exploited" implies that farmers are doing the exploitation. As I said previously, it's a smear. I don't think any industry compares to ours in terms of regulations and oversight of the living and working conditions of our employees. A blanket claim of exploitation implies a forethought conspiracy with aspects of malice and force. The overwhelming majority of persons that work on farms today in the U.S. make the choice to work on farms. Many of those individuals then leave farm employment as their skills develop and they move up the economic ladder. That's the American way. But I don't force people to work on my farm and if they don't want to work a certain day or do a certain job they don't do it. If you want to make the argument our entire food system or "cheap food policy" leads to a situation where farmworkers and farmers wages aren't at a level they should be, fine. I agree with you. And let's deal with the issue with that real world context in mind and let's propose solutions with that real world context in mind. But to state in a "simple simon" fashion that farmworkers are routinely exploited and either implicitly or explicitly stating or implying that farmers are doing the exploiting, well, that's crap.
If one wants to make the blanket claim that farmworkers are routinely exploited by farmers then someone else can make the claim that church members are routinely sexually exploited by their pastor, because of the numerous codified examples of such abuses taking place. Certainly a system seems to be in place that encourages this despicable form of exploitation. In fact, I can provide far far far more examples of priests, rabbis, padres, pastors, shaman, etc... being arrested, tried and convicted on sexual abuse charges then you can provide examples of "human slavery" taking place in American agriculture. If you want to make sweeping generalizations and simplistic calls for change for my industry, well, I can do the same for yours. And more effectively.
Brother Billy says:
"Before moving back east, I lived for 25 years in East Central Illinois in the region of corn and soybeans. I have some knowledge of what you're saying, despite the fact that conditions for commodity crops are very different from the ones you face."
Some aspects are the same, some are very different. The amount of work a corn and bean farmer has to do versus a fruit or vegetable is not comparable. They have to do a fraction of the amount of work we do. Their costs of production are a tiny fraction of ours. Typical cost of production to grow 1 acre of corn is $225. Typical cost of production to grow 1 acre of onions is $4,000. And the amount of assistance provided by the federal government to vegetable and fruit farmers is virtually nothing compared to the direct payments and supports provided to the growers of corn, wheat, cotton, rice and oilseeds, even though vegetables and fruits account for roughly 40% of the ag sectors sales versus 20% for the aforementioned "program crops."
Brother Billy says:
"In my printing business, I generally wound up as the lowest paid person -- on an hourly basis, by far the worst paid."
And that's screwy.
Brother Billy says:
"But, one thing that needs to be pointed out about that, and which applies to farmers, is that my business had grown in value. When I got sick and had to sell, I was able to live off the proceeds during the years of my recuperation. Surprise! Capital is a factor in a capitalist system. How have your land values fared in comparison to the dismal history of onion prices?"
It's not the same. Land prices in my area have increased but that's only due to the unintended consequences of a federal conservation program, which has led to inflated land rent and cost rates. I grow on mucksoils, and muck is a protected resource in NYS that can't be developed. It can either be farmed or revert back to wetlands, that's it. So, if I sell out today I sell out equipment that is ancient and land that can be used only for farming. In other words, I'm s-o-l.
Talk with you soon,
Chris
Hey Billy,
On the "one issue" theme I have one for you:
On what basis does Richard Witt or Brian O'Shaughnessy speak in behalf of or represent farmworkers?
As I have said, over and over again, the overwhelming majority of genuine, rank and file farmworkers in NYS have not elected, selected, designated, requested or chosen Witt, his organization or proxy faux groups (like CITA), or the other self-appointed advocates to represent them or speak in their behalf. Virtually no farmworkers participate in RMM's planning sessions (except 1 or 2 farmworkers, as admitted by Witt in his deposition before the NYS Lobby Commssion, when he was busted for breaking NYS Lobby Laws). And the only farmworkers that particpated in their annual "Advocacy days" were paid, at the end of the event, to ensure their attendance, another fact admitted by Witt in his deposition.
I argue that Witt and his and other allied organizations do not speak to the real concerns and/or issues, as identified by farmworkers, of what really concerns farmworkers. I argue that they represent the issues and concerns of the organizations and institutions that primarily fund them (and their motives is a topic for another, more detailed discussion).
Why do you or why should you or any individual, or organization, or media outlet, or politico, ascribe any authority or credibility to Witt et al in regards to farmworkers?
Can you just imagine if I all of a sudden stood up and proclaimed "I'm fighting for justice for school teachers." And if someone asked me:
Q: Are you a school teacher?
A: No.
Q: Were you ever a school teacher?
A: No. But teachers have asked me to "stand with them."
Q: Really? Have you been elected or selected by teachers to represent them and when and where did that vote occur?
A: Well, that hasn't happened but trust me, I speak in their behalf. They are in fear.
Q: And who are you to speak in their behalf?
A: Teachers have told me to stand with them. And I really know what's best for them, better than even they know.
Q: Really? That sounds a little patronizing and condescending.
A. it's a matter of "justice" and they tell me to stand with them.
Now tell me something, honestly, if this situation above were to take place how fast would the reporter, or legislator or even potential supporter (or donor, the best kind of supporter) laugh me out of the room?
As I said in my Maggie Gray paper:
"RMM and the other organizations know that virtually no farmworkers participate in their organizations, and they have come up with various excuses for their lack of involvement. A primary reason given is "fear," (Endnote 4) something that Gray highlights (and later I'll develop more fully). These self-appointed advocates frequently paint a picture of naïve, childlike waifs, constantly in fear. The inference is that they need (even though they may not realize it yet) groups like RMM to "take care of them." This implication smacks of Rudyard Kipling’s "white mans’ burden." The individuals that I am personally familiar with cross our borders, navigate through a different culture, find and maintain employment, and support not only themselves but also family members back in their home countries.These individuals, who survive and even thrive, do not need RMM or anyone else to "take care of them." I find this contention to be patronizing, condescending, and borderline racist. Characterizing the attitude of these organizations as being "paternalistic" may be being kind.
The constant unsubstantiated "fear" justification was taken to its lowest extreme in a RMM fund raising card, dated Thanksgiving 2001, written by Witt. This fundraising card, which morphed fear into "terror," is quite heavy on melodramatic, heavily exaggerated hyperbole. Dated roughly two months after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 Witt shamelessly plays on and attempts to cash in on that event. His opening sentence in the card breathlessly states: "Terror has been a part of migrant workers lives in New York for a long time." He further adds: "more often than not, terror remains a constant companion, sucking your energy, denying hope, refusing dignity." He adds that "for twenty years RMM has faced the terror with vision of hope and justice.... We stand up to the terror and we have empowered others to stand up as well." He also claims that the "terror" felt by farmworkers is "state" government "sanctioned" because the state doesn't pass the laws that Witt lobbies for. He concludes, "please join us through your donation." Ah, the terror can be simply defeated with your tax deductible contribution. What's not explained is why anyone would risk their lives to cross the border, paying someone roughly $3,000 to do it, to come here to New York State and subject themselves to this state sanctioned and ongoing terror campaign. Shameless."
When women fought for the right to vote (amongst a number of issues) at the turn of the 20th Century it was women who led that fight. When African-Americans fought for increased civil rights in the 1950's and 1960's it was African-Americans at the forefront of the struggle. Let's be honest and frank, there are virtually no farmworkers involved with Witt and his organization or participate in his contrived events. How do you explain that and does it bother you? Please don't tell me it's fear. African-Americans who struggled during the 50's and 60's risked their lives and some died in the struggle. Are these farmworkers in more danger and in more fear than African-Americans in the 50's and 60's in the south? Really?
Or, maybe, Witt and his friends don't represent farmworkers, don't speak in their behalf and don't represent the issues that primarily concern them? Doesn't it sound a bit patronizing, condescending and borderline racist to you, that these waif like, weak, downtrodden need these groups to not only "stand with them" but essentially to take on this entire "movement" and legislative lobbying agenda on their own.
Look how angry I get when a group of incredibly hypocritical windbags and grandstanders take it upon themselves to be the final arbiters of what is "just" or "moral" or "good" for our society. You don't think grandstanding, hypocritical windbags like Witt don't irritate some of the people they purport to represent and speak in their behalf? If it was me my response would be, "who the hell are you ....?"
What do you say?
C.
After a week of visits from all my children and grandchildren, followed by a week of colds, sore throats, and coughs caught from my grandchildren, I'm finally back to this discussion with you, Chris.
You've sent me a ton of emails, too, so it's hard to know where to begin again.
I might as well start with what struck me in your response about exploitation, two comments back.
You wrote that it was "screwy" that "In my printing business, I generally wound up as the lowest paid person -- on an hourly basis, by far the worst paid."
Why should that surprise you? Does that say something significant about your attitudes toward workers' pay?
The way I saw it, the economic fairness due to the six workers in my printing shop, not to mention their needs and rights, called for paying good union wages and for providing health insurance.
It was up to me to manage things in such a way that we all made out all right. I took the risks and stood to make the profits. They weren't interested in being in some kind of cooperative enterprise: they wanted and needed their pay, not the entrepreneurial risks and potential rewards.
If my business decisions, or the competitive market that we were in, meant that I made less than they did, so be it.
It certainly wasn't the workers' fault. They worked hard and well for what they earned. And I made enough to live on.
And the payoff for me came when I got sick and had to sell the business. I made a good profit on the sale, enough to sustain me and my family for the years it took for me to fully recover and then go back to a different type of work. My wife, who towards the end of our ownership of the press had come to work with me there, then went to work for the University of Illinois -- and things got sorted out all right.
Since I got the capital gain that came both from my investment in equipment and from the good work of my employees, it was only right that they in return got all that the traffic could bear, that is, all that the cash flow that the business generated could reasonably provide for them.
Shifting to your final point in that comment, you never did say how much your land has appreciated in value. Whether or not you're "s-o-l" depends on the amount of money you would walk away with from selling the land and your equipment to another farmer.
You have capital assets. You borrow against them in the bad years so that you're in position to make out well in the good years. And you could rent them out and make additional income from working at something else.
If you're not making enough money in the good years to pay back your debts and to support your family decently through the good and bad years, that would be as screwy as you think my situation was.
Owners of capital assets do have advantages that people who sell their labor don't have. And yes I know, along with the advantages come risks.
Brother Billy says:
"After a week of visits from all my children and grandchildren, followed by a week of colds, sore throats, and coughs caught from my grandchildren, I'm finally back to this discussion with you, Chris."
Groovy.
Brother Billy says:
"You've sent me a ton of emails, too, so it's hard to know where to begin again. I might as well start with what struck me in your response about exploitation, two comments back."
I hope the next thing you read is my "Maggie Gray" paper. If your information/understanding of the farmworker/agriculture issue has been based primarily on misleading information spoon fed by that ego driven demagogue then I think you might find that document quite informative. As I have stated repeatedly, and backed with examples, facts, evidence, that clown is so full of crap I don't think he can see straight.
I hope the next thing we discuss though is the question I posed to you regarding the legitimacy of the self-appointed advocates.
Brother Billy says:
"You wrote that it was 'screwy that 'In my printing business, I generally wound up as the lowest paid person -- on an hourly basis, by far the worst paid.' Why should that surprise you? Does that say something significant about your attitudes toward workers' pay?"
No, it surprises me because I don't know of many successful business models or, on the macro level, economic systems, where the lower level employee earns as much as the business owner. I'm not trying to have a knee jerk reaction here, and I certainly don't endorse nor support some of the gross excesses of capitalism, especially what we have seen develop over the past few years (since Reagan's time and has gotten even more extreme during Bush's terms) with the super widening of the disparity between CEO and other corporate heads' pay and the pay of their average employees. But pay levels where the owner of a business either matches or is lower than the average worker sounds a lot like communism to me and as an economic system that hasn't proven to be a successful model.
And you run with the assumption that I as a farmer specifically, or as an industry, we in agriculture want dirt low pay for our employees. That's bs propaganda peddled by ilk like Witt. As I said to Randall Pinkston of CBS News in a piece I was in in 1996, I pay a competitive wage, I provide free housing and all that entails (gas, electric, directv, etc...). I'd love to pay more. But where is the money tree? Pay me more for my onions and I can pay and do more for my workers.
What you guys just can't grasp is that the money isn't there. We have a cheap food policy. We have over 70 years of social and public policy built around that system. That's the context. To pull one issue out, like worker wages, out of that context, is intellectually disingenuous and dishonest. Force us to pay more with money we don't have will put us out of business. Period. Is that what you want? And if so have you considered:
1. How farmworkers are benefitted by losing their jobs?
2. Is it good public policy to put our nation's food production system at risk?
Don't believe what I'm saying? Believe it. In my valley, due to weather disasters coupled with average prices that haven't changed in over 25 years, we have LOST ROUGHLY HALF OF OUR FARMERS. Our onion acreage has dropped nearly in half. End those exemptions and you will put all but the very largest small family farmers here out of business.
Brother Billy says:
"The way I saw it, the economic fairness due to the six workers in my printing shop, not to mention their needs and rights, called for paying good union wages and for providing health insurance. It was up to me to manage things in such a way that we all made out all right. I took the risks and stood to make the profits. They weren't interested in being in some kind of cooperative enterprise: they wanted and needed their pay, not the entrepreneurial risks and potential rewards. If my business decisions, or the competitive market that we were in, meant that I made less than they did, so be it."
That's great. But it's not a smart way to operate a business. That was great you could afford to be so altruistic but it doesn't sound sustainable over the long haul. How many years did you last in business? Further, my industry can't afford that. Farming is very expensive and a much higher risk.
Interestingly, when I've talked to my employees they tell me they want a job and as many hours as possible. They don't ask for a "codified day of rest." I've had workers leave me for not giving them enough hours. I don't have workers leave me for too many hours. My workers also understand I can't afford overtime. They know if that exemption ends I'm going to cut their hours as much as possible in the non harvest period. They'll end up with less take home pay. My workers aren't clamoring for the Episcopal Church and these other religious and quasi-religious organizations to use these proxy organizations to create a union they will have direct or indirect control over. As I keep saying, if these religious and quasi-religious organizations want to end the overtime exemption, collective bargaining, etc..., let them do it for their employees first. Then let them try to impose their will and sensibilities on my industry, for my employees who have nothing to do with them and haven't asked for and don't want their "help."
Brother Billy says:
"It certainly wasn't the workers' fault. They worked hard and well for what they earned. And I made enough to live on."
Again, that's great that you could afford to be so magnanimous and altruistic. I just did my taxes for this year. My pre tax earnings were below the level of poverty and far below what my employees, my seasonal employees, earned (not counting the benefits of free housing etc...).
Brother Billy says:
"And the payoff for me came when I got sick and had to sell the business. I made a good profit on the sale, enough to sustain me and my family for the years it took for me to fully recover and then go back to a different type of work. My wife, who towards the end of our ownership of the press had come to work with me there, then went to work for the University of Illinois -- and things got sorted out all right. Since I got the capital gain that came both from my investment in equipment and from the good work of my employees, it was only right that they in return got all that the traffic could bear, that is, all that the cash flow that the business generated could reasonably provide for them. Shifting to your final point in that comment, you never did say how much your land has appreciated in value. Whether or not you're "s-o-l" depends on the amount of money you would walk away with from selling the land and your equipment to another farmer. You have capital assets. You borrow against them in the bad years so that you're in position to make out well in the good years. And you could rent them out and make additional income from working at something else."
Again, you obviously don't have the basic or foggiest clue in regards to agriculture, its historical and current production and marketing realities. You can't make a straight analogy with your business.
A friend of mine who read your post made this comment:
"He somehow doesn't recognize that printing businesses aren't subject to whims of the weather, insect and disease infestations, huge competition from foreign countries-- or that fact that as prices increase for paper and ink, he can raise his prices (since all the other local printers are likely to do the same) but you are caught in a bind taking what a buyer will pay you in a global market."
I am a price taker, not a price maker. If my input costs rise (which they all have, rent, seed, pesticides, fuel, repairs and labor amongst others, exponentially over the past few years) I can't offset it with a higher price for my onions. The ever consolidating chain stores dictate my price. It's the reason why I'm getting paid the same price for my onions as I was getting paid in 1983. Dollar for dollar. Can the same be said for your printing business and that industry?
Regarding the value of my land let me repeat what I said above:
"Land prices in my area have increased but that's only due to the unintended consequences of a federal conservation program, which has led to inflated land rent and cost rates. I grow on mucksoils, and muck is a protected resource in NYS that can't be developed. It can either be farmed or revert back to wetlands, that's it. So, if I sell out today I sell out equipment that is ancient and land that can be used only for farming. In other words, I'm s-o-l."
An acre of black dirt has risen from an average of maybe $2,000 an acre to about $3,000 an acre. But you can only get that if you can find someone to buy the land that wants to farm it. If you can't sell it to someone that wants to farm it, then what do you do? It reverts to wetlands. I am not like the upland farmer that is sitting on a potential gold mine in regards to land value and potential housing development. MUCK CANNOT BE DEVELOPED. It's farmed or it reverts to swamp.
Half the farmers in my valley have gone out of business. Who do I sell my tractors that average 50 or 60 years in age to? Who do I sell my land to?
And again, what you guys aren't hearing is that we haven't had a "good year" (decent crop, no weather disasters, decent price) since 1995. Go on the Times Herald Record website and do a search of their archive. We have been whacked by floods, droughts, hailstorms, etc.... Let me repeat, since 1996 we have LOST ROUGHLY HALF OF OUR FARMERS.
Brother Billy says:
"If you're not making enough money in the good years to pay back your debts and to support your family decently through the good and bad years, that would be as screwy as you think my situation was."
That's farming. Which you obviously don't understand. Now try to understand my frustration when misleading demagogues like Witt and drones that blindly follow him try to dictate policy on an industry they don't even begin to understand. That's hubris. And they try to end exemptions their own industry (amongst others, including significant and costly tax exemptions) benefits from. that's hypocrisy. Hubris plus hypocrisy leads to nausea.
Brother Billy says:
"Owners of capital assets do have advantages that people who sell their labor don't have. And yes I know, along with the advantages come risks."
Do you? Do you realize that it costs roughly $4,000 to grow one acre of onions? Do you realize that one hailstorm in early August can wipe all of it out? That you can be left with a huge production debt and nothing to live on to boot? And all that time your employees were paid?
Please, read the stuff I sent you, especially the Maggie Gray paper. Try to learn something about this issue that isn't merely Witt-spin.
Now, how about for the next post you address the question I asked you regarding the legitimacy of the self-appointed advocates. And what do you say to people that look at the meddling of the amen industry and echo the sentiments expressed by George Carlin which can be found at the 3:50 point of this YouTube video when he talks about religion and its role in the public policy process:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hifSjPn2Uns
C.
Hey Billy,
Here is a prime example of the sort of sleaze I've been talking about and I want to get your reaction to it.
Over the weekend I stumbled across this video. It is entitled "Farmworkers: Modern Slaves?" and it was "produced" by the Rural and Migrant Ministry youth group YAG (http://blip.tv/file/705987). This is the group RMM claimed on their yearly tax returns they spent, from 1996 through 2004, some $729,429 on ("youth arts group/youth empowerment program"). According to RMM literature they have been able to enroll a measly 30 or children in it (How many of these children are actually the children of migrant farmworkers? One, five, nine? Has anyone asked that? Why are there so few participants in or graduates of this program? What have they spent over $700,000 on over the past few years, for roughly 27 graduates?).
The video must be viewed to be fully appreciated. Not only does it totally eliminate the role of the farmer in the farming process (it's farmworkers that evidently do all the work and are primarily responsible for food production, farmers are evidently uninvolved bystanders) but it spews the scurrilous, vile and extremely offensive claim that farmworkers are slaves or in a "slave like" state. The obvious implication is that if farmworkers are slaves then farmers must be slave owners.
First off, how does Wikipedia define slavery? It states:
Slavery is a social-economic system under which certain persons — known as slaves — are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to perform labour or services. The term includes the status or condition of those persons who are treated as the property of another person, household, company, corporation or government. This is referred to as "chattel slavery". Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation in return for their labor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
Is that what is happening on farms in New York State? Well, one of the statistical gathering agencies of the USDA, the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), in the latest NASS report on Farm Labor (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/FarmLabo/FarmLabo-02-15-2008.txt) the average wages for farmworkers in our region (Northeast I) during the latest reporting period were:
Hired Workers: Wage Rates for Type of Worker and All Hired Workers
by Region and United States, January 6-12, 2008 1/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Type of Worker :
U.S. :--------------------------------------------: Wage Rates for
and : : :Field & Lvstk :All Hired Workers
Region 2/ : Field : Livestock : Combined :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Dollars per Hour
:
Northeast I : 11.59 10.02 10.60 11.60
This does not factor in the free housing and all that free housing entails.
Regarding the average hours worked by farmworkers in our region during the last reporting period the report states:
Hired Workers: Number and Hours Worked by Region
and United States, October 7-13, 2007 1/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Hired
:---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. : : Expected to be Employed :
and : Number :-------------------------------: Number
Region 2/ : of : 150 Days : 149 Days : of Hours
: Workers : or More : or Less : Worked
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: --------------- 1,000 -------------- Hours per Week
:
Northeast I : 34 23 11 39.8
I would argue that 39.8 hours is hardly "slave" hours. Wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you agree someone paid on average over $10 per hour and who receives free housing is not a slave?
First, the implied notion that virtually no laws or protections apply to farmworkers is pure crap. A dozen or so agencies, on the local, state and federal level, oversee a plethora of laws connected with the living and working conditions of farmworkers. I would argue it is probably the one of the most regulated workforces in the U.S.
Second, a prop interviewed in the piece claims that farmers "most of the time insult us, they call us names, they treat us like animals." Well in a piece by Sarah Bradshaw that ran in the Poughkeepsie Journal on 9/24/06, entitled "Migrant workers fill indispensible roles" it states, "Eugene Tyrell, a 41-year-old Jamaican H-2A worker has worked for Mead Orchards for 10 years. He came in April and will return home in November. 'This is a better life,' he said. 'They treat you real good here.'" And in a piece by Dan Shapely that ran in the Poughkeepsie Journal on 7/17/05, entitled "Farms are local, workers are not" it states, "On the farm, Kocot provided Jimenez year-round housing as part of the job, and Jimenez said he did not face discrimination on the farm that he has sometimes felt at other jobs. 'Over here, they don't care,' he said, 'as long as you work.'" I would put more stock in what these workers state versus props that are hand picked by Witt and RMM.
To make the claim via analogy that farmworkers in NYS are slaves is, as I said, a scurrilous, vile and extremely offensive claim. I know that Witt or one of his stooges will point out the very, very very rare case of slavery (as found in the definition above) and they will attempt to paint with the broad brushstroke that those examples are typical. Well, that's crap. Nationwide there are literally a handful of such examples. There is no basis to implicitly or explicitly claim or imply that farmworkers are slaves.
As I mentioned in another post, if you do that then I can take the thousands upon thousands of codified examples of clergy that have sexually abused members of their churches, especially children, and extrapolate it out to claim that a typical church goer is a victim of sexual abuse and a typical clergy person is a sexual predator.
I'll tell you what else this sleaze comparison does, this comparison cheapens and demeans those that actually were slaves and suffered under slavery. If I were an African-American, a descendant of slaves, this comparison would outrage and disgust me. I would say shame on Witt but, to be frank, I don't think the guy possesses that quality.
Finally, in the piece Witt states in part, (was there any doubt he'd appear in this) in a very long, run on sentence, of YAG's activities:
"... and it's really rare that you see, uh, folks that are in their, uh, teens working for Justice, uh, working, uh, to bring about change, and I'm proud to stand with them, uh, especially as they work, uh, with farmworkers, uh, to end the exclusions uh, that deny farmworkers the same rights as the rest of us in New York."
Of course, in talking about the exemptions to the law Witt chooses not to point out that many of these "rights" are denied to employees of non-profits and religious organizations and institutions that are controlled by the "amen industry." You have to give the guy credit for sticking on message. It's too bad that message, either overtly or via omission, is blatant misinformation.
Now, are you going to defend or repudiate this despicable comparison?
Chris
After a long break caused by undramatic but crummily poor health, plus some other distractions, I'm ready to resume the discussion with you, Chris. For a while, I've had a copy of Margaret Gray's Ph. D. dissertation on my desk and now I'm starting to dig into it seriously. Before getting into the subject of the video, there's a point about her study that needs to clarified.
You charged her with making a false statement: that she was wrong to say her study is the first in-depth study of NY farmworkers in 30 years. However, the studies that you cited, that predated hers, were broad sociological surveys. Hers was different. She was very clear about it being a qualitative study, based on in-depth interviewing and participant observation, very much in the manner of anthropological ethnographic research. She didn't construct a random or representative sample. Instead, she talked at considerable length with relatively few people, looking for themes and issues, and for leads to be followed up with other people. And with her focus on the role of advocacy groups, it does appear that hers is the first study of its kind in NY.
Now to the video -- the short answer is that I don't find it "sleazy". As you yourself wrote, "slave" is an analogy. You looked for a "slaveholder" and found what you think is the only possible entity to play the part, the farmer/employer. Although, as you also pointed out, there are cases of farmers who have, in fact, held workers in a form of chattel slavery, I think the makers of the video have in mind a more abstract analogy in which the part of the slaveholder is played by the structure of the migrant labor system itself. The relationships among migrants, employers, and government, with its rules and enforcement practices, are such that migrant workers are placed in a position of vulnerability and powerlessness. It's that general position vis-a-vis the system which is the basis for the "slave" analogy.
As for your complaint that the video makes it appear that farmworkers are the only ones responsible for growing our food, well, it is a video about them. It's hard to imagine that anyone is so dense as to think that the workers do it all and that there are no farmers who own the land and the equipment, and who pay for all the agricultural inputs. Somebody's gotta be paying the workers. They're migrants; It's obvious that they're not working on their own farms. That's the point.
Your reference to a woman interviewee as a "prop" struck me as an indicator of a tendency that you've exhibited here before, to dehumanize or demean those you consider to be your antagonists. You didn't use the word "props" to describe the migrant workers you cited for their testimony about how good things are for them. Their evidence, like hers, is anecdotal. And both can be true: different people have different experiences. Their experience doesn't make hers unbelievable or dismissible as something scripted, nor does her experience invalidate theirs.
Hey Bill,
You said:
After a long break caused by undramatic but crummily poor health, plus some other distractions, I'm ready to resume the discussion with you, Chris."
Cool. I hope you feel better.
You said:
"For a while, I've had a copy of Margaret Gray's Ph. D. dissertation on my desk and now I'm starting to dig into it seriously."
I hope you also read my point by point by point response to her schlock work. And when you read both pieces see which has the better arguments, backed with more credible evidence.
You said:
"Before getting into the subject of the video, there's a point about her study that needs to clarified. You charged her with making a false statement: that she was wrong to say her study is the first in-depth study of NY farmworkers in 30 years. However, the studies that you cited, that predated hers, were broad sociological surveys. Hers was different. She was very clear about it being a qualitative study, based on in-depth interviewing and participant observation, very much in the manner of anthropological ethnographic research."
Actually, that's not true. Read the cited Cornell works. Regarding "Integrating the Needs of Immigrant Workers and Rural Communities" in its description of how the study was conducted it states:
"How was the project conducted? We chose five New York agricultural communities in different economic and social contexts that have relied heavily on hired farm labor. Each community has a minority population of some significance and a history of immigrant farm workers settling there. The communities have African American and/or Puerto Rican in addition to Mexican populations. Our qualitative data are drawn from interviews with key informants and focus groups with foreign-born farm workers and former farm workers. We also conducted focus groups with white nonimmigrant residents in the communities. Key informants included political, business, and religious leaders; police and school officials; farmers; and nongovernmental social service providers. The quantitative data include survey responses from three target groups: current foreign-born farm workers, former foreignborn farm workers, and non-farm community residents. Furthermore, to compare our findings with similar ones from a statewide perspective, we drew on the Cornell University Empire State Poll 2004, Immigration Omnibus Survey"
Regarding "Survey of Hispanic Dairy Workers in New York State" it states in part:
"The information was collected in personal interviews from 111 Hispanic workers on 60 farms, and included compensation and other information collected from employers. Three- fourths of the surveyed workers are from Mexico and about one-fourth from Guatemala. They are typically young (84% were 30 years old or younger) and almost always male."
Both of these studies contained in-depth qualitative data based on numerous interviews. To claim they were merely "broad sociological surveys" is simply wrong.
Now, what is one primary difference between her work and theirs? As a self-identified piece of "participant observation" it is plainly obvious that she has an ideological axe to grind which drives her research and brings into legitimate question any data culled from her interviews and any conclusions she may reach based on the interviews, especially if she didn't use a third party or neutral party to collect this data. again, as my response points out, this is something Herb Engman (of all people) cautioned my local CCE office years ago. In 1993 the Agricultural Program Leader for the Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) office of Orange County, Lucy Joyce, proposed conducting a farmworker survey of local farmworker's concerns and needs. I have in my possession a letter Joyce received (dated 7/9/93) from the then Cornell Migrant Program (CMP) Director Herb Engman regarding CCE of Orange County doing a farmworker survey/census. Engman in part stated:
"Once again, I advise extreme caution on the question of the census of farmworkers, especially migrant farmworkers. You must establish a clear definition of migrant farmworker (there are several, usually based on eligibility standards for the various federal programs). Then you must have a defensible strategy for collecting the data which, as Professor Chi points out, is unusually difficult. It is usually advisable to have an independent body conduct the research; those with a vested interest will be accused of 'cooking' the data. If the Orange County Association is to be connected to the survey, I would further advise that you link with a campus researcher who can help design the plan and defend the methodology. As you can tell, I am nervous about such a survey unless it can be done right. My involvement in research has been rather extensive even though I am not a researcher; I would not touch this effort unless I had total confidence in the research plan and the researcher.'"
To emphasize, since she has a clear agenda, which is the underpinning of her "participant observations" and her research, and which she herself collected the data, anything she claims can and should be challenged, for accuracy honesty and legitimacy.
You said:
"She didn't construct a random or representative sample. Instead, she talked at considerable length with relatively few people, looking for themes and issues, and for leads to be followed up with other people. And with her focus on the role of advocacy groups, it does appear that hers is the first study of its kind in NY."
Right, but then she claims, through an Adelphi press release that:
"'The report sends an important message because it explains how and why the state’s farmworkers are such a vulnerable population,' said Dr. Margaret Gray, Adelphi University Professor who conceived the research and wrote the report." http://events.adelphi.edu/news/2007/20071023.php
Well, that's bullsh*t. As I stated before ands state again, the study used a small group for interviews so they could get more in-depth information. Great. But then to extrapolate this information and imply that it is of statistical significance is equally absurd and outrageous. The admission
(regarding the sample the report itself, in a moment of surprising honesty and candor, then states very plainly on page 6: "The data presented in this report offer a full demographic profile of the Hudson Valley agricultural workforce that we interviewed")
is a very telling statement -- the data only represents the workforce interviewed -- certainly not the larger one of the Hudson Valley, let alone New York State at large. To claim that information gathered by a very biased researcher from 13 fruit orchards, 2 vegetable farms, 2 nurseries, 1 sod farm and 1 combination fruit and vegetable farm can possibly represent the needs/concerns/perceptions of 20,000 or more agricultural employees statewide is laughable.
No, this report can only make statements or conclusions regarding the miniscule number of farmworkers interviewed, not regarding farmworkers statewide. Even if she interviewed 113 genuine farmworkers, and those farmworkers were not hand picked by Rural and Migrant Ministry, and she was honest in how she conducted the interviews, even if all of that is true (and again, a reasonable person can raise legitimate questions regarding any or all of those points), a sample of 113 people, not taken from a cross section of farms across New York State but from one region (which she acknowledges in research work based on her dissertation research "reflects the general characteristics of workers in five counties, and not all of the state's farmworkers"), cannot legitimately claim to represent the concerns of 20,000 individuals. The size and the methods she employed to determine her sample aren't valid for her to make the sweeping claims she makes regarding worker motivations and/or perceptions.
Regarding the focus stuff, you are confusing the two reports. Her dissertation focuses on the self-appointed advocates but the "Hudson Valley Farmworker Report" is the research I am talking about above. Is her study of the self-appointed advocates unique? I'll grant you that. But both her works, the "Hudson Valley Farmworker Report" and her dissertation, are both junk social science.
Let me add this regarding her dissertation. I'm friends with someone who is friends with a couple that live near a college town. Gray applied for a teaching position at this job and one of my friend's friends was on the review team for her job application. Her work was considered to be laughable and a joke. You can chose not to believe me, and that's fine (I'm not getting specific here because I don't want to betray a trust) but the University people that reviewed her and her "work" had a hell of a laugh.
You said:
"Now to the video -- the short answer is that I don't find it "sleazy"."
I'm disappointed in you. You should find it sleazy. Farmworkers in NYS are not "slaves." Taking one example, out of thousands of thousands of employees and employment situations and making the claim that farmworkers are slaves is despicable. And again, if I was African-American I'd be furious.
You said:
"As you yourself wrote, "slave" is an analogy. You looked for a "slaveholder" and found what you think is the only possible entity to play the part, the farmer/employer."
Actually, analogy was the wrong word choice on my part. They didn't make an analogy in that disturbing video. By the title and the content they claimed farmworkers ARE slaves. And again, that is simply a scurrilous and despicable claim. As someone that is religious, it is beneath you.
Let me add this. One of the articles I sent you was an op-ed I wrote a few years ago to my local newspaper which was in response to a letter to the editor written by a Rural and Migrant Ministry employee who stated "farmworkers are subjected to subhuman treatment similar to slavery." I whalloped her in my op-ed reply. Even Witt knew that claim was over the top and he actually had the RMM flunkie contact the newspaper and claim she never did send the original letter in. What a laugh, rogue self-appointed advocates are evidently sending in offensive pieces in the name of the of RMM. The editor of the paper knew it was a joke (he told me about it) but they ran the RMM claim they didn't send it in.
You said:
"Although, as you also pointed out, there are cases of farmers who have, in fact, held workers in a form of chattel slavery, I think the makers of the video have in mind a more abstract analogy in which the part of the slaveholder is played by the structure of the migrant labor system itself. The relationships among migrants, employers, and government, with its rules and enforcement practices, are such that migrant workers are placed in a position of vulnerability and powerlessness. It's that general position vis-a-vis the system which is the basis for the "slave" analogy."
First off, what percentage of the U.S. and NYS farmworker workforce has been held as slaves? How many cases can you substantiate? 5 cases? 10 cases? Is the percentage .5%? .05%? As I have said repeatedly, if one wants to make the blanket claim that farmworkers are routinely exploited by farmers then someone else can make the claim that church members are routinely sexually exploited by their pastor, because of the numerous codified examples of such abuses taking place. Certainly a system seems to be in place that encourages this despicable form of exploitation. In fact, I can provide far far far more examples of priests, rabbis, padres, pastors, shaman, etc... being arrested, tried and convicted on sexual abuse charges then you can provide examples of "human slavery" taking place in American agriculture. To emphasize, if someone wants to make the slavery claim as being typical or the norm then I can I can take the thousands upon thousands of codified examples of clergy that have sexually abused members of their churches, especially children, and extrapolate it out to claim that a typical church goer is a victim of sexual abuse and a typical clergy person is a sexual predator.
Second, you give Witt far more credit then I do. The man is as deep as a mud puddle and there is nothing subtle about his rhetoric/propaganda. I've read it all, for years. Further, this is a point I have made, including to you, over and over and over again, Witt and his crowd consistently don't do what you are painfully attempting to interpret he does, deal with the issue of agricultural employment in THE HISTORICAL AND CURRENT PRODUCTION, MARKETING, POLITICAL AND PUBLIC POLICY REALITIES IN CONNECTION WITH AGRICULTURE IN THE U.S. Witt virtually never, ever ever ever ever ever ever deals with this issue within any sort of realistic contextual framework. You are seeing something in that video that doesn't exist.
WITT RHETORICALLY IS USING THE SLAVERY CLAIM AS A BLUNT INSTRUMENT TO ARGUE FOR HIS SINGLE MINDED PURPOSE, ENACTING HIS (NOT GENUINE FARMWORKERS) LEGISLATIVE LOBBYING AGENDA. PERIOD!
Textual interpretation was my business in grad school Bill and I can tell you that your inference above is either fantasy or crapola.
You said:
"As for your complaint that the video makes it appear that farmworkers are the only ones responsible for growing our food, well, it is a video about them. It's hard to imagine that anyone is so dense as to think that the workers do it all and that there are no farmers who own the land and the equipment, and who pay for all the agricultural inputs. Somebody's gotta be paying the workers. They're migrants; It's obvious that they're not working on their own farms. That's the point."
Witt is that dense. No Bill, you need to read the RMM produced propaganda. Their propaganda has consistently stated or implied that farmworkers alone "are responsible for bringing food to our tables." E-mail Witt and ask him to produce for you, from his literature, videos, audio pieces, etc... 5 examples, no, lets be generous, 3 examples of where he stated or implied what you state above. Just 3 examples that give credit to farmers or at least imply we are more than innocent bystanders in the process. Just 3. You won't be able to. As I state, in Witt/RMM world the farmer simply doesn't exist and/or has no role in the production or delivery of food apart from abusing our workforce.
You said:
"Your reference to a woman interviewee as a "prop" struck me as an indicator of a tendency that you've exhibited here before, to dehumanize or demean those you consider to be your antagonists. You didn't use the word "props" to describe the migrant workers you cited for their testimony about how good things are for them. Their evidence, like hers, is anecdotal. And both can be true: different people have different experiences. Their experience doesn't make hers unbelievable or dismissible as something scripted, nor does her experience invalidate theirs."
When people are hand-picked by someone with a single-minded agenda or purpose to mouth what they are told to say, that's a prop. When my employees have been interviewed in the past, either for media pieces, or for research like the "Coming Up The Season" project, I'm not around when they talk to the interviewers. They can say whatever they want, or choose not to talk at all.
When RMM supplied "workers" for the joint State Senate labor-Agriculture hearings a few years ago, those people were props. Do you know who reached that conclusion? The legislators, including Nick Spano, who at first bought into RMM's bullsh*t. But do you know what they found? None of the claims made by the "props" could be substantiated. NONE OF THEM. And for each hearing, the one held in albany, the one held locall in Warwicj and the one held in western NYS, it was the same people repeating the same unsubstantiated drivel. Spano eventually said at the hearing in Warwick "do you have anything new to say, we've heard this all before."
And when you hold rallies and public lobbying events, when you HAVE TO PAY the handful of farmworkers on hand for their participation, at the end of the event to make sure they stay for the whole thing, well, that's a prop. Witt likes making the claim this is a civil rights struggle. Well, during the 50's and 60's I would argue very few African Americans that participated in those events like the march on Selma had to be paid to be there.
I stand by the description of those handful of supposed "farmworkers" as being nothing more than "PROPS."
I greatly anticipate your reply, especially after you read my response to Gray's work.
Talk with you soon,
Chris
Hey Bill
I want to add and emphasize one point: in what I have read on your website you sound like a very good, decent, kind person. I don't sense malice or bad intentions on your part at all. I react strongly to this stuff, and I don't mean to take it out on you personally. In my defense, my industry has been on the wrong end of a longtime, ongoing smear campaign perpetrated by some people that I do sense malice and nasty intentions. These people, in their rhetoric/propaganda, deeply disturb and offend me.
So, my apologies for taking out some of my frustration on you personally. You strike me as a nice human. I just think, regarding this issue, you are very very uninformed (you've allowed your opinion to be formed primarily with information spoon-fed to you by one side of the issue) and woefully naive.
Take care,
Chris
While I appreciate your kind words about me, Chris, I will remind you that I have a good opinion of some people who deeply disturb and offend you. I don't sense malice and nastiness - just the other side of a struggle between competing interests.
And I'll take issue with you about me being naive and accepting spoon-fed information. I wouldn't have been a political dissenter since about 1947 if I'd been inclined to allow myself to be spoon-fed the politically correct line of that time or of any time since.
And my small business experience is more similar to your farming experience than you think. I was a small operator with high labor costs, albeit by choice, located away from campus in a university town, and competing on a price basis with larger businesses, including chains, who bought from the same suppliers that I did, but at a lower price because of their bulk purchases. So I couldn't blithely raise my prices when paper costs went up. Also, equipment was unpredictably cantankerous, including a time when I had huge production problems because the company that manufactured the printing plates that I used changed their formula without telling anyone -- and since my shop was in a cold and dry basement, I was perhaps the first one in the USA to find out that the new plates didn't work in the winter in cold, dry environments. I had to sub out my plate-making for a few months and that destroyed my gross profit margin. Sort of like a hail storm or a drought.
After I sold that business, I went into investment brokerage -- a trade that I'd learned decades earlier on Wall St. between graduate schools. Besides stocks, I had a commodities futures license, so I've traded in all the futures markets, including the agricultural commodities. I keep up pretty well with agricultural and trade policy issues, and as I've mentioned, I'm aware of the difference between your kind of farming and the commodity crops of the Midwest.
In addition, my immersion in anthropology taught me to observe and analyze things as dispassionately as possible, whatever my personal inclinations might be. In unfamiliar situations "in the field", one has to tolerate ambiguity while trying to decode unfamiliar patterns of behavior. And that frame of mind carried over into my regular life and politics. I believe that, in the long run, we're better off if we can absorb and acknowledge facts and arguments that go against our own positions and that force us, if we're honest with ourselves, to re-examine and re-evaluate our ideas and then, when the situation calls for it, to reformulate them as required by reason and realism. So I always read a lot of the opposition's stuff. And at this point, I remain unconvinced by what you've written. Surely no one else is reading this, so maybe we can argue things out point by point, tedious as that might be. Have you set up your blog yet?
Later,
Bill
Hey Bill,
You said:
"While I appreciate your kind words about me, Chris, I will remind you that I have a good opinion of some people who deeply disturb and offend you. I don't sense malice and nastiness - just the other side of a struggle between competing interests."
But what is your opinion based on? How well do you know this issue? How much of their rhetoric/propaganda have you read versus what others have written? How many third party sources have you spoken with (like regulatory officials)?
With all due respect I have lived this issue for years and though you don't sense malice I do and I'm far more informed on this than you are. Witt is a liar (how many examples do you want, when he lied on his tax return for years he didn't lobby, or to the Lobby Commission regarding his salary, or on the RNN documentary regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of the young boy on Pulaski Highway?) and a demagogue (how many examples would you like?) and a deeply disturbing person, no matter what cloth he wears.
You said:
"And I'll take issue with you about me being naive and accepting spoon-fed information. I wouldn't have been a political dissenter since about 1947 if I'd been inclined to allow myself to be spoon-fed the politically correct line of that time or of any time since."
I'm not talking in general Bill, I'm talking about THIS ISSUE.
You said:
"And my small business experience is more similar to your farming experience than you think. I was a small operator with high labor costs, albeit by choice, located away from campus in a university town, and competing on a price basis with larger businesses, including chains, who bought from the same suppliers that I did, but at a lower price because of their bulk purchases. So I couldn't blithely raise my prices when paper costs went up. Also, equipment was unpredictably cantankerous, including a time when I had huge production problems because the company that manufactured the printing plates that I used changed their formula without telling anyone -- and since my shop was in a cold and dry basement, I was perhaps the first one in the USA to find out that the new plates didn't work in the winter in cold, dry environments. I had to sub out my plate-making for a few months and that destroyed my gross profit margin. Sort of like a hail storm or a drought."
And did you have self-appointed advocates running around, not chosen or made up by your employees, running around claiming in the press and to elected officials how unjust or evil you were and how laws should be changed that they didn't want to apply those same laws to themselves? I doubt you had that experience.
You said:
"After I sold that business, I went into investment brokerage -- a trade that I'd learned decades earlier on Wall St. between graduate schools. Besides stocks, I had a commodities futures license, so I've traded in all the futures markets, including the agricultural commodities. I keep up pretty well with agricultural and trade policy issues, and as I've mentioned, I'm aware of the difference between your kind of farming and the commodity crops of the Midwest."
It is a major difference.
You said:
"In addition, my immersion in anthropology taught me to observe and analyze things as dispassionately as possible, whatever my personal inclinations might be. In unfamiliar situations "in the field", one has to tolerate ambiguity while trying to decode unfamiliar patterns of behavior. And that frame of mind carried over into my regular life and politics. I believe that, in the long run, we're better off if we can absorb and acknowledge facts and arguments that go against our own positions and that force us, if we're honest with ourselves, to re-examine and re-evaluate our ideas and then, when the situation calls for it, to reformulate them as required by reason and realism. So I always read a lot of the opposition's stuff. And at this point, I remain unconvinced by what you've written."
Have you read my response to Margaret Gray yet? Have you read that paper. What I am writing to you on this blog is snippets and sections sans context. Please read that paper. And please tell me, honestly, even on the basis of what I e-mailed you and posted on your blog, do I or do Gray and Witt and their drones (actually Gray is an intellectual lightweight/moron (which is a bit of an understatement) and nothing more than a drone of Witt's), whose argument is more logical and cogent and whose position is better substantiated with the more credible evidence?
You said:
"Surely no one else is reading this, so maybe we can argue things out point by point, tedious as that might be. Have you set up your blog yet?"
Hey, this is you most active blog posting. I sure hope people are reading it. Concerning my blog I'm working on it. I'm waiting on my wife, who finally has her summer break, to finish setting it up. I'd love to do a point by point either here or there when it is set up. In the meantime, read my response to Margaret Gray. I have taken the time and effort to read all of the misleading propaganda spewed by Witt. Please take the time to read my opus. With that open mind you have.
Talk with you soon,
Chris
Hey Bill,
I have a question for you. Every question you have asked me I have answered and/or attempted to address. I haven't dodged anything.
On that note I'd like to put you on the spot to answer this question:
You identify yourself as a "religious person." I would assume you are very familiar with various holy writings. As I have mentioned previously, Rev. Witt has lied on numerous occasions and in numerous situations. He has lied on tax returns and in a sworn deposition (those are special lies called perjury). He has lied in media pieces, like his twisted version of the poor migrant child that died on Pulaski Highway. He has lied repeatedly in his literature (either directly or indirectly via subordinates) in regards to the laws connected to living and working conditions of farmworkers (for example the often repeated claim that farmworkers aren't covered by workers com., or a selective lie of omission in failing to mention that a federal OSHA law always required clean cool drinking water, or that there are other employment workforces that are also exempt from overtime and farmworkers are not "alone" under this exemption, and I can give you numerous other examples if you like).
He is an Episcopal priest, which I assume means he follows the Bible or the Old and New Testaments. Where in the Bible does it give God's followers, including priests/clergy/holy men, the license to tell lies to accomplish a task or purpose? I know this credo or world view is found in Machiavelli's "The Prince" in regards to the "ends justify the means" but where does Jesus or Moses or whoever give God's followers the permission to lie in order to accomplish a goal? Or any other holy writings?
You don't make a regular practice of lying to accomplish your goals, I assume. Do you excuse Witt? if so, under scripture "Brother Billy" how do you justify your excuse of this disturbing behavior?
I assume much of his credibility in connection with farmworkers (though don't ask me to explain why) is ascribed via his being a "person of God," though I don't obviously ascribe credibility to him simply on that basis. Don't his lies hurt that credibility?
I hope you will address this.
Talk with you soon,
Chris
Golly, Chris, you set yourself up for an obvious snappy comeback.
You wouldn't be trying to spoon-feed me now, would you?
You've called me naive for accepting spoon-fed information. And that's what accepting your version of things would be.
But I'll look into it.
Peace,
Bill
Hey Bill,
You said:
"Golly, Chris, you set yourself up for an obvious snappy comeback. You wouldn't be trying to spoon-feed me now, would you? You've called me naive for accepting spoon-fed information. And that's what accepting your version of things would be."
I am not expecting you to accept anything I say on face value. I am asking you to read the materials I have provided to you with an open mind, and check the cited sources. After reading them judge for your self whose position is better substantiated. I am asking you to do what I have done. I have read virtually all of Witt and friend's produced crapola/propaganda. I have read or viewed or listened to pieces they have produced, conference speeches, videos produced, academic articles and pieces, news pieces they are in and are sources for, etc.... All of it that I can get my hands on. I have reached the conclusions I have reached after a thorough examination of the evidence, along with my personal experiences. Many of RMM's supporters on the other hand, have only relied on what Witt et al have told them. "Spoon-fed" would be an understatement. They are nothing more than "Borg drones" from Star Trek. To them "resistance is futile."
And I hope you will address my question above regarding Witt and his propensity to lie. On the note of checking sources, I can e-mail you Witt's deposition before the NYS Lobby Commission, where he lied, and lied and lied again. You don't have to be an expert in the issue to ascertain that. It's funny and quite disturbing.
And after you answer that question I hope you will address the question I raised earlier: "On what basis does Richard Witt or Brian O'Shaughnessy speak in behalf of or represent farmworkers?" Check it out for more details in the earlier posting on your blog.
You said:
"But I'll look into it. Peace, Bill"
That's all I ask.
Peace to you too, man!
C.
Sure, Chris, email me the Rev. Witt's deposition. I'll get to it eventually -- you have to realize that besides the 5-foot shelf of material you've already sent me, I have other reading, writing, and action projects to deal with, too. Among other things, I'm taking a couple of online courses, with a lot of reading involved -- and I'm running behind. And I got the rest of Maggie Gray's dissertation to go through. And then there's the old geezer problem of recurring fatigue.
Two quick points: 1) spoon-feeding: I haven't relied on the Rev. Witt and Rural and Migrant Ministries for information. I'm on many lists, get info from many sources, and have followed, although without your unusual intensity, migrant worker issues since 1948, if I remember correctly. (Probably the first items in my FBI dossier are some donations I made to organizations on the "subversive" list at that time -- the Congress of Racial Equality was one and I'm pretty sure that the National Farm Labor Union, a precursor to Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, was another. I think the Progressive Party was the third -- I've never looked at my FBI record, but I know I have one: I used to get regular visits from a weaselly little agent from the Jackson MS office in the late 60s.)
2) the basis for advocating for farmworkers: nothing more than interest and concern. A license isn't required. Knowledge is good -- but the adequacy and accuracy of any advocate's knowledge is always disputed by the anti-advocates. So I will do my best to check theirs against yours.
Bill
Hey Bill,
You said:
"Sure, Chris, email me the Rev. Witt's deposition. I'll get to it eventually -- you have to realize that besides the 5-foot shelf of material you've already sent me, I have other reading, writing, and action projects to deal with, too. Among other things, I'm taking a couple of online courses, with a lot of reading involved -- and I'm running behind. And I got the rest of Maggie Gray's dissertation to go through. And then there's the old geezer problem of recurring fatigue."
I can dig that.
You said:
"Two quick points: 1) spoon-feeding: I haven't relied on the Rev. Witt and Rural and Migrant Ministries for information. I'm on many lists, get info from many sources, and have followed, although without your unusual intensity, migrant worker issues since 1948, if I remember correctly. (Probably the first items in my FBI dossier are some donations I made to organizations on the "subversive" list at that time -- the Congress of Racial Equality was one and I'm pretty sure that the National Farm Labor Union, a precursor to Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, was another. I think the Progressive Party was the third -- I've never looked at my FBI record, but I know I have one: I used to get regular visits from a weaselly little agent from the Jackson MS office in the late 60s.)"
That's good. But you are not typical. The average Joe that has been attending Witt's highly orchestrated and contrived functions and/or (more importantly) sending a check to finance his operations have been relying almost solely on him and have been spoon fed by him. I would argue the average church goer has not spoken to or read anything apart from what has been presented by Witt. And it's laziness on their part. I would bet anything the overwhelming majority of RMM supporters have never spoken with:
1. a genuine farmer
2. a genuine farmworker not handpicked by Witt
3. a genuine regulator assigned to oversee the enforcement of the dozens upon dozens of laws, rules, regulations connected with the living and working conditions of farmworkers in NYS (I would even bet that the average supporter of RMM would be shocked to find out the fact there are numerous federal, state and local agencies charged to enforce the laws and that there are so many laws connected with farmworkers)
Interesting about your activities/ You should FOIA your FBI file. It isn't hard to do. I've FOIAd and FOILd lots of stuff over the years.
You said:
"2) the basis for advocating for farmworkers: nothing more than interest and concern. A license isn't required. Knowledge is good -- but the adequacy and accuracy of any advocate's knowledge is always disputed by the anti-advocates. So I will do my best to check theirs against yours."
And my reply would be "that's mighty white of you" when you consider the individuals you are supposedly representing have never asked you to represent them or speak in their behalf. As I made the comparison, it's hard to dispute Dr. King's legitimacy when hundreds of thousands of African-Americans are marching with him. It's easy to question Witt's or O'Shaugnessy's or yours when the overwhelming majority of genuine farmworkers have nothing to do with you, your organizations or your organizations' agenda.
Again I ask, on what basis should a legislator or a media person assign any credibility to what Witt has to say on this matter? Can I just decide to speak in behalf of school teachers, or nuclear plant technicians, or beauty salon workers, simply because I desire to and take it upon myself to do so? Why should anyone take me (or you) seriously?
(I would assume) Witt is assigned credibility in part (by the press and a handful of legislators, a small handful) because of his role as a codified holy man. And then we get back to my other question, how is his credibility as a codified holy man affected by his propensity to lie? Doesn't that disturb you?
Take your time reading the materials. I'm in no rush.
Talk with you soon,
Chris
Chris -- you're mixing the categories of 'advocacy' and 'representation'. To take an extreme example, I've never been to Darfur. I can advocate for the refugees there without having any standing as a representative.
So, yes - I can "just decide to speak in behalf of school teachers, or nuclear plant technicians, or beauty salon workers, simply because I desire to and take it upon myself to do so."
"Why should anyone take me (or you) seriously?" The basis for judging my advocacy is the adequacy and accuracy of my knowledge -- my own direct knowledge, if I have any, or knowledge which is dependent on intermediaries of various kinds: journalists, researchers, the UN, governments, non-governmental agencies, and other advocates and their opponents of all kinds. Then I have to use good judgment in assessing all that third-party information. And then present it in a responsible and coherent way.
Thus, since there are so many steps in the process, as well as competing interests, there will always be disagreement and argument, spin and counter-spin, one side's 'research' and another side's 'propaganda'.
My head hurts -- it's enough to make one want to stop thinking things through and just spend a lot of time at the movies. But they're so expensive! Instead, maybe I should do some work in my neighborhood's cooperative garden (conveniently located in my back yard), take a long shower, and then take a very long nap.
As Scarlett O'Hara said, "I'll think about that tomorrow." Sleeping on it is always a good idea. At the very least, you get some rest.
Bill
Post a Comment