1Winter-Spring 1992

Labor Management Decisions Agricultural Personnel Management Program University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources

▲Volume 2, Number 1 Winter-Spring 1992

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enactedin 1990, prohibits discrimination against disabled per-sons who can perform the essential functions of a jobwith or without reasonable accommodation. Last yearthe U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) issued its final regulations attempting to clarifythe terms “disabled,” “essential functions,” and “rea-sonable accommodation.” The EEOC also recently pub-lished a technical assistance manual to help employersunderstand ADA requirements.

DisabilityA “disabled” person is one who currently has, or has

a record of, or is regarded as having a disability—anyphysical or mental disorder that substantially limits amajor life activity, such as walking, seeing, hearing,speaking, or breathing. Temporary, non-chronic im-pairments that have little or no long-term or permanentimpact are usually not to be considered disabilities.

Examples of conditions or attributes that are not ADAdisabilities are broken limbs, influenza, left-handed-

A Summer issue of Labor Management Decisions,Volume 2, Number 2, is planned for publication in

July.

In this issue:ADA Soon Coming Into Play ..................................... 1

Software Review: Policies PLUS ............................. 3

Assisting Southeast Asian Refugee Farmers ............ 6

Incentives That Worked and Those That Failed ........ 7

Governor to Be Advised on Farm Worker Services .. 8

New Field Sanitation Standard Will Be Enforced ...... 9

Events ........................................................................ 9

Resources ............................................................... 10

Contributors ............................................................. 20

Asparagus harvest in California's Imperial Valley, January 1992.

ADA Soon Coming Into Play

James Severson, Stephen R. Sutter, andHoward R. Rosenberg

On July 26, 1992, employment-related provisions of theAmericans with Disabilities Act will take effect for organiza-tions with 25 or more employees. Two years later they will beextended to employers of 15 or more. Part-time and seasonalemployees working 20 or more full weeks in the current orpreceding calendar year are included in the count determin-ing employer coverage.

Portions of the following were adapted from articles by JamesSeverson, Attorney, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen,San Francisco, in Personnel Law Update, published byBorgman Associates, Walnut Creek, California. Anotherarticle in the Update by William W. Floyd, Jr., Attorney,Best, Best &Krieger, Riverside, provided useful information.

2 Labor Management Decisions

ness, pregnancy, current use of illegal drugs, obesity(except in rare circumstances), lack of education, homo-sexuality, poor judgement, and quick temper. Alsoexcluded from ADA protection are individuals with a“characteristic predisposition to illness or disease.” Ex-istence of a disability is to be determined without refer-ence to medications or aids (such as a hearing aid) thatmay correct for the condition.

EEOC guidelines contain detailed discussion of whatmakes a condition a disability under ADA. Disabilitiesthat substantially limit life activities are generally pre-sumed to also limit the ability to work. Individualswith back problems that preclude heavy labor, for ex-ample, may be considered disabled, even though theycan perform many other types of work.

Essential Functions of a JobIf a disabled person can perform the essential func-

tions of a job with modifications or adjustments that theemployer can reasonably provide, the employer maynot exclude the person from the job because of disabil-ity. It is thus important for employers to distinguish thefundamental or “essential” functions of a job from the“marginal” ones. The EEOC guidelines indicate factorsto be considered in case-by-case determination ofwhether a particular function is essential to a job:

■ Whether the job exists primarily to perform that func-tion. For example, an essential function of a truck driverjob would be driving a truck. But loading and unload-ing are not essential functions of the position wherethose tasks are normally performed by loading dock orwarehouse personnel.

■ The number of employees available to perform that jobfunction. Smaller employers often require a great dealof versatility among employees. Carpentry, tractor driv-ing, routine engine maintenance, record-keeping, andeven selling may all be essential functions of a job on asmall farm. On larger operations, carpentry and sellingwould more likely be considered marginal to a job thatis mainly responsible for tractor work.

■ Whether hiring to the position is based on expertise orability to perform that function. Examples would be re-pairing combines or communicating with field workersin three different languages.

The ADA regulations also set out types of evidencethat could be weighed in deciding whether a givenfunction is essential to a job:

■ The employer’s judgement;

■ Written job descriptions prepared before recruit-ing for and filling a position;

■ The amount of time on the job normally spentperforming the function;

■ The consequences of not requiring the job incum-bent to perform the function;

■ The work experience of past incumbents in the job;

■ The nature of the employer’s operation and orga-nizational structure; and

■ For employers of union workers, the terms of acollective bargaining agreement.

The content of job descriptions, though useful, is notconclusive. If a job description contains duties that anemployee rarely, if ever, performs, they are not likely tobe considered essential. But tasks performed infre-quently may be considered essential because of theircritical value or a lack of available employees to per-form them. Although an office employee may spendonly a few minutes each day entering into a computerfile data on field worker production, this task would beessential to the job if no one else on the ranch had anyskill in using the computer.

Reasonable AccommodationDisabled persons who are otherwise qualified and

able to perform essential functions of a job are entitledto “reasonable accommodation,” which the EEOCmanual defines as “modification or adjustment to a job,the work environment, or the way things usually aredone that enables [a disabled person] to enjoy an equalemployment opportunity.” Such accommodation is notrequired if it would cause undue hardship to the em-ployer by imposing excessive cost, disruption, or fun-damental alteration of the nature or operation of thebusiness.

Examples of reasonable accommodation are: restruc-turing a job to transfer marginal functions to others;providing assistants to help perform some aspects ofthe job; acquiring or modifying tools or equipment;permitting the use of equipment, aids, or services thatthe employer is not obligated to provide (e.g., a guidedog); and making nonwork areas, including restrooms,accessible.

Modified work schedules to accommodate disabledemployees or applicants may provide a weekly vari-ance for medical appointments, permanent assignmentto a particular shift, weekend work to replace regulardays lost during the week (such as for dialysis treat-ment), and flexible leave (although paid leave in addi-tion to the normal allowance is not required).

Another form of reasonable accommodation is reas-signment to a vacant position with comparable payand benefits. If a comparable position does not exist,reassignment to a lower rated position may be suffi-cient. An employer is not required to create a new jobor to bump another employee from a job to provide areasonable accommodation.

3Winter-Spring 1992

Software ReviewThe Internal Revenue Service allows a deduction of

up to $15,000 per year for expenses associated withremoval of barriers to the disabled. Businesses withgross receipts less than $1 million or a full-time work-force not exceeding 30 are also permitted tax credits forcertain costs of ADA compliance. These businessesmay claim a credit of up to 50 percent of eligible expen-ditures exceeding $250 but no more than $10,250.

Other IssuesEEOC regulations specifically prohibit employers

from making pre-employment inquiries about anapplicant’s history of workers’ compensation claims.Employers may make hiring offers contingent uponresults of a medical exam and may conduct pre-em-ployment tests to ascertain that disabled persons canperform a job. Applicants may be asked to describe ordemonstrate how they would perform job functions.

Employers may deny employment to a disabled ap-plicant on the grounds that the job presents a safetythreat to that person only if an individualized assess-ment shows “high probability” that he or she cannotperform the job safely.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing ADA employ-ment provisions. Although the information it has pro-vided thusfar is a step toward enabling employers tocomply with the new law, many questions about stan-dards and implementation of the law remain. Most ofthese issues will probably be resolved in time throughlitigation. Remedies for ADA violations may includecompensatory and punitive damages, back pay, frontpay, restored benefits, reasonable accommodation, joboffers, and attorney’s fees.

Employers are obligated to post ADA notices. Aposter, a copy of the technical assistance manual, andbooklets on ADA may be obtained from the EEOC (seeResources, page 11). ■■

The Spring 1991 issue of Labor Management Decisionscontained a detailed review of KnowledgePoint’s Per-sonnel Policy Expert, an expert-system software pro-gram for creating customized employee handbooks. Thereview prompted a letter from COR•TECH (Hanford,CA), producers of Policies PLUS, pointing out featuresof their product and inviting a test of the program.

Testing revealed one major procedural difference be-tween Policies PLUS and PPE: Policies PLUS takes amore global approach to customizing the first draft ofpolicies. It uses an initial questionnaire with 27 ques-tions instead of PPE’s one-(or none)-to-ten specific ques-tions for each policy. Policies PLUS then utilizes theresponses to the 27 questions to modify all policies andprocedures created for the user. After two and a halfminutes (using a hard disk) of such customization inthe review test, an on-screen tally proclaimed up to20,000 “actions” taken.

Entering two different sets of responses to the ques-tionnaire (which requires re-installing the entire pro-gram) makes apparent to the reviewer many modifica-tions based on user-provided information. Some para-graphs get deleted, others get inserted, a few phrasesget reworded, and the like. Yet most policies are rathergeneral and only a paragraph or two long — consis-tently shorter than those in PPE — so the preponder-ance of those actions taken are hard to detect or verify.

Program Organization and ContentComparing the organization of the PPE and Policies

PLUS employee manuals is not straightforward.Whereas PPE has 65 policy topics organized in ninegroups, Policies PLUS (Version 3.10) has 37 policy sec-tions comprising some 110 subsections. In actual con-tent, both programs cover pretty much the same ground.Policies PLUS sections [and sub-sections] include thefollowing:

■ Purpose; Introduction; Company History; Supervi-sory Relationship; Employment Practices [Promotions,Transfers, Recruiting; Introductory Period; Definitions;Management’s Rights; Benefits Eligibility; Union Rec-ognition]; Hours of Work [Work Schedules and Over-time; Arrival, Departure, Access; Meal Periods, Rest

Policies PLUSEmployee Handbook and

Procedures Manual

Norman J. Hetland

Loading boxes of asparagus in the Imperial Valley.

4 Labor Management Decisions

Breaks; Time Reporting]; Attendance [Policies; Report-ing; Proof of Absence; Emergency Time off].

■ Compensation [Wage & Salary Administration; PayPlans; Paydays: Weekly, Monthly, Bonuses and Incen-tives; Check Distribution, Pay Errors; Payroll Deduc-tions; Check Cashing; Payroll Advances]; Job Perfor-mance [Job Duties and Management’s Right to Change];Code of Conduct [Guidelines; Violation and Discipline];Drugs and Alcohol [Position Statement; Testing; Searchand Inspection; Disciplinary Action]; No HarassmentPolicy; Problem Solving.

■ Requirements On Duty [Parking; Food and Bever-ages; Housekeeping; Personal Business and Phone Calls;Smoking; Visitors]; Activities Off Duty [Activities; OtherEmployment]; Employee-Owned Property [Personal Prop-erty; Work Tools]; Company-Owned Property [Issuanceand Responsibility; Records and Files; Removal; Rightto Inspect]; Operation of Vehicles [Authorized Use;Driver’s Licenses and Records; Safe Operation; Colli-sion; Seat Belts].

■ Safety [General Rules; Hazardous and Toxic Ma-terials; Equipment Operation]; Appearance [General;Dress Code; Uniforms; Grooming and Cleanliness]; Mis-cellaneous [Business Gifts and Gratuities; Health Report-ing; Personnel Records; Posters and Bulletin Boards;Publicity Release; Non-Fraternization; Related Employ-ees; Solicitations; Termination; Vehicle Operation]; Pub-lic Relations [General; Courtesy; Telephone Etiquette;Document Preparation; Service Work].

■ Employee Benefits: Holidays [Priority of BargainingAgreement; National Holidays; Waiting Period; Holi-day Pay; Before-After-During Vacation]; Vacations [Pri-ority of Bargaining Agreement; Entitlement; Pay;Carryover; Pay in Lieu of Time Off; Minimum Time Off;Scheduling; Pay at Separation]; Sick Leave [Priority ofBargaining Agreement; Accumulation; Benefit Payment;Termination]; Jury Duty [Priority of Bargaining Agree-ment; Time Off; Reporting]; Leaves of Absence; GroupInsurance; Other Protection [Unemployment Insurance;Workers’ Compensation; Social Security; State Disabil-ity Insurance]; Planning for Tomorrow [Priority of Bar-gaining Agreement; 401(k) Savings Plan]; Other Benefits[Employee Discounts; Training and Tuition Reimburse-ment].

■ Conclusion; Acknowledgment of Receipt.

Policies PLUS also creates a separate but related Pro-cedures Manual with the following sections:

■ Personnel Policies: General [Scope and Authority;Revisions]; Applications for Employment [Forms; Receiv-ing; Filing and Retention]; Screening and Interviews [In-terviews; Verifications and Reference Checks; Offers ofEmployment; Notification of Unsuccessful Candidates];New Employees [Conditions of Employment; Documen-

tation and Files; Orientation]; Termination [Definitions;Documentation; Separation Pay; Return of Property;Continuation of Insurance; Unemployment Claims];Attendance Records [Record-Keeping; Supervision]; Un-paid Leave of Absence [Requests and Approvals; Dura-tion; Service Credit and Accruals; Paid Time off duringLeave; Continuation of Insurance Benefits; Reinstate-ment; Physician’s Statement; Forfeiture and Termina-tion; Industrial Injuries; Pregnancy Disability; Newbornand Adoptive Child Care; Active Military Service; Sum-mer Reserve Duty]; Personnel Files and Records [File Main-tenance; Employee Access; Outside Disclosure; Changesin Records; Recording Conduct Problems; Forms]

■ Federal Employment Regulations [Discrimination;Wage and Hour Laws; Garnishments; Polygraph-LieDetector Tests; Bulletin Board Posting Requirements]

■ California Regulations [At-Will; Discrimination; Na-tional Guard Duty; Jury Duty; Pregnancy-MaternityLeaves; Child-Family Care Leaves; Industrial Injuries;Drug-Alcohol Testing and Rehabilitation; Smoking Re-strictions; Wages, Hours, Overtime; Paying Wages onTermination; Vacation Pay at Separation; Payroll De-ductions; Garnishments; Injury and Illness PreventionProgram; Restrictive Covenants; Miscellaneous; Bulle-tin Board Posting Requirements].

These statements of procedure provide more detailednuts-and-bolts implementation rules than do the poli-cies; compare, for example, the entry on the policy forLeaves of Absence with the list of procedures concern-ing those leaves. But the distinction is sometimes hardto fathom. PPE, in contrast, incorporates many equiva-lent procedures into its policies without producing aseparate manual. Advantages of the Policies PLUS ap-proach are not entirely clear and must be weighedagainst the frequent need to look in two places for fullinformation on a given policy topic.

It is difficult to compile a precise inventory of policycategories included in one software program but not inthe other. Of particular interest to agricultural employ-ers, Policies PLUS places less emphasis on employmentprovisions of immigration law, confining its treatmentof IRCA to the procedures manual. Other neglected orrelatively de-emphasized topics, some of which mayseldom apply in agricultural contexts, include nondis-closure, several secondary benefits (bereavement, relo-cation, witness duty), emergency closings, specific kindsof leaves of absence, resignation, and AIDS in the work-place.

Policies PLUS appears to offer more extensive poli-cies or procedures than PPE on employee-owned prop-erty, hazardous and toxic materials, non-fraternization,public relations, group insurance, mandated insuranceprotection other than workers’ compensation, retire-ment planning, employee discounts and reimburse-

5Winter-Spring 1992

ments, and those listings of federal and California em-ployment regulations. Many of these may be of moreconsequence in industries other than agriculture.

Some idea of the relative inclusiveness of PoliciesPLUS and PPE may be drawn from comparing theirdisk storage requirements: Policies PLUS uses about1.5 megabytes, or about half the space required by PPE.Although the difference could indicate more efficientstorage, it probably also reflects comparative frequencyand timing of questions asked as well as resulting varia-tions in policies.

Policies PLUS also offers computerized templates forfour commonly drafted personnel letters (applicant in-terview scheduling, conditional offer of employment,and two rejection letters), as well as a hard-copy set ofeight personnel forms (reference checks, performanceevaluation, new employee checklist, absence/conductreport, attendance record, separation report, leave re-quest, general memo). The letters are very simple; theforms are adequate, but not available on disk files fordesign refinements.

Program Operation and User-FriendlinessPolicies PLUS takes about five minutes to install on a

hard disk. A necessary prerequisite step, however, is tomake backup copies of six floppy program disks. Thistook about half an hour for the review test and was anuisance. (Couldn’t the program be set up for directinstallation onto the hard disk from write-protectedmaster disks?) Running the program from the backupfloppies, incidentally, is possible but too cumbersometo tolerate for long.

Once installed, the program interface operates muchlike PPE’s. Choices can only be made by pressing mne-monic letters, without the PPE options of Arrow andReturn keys. The Escape key can almost always be usedto retrace one’s steps, and the Function keys offer someshortcuts (F1 — Help, F10 — Save & Exit, etc.). On the(PC-compatible) Everex used for the test run, pressingimproper keys activated a buzzer that would jolt any-body in the room out of their concentration or slumber.

After the initial questionnaire-driven global modifi-cation of policies and procedures, Policies PLUS pro-vides pertinent “Policy Guide” screens for further edit-ing of individual policies. Unlike PPE, however, thesescreens rarely suggest further choices or changes. Sincemost of the initial items on the questionnaire affect justone or two policies anyway, they could be asked whenthose particular policies are being drafted. Such anapproach, as used by PPE, allows the user to considerquestions in more precise relation to the policies theyaffect.

Agricultural users will find as much or more occa-sion to edit policies created by Policies PLUS as by PPE.

For this purpose, editing features of Policies PLUS aremostly similar to PPE’s, both providing much less thana standard word processor. Notable differences be-tween the two programs: Policies PLUS does have asomewhat more powerful search and replace featurethan PPE, so it can globally replace all appearances of atext string instead of doing so only one at a time. Unfor-tunately, blank spaces cannot be part of a text string, so,for example, the string the is replaced in together as wellas wherever it occurs as a whole word. Use of thesearch-replace feature is further limited to the subsec-tion currently being edited; global replacements canonly be made during the initial customization. Eventhen, not all are under the user’s direct control. Forexample, the company name (entered by COR•TECHwhen the program is purchased) gets inserted at many,though by no means all, appropriate points in the text ofvarious policies.

The Alt key is used for search-and-replace and forother functions like Block and Paste. Pasting would beeasier if marked blocks were highlighted. Users candelete blocks only one line at a time, and can move ablock only by copying it to a new location and thendeleting the original block line by line. Reformattingrequires pressing a function key.

An exotic penalty was suffered for accidentally hit-ting Alt-C and responding No to an unscheduled ques-tion that then appeared. The system was returned—without warning—to the DOS prompt.

Printing is accomplished by pressing letter choiceson the main handbook and manual screens. One prob-lem is that margins, page length, and other formats aredifficult to adjust, requiring knowledge or lookup ofprinter codes. The defaults are workable, although thelines-per-page setting was slightly off for the printerused in the review test. Also, printing of the employeemanual was interrupted twice by buffer overflows. Aswith initial policy modification, Policies PLUS takes anall-or-nothing approach to final printing. The only op-tion for printing single policies is as worksheets (whichinclude automatic date and time stamps) or proofs ofindividual subsections.

PPE allows individual policies to be marked Pendingor Accepted and then selected for printing; PoliciesPLUS allows marking subsections for deletion only.Entire sections cannot be marked for deletion until allsubsections have been so marked. Marked sections orsubsections will not print even though they may actu-ally not yet be erased from the disk. These sections maybe restored later, if desired.

With Policies PLUS, export of policies or entire manu-als to higher-powered word processors can be accom-plished only by opening individual policy text filesfrom within such programs.

6 Labor Management Decisions

Policies PLUS takes a minimalist, nothing-fancy ap-proach to user documentation. Though clear enoughand probably sufficient for normal use, the materialsare hardly as attractive and easy to work with as PPE’s.Some of the Policies PLUS screens contain typos (e.g.,alledged, abandonded, shuold, spearate), doubtful usages(precedent as a verb), and curious phrasing (weekly payevery other Friday), all of which erode confidence if notalso clarity.

The tone of Policies PLUS sections and subsections israther positive and personal, with some headings moreso in the manual (Your Pay; Respect and Dignity) than inthe internal index descriptions (Compensation; No Ha-rassment). Unlike PPE, Policies PLUS does not identifyits legal counsel.

Summary AssessmentOverall, Policies PLUS is another helpful aid in the

task of creating employee policy manuals. At $395retail, it costs $100 less than PPE. Both programs aresufficiently thorough and conservative that choosingone over the other comes down to personal preference.In terms of overall flexibility and scope, PPE generallyoffers more, but Policies PLUS does have the edge insome aspects of editing and content. Neither custom-izes as finely as a true “expert system” or providesediting capabilities anywhere near those of a good wordprocessor. But both Policies PLUS and PPE are a cut ortwo above the standard “sample policies” approach,and they should serve careful users well. ■■

probably account for about one-half of the acres farmedby refugees. Other crops commonly produced are greenbeans, opo, Chinese long bean, luffa, eggplant, mokua,and squash.

Inta Phakhonekham, a Laotian refugee and formerteacher, was hired as a field survey worker for 8 weeks. Atotal of 269 Southeast Asian refugee farmers were con-tacted at 128 field locations. Farmers were advised ofcoming meetings and the availability of business infor-mation from the UC Cooperative Extension Fresno office.

Eight of the farmers were female, and 745 familieswere working at these sites. The sample families were63 percent Hmong, 32 percent Lao, 3 percent Chinese,and 2 percent other Asian nationalities. All farmersgave their home address and telephone and were placedon Fresno's Southeast Asian refugee farmer mailing list.

From backyard beginnings, some of these refugeefarmers now operate consequential farms. In the sample,100 farmers (37 percent) operated 5 acres or more, and29 (11 percent) had plots ranging from 11 to 50 acres.

Most of the farmers (80 percent) work a land parcelas part of a group of families, generally in clusters oftwo to seven families. Size of the farming site wasmoderately correlated with the number of families.

Communication barriers, particularly reading andwriting limitations of most of these farmers, create aspecial challenge in delivering agronomic, business, andpersonnel management information to them. Manyrefugee farmers cannot read or write any language.

Two refugee farmer meetings were conducted withinterpreters to instruct in farm business and payrollaccounting, taxes, employment-related regulations, pes-ticide safety, and production techniques. Internal Rev-enue Service and state tax agency representatives joinedus in the schooling.

A total of 26 farmers attended the free half-day ses-sions. Special Hmong and Lao radio broadcasts, Mr.Phakhonekham's field contacts, and a translated meet-ing announcement sent to 440 persons on the refugeefarmer mailing list were the main means of publicity.None of the attendees indicated that they learned of themeetings through the newsletter.

It was interesting that all three female attendees tookmeeting notes furiously. Although pencils and paperwere offered to all, only one male attendee was ob-served taking notes. Meetings were started with "warm-up" questions. Written before/after knowledge testswere omitted intentionally.

Attendees asked a moderate number of questions.Two farmers requested an analysis of an 18-page (En-glish) lease agreement. Several sought information onminimum wage rules, workers' compensation, local ag-

In 1991, the Agricultural Personnel Management Pro-gram funded a project to assist Southeast Asian refugeefarmers in understanding compensation regulations anddeveloping personnel record and accounting systems.In effect, this grant was tagged onto a UC Small FarmsProgram project delivering pesticide safety and techni-cal advice to refugee farmers.

Nearly 55,000 Southeast Asian refugees live in FresnoCounty, and this population is expected to increase by1,500 new immigrants in 1992. The Fresno SoutheastAsian community comprises about 60 percent Hmong,21 percent Laotian, 11 percent Cambodian, 5 percent Viet-namese, and 3 percent Chinese and other nationalities.

About 750 refugees are engaged in farming. Cherrytomatoes, strawberries, bittermelon, and sugar peas

Assisting Southeast AsianRefugee Farmers

Project Report

Steve Sutter and Pedro Ilic

7Winter-Spring 1992

ricultural burning rules, and individual help in apply-ing for business tax identification numbers. No ques-tions were raised on records and tax filing. This activityis managed mostly by paid tax preparers. Two farmersspoke of high-priced preparation services.

This project helped advance our contacts with repre-sentatives of refugee and general social service agen-cies, and the Internal Revenue Service. We continue torespond to information requests from leaders in therefugee community and to the visible flow of refugeefarmers into the Fresno County UCCE office. A recentproject spin-off was an invitation to meet with the IRSRegional Director and community agencies regardingthe problem of refugee and other taxpayers filing re-turns in years they are not required to do so.

At an awards banquet on November 13, 1991, theUniversity of California Cooperative Extension was oneof 44 area employers presented an appreciation awardfrom the Central California Forum on Refugee Affairsfor "special efforts in hiring refugees." ■■

Results from a 1990 incentive pay study are in. Mostof the 158 farmers who responded to a call for participa-tion published in People in Ag newsletter and Ag Alerthad used incentives at some time. Their average experi-ence with incentives was about 8 years. Half of thosewho had paid an incentive had eliminated at least oneof their incentive programs at some time. An additionaldozen respondents had never used incentives.

A third of the farmers who used incentives describedtheir feelings about using them. Of these, about 65percent were positive, 10 percent were ambivalent orhad reservations, and 25 percent were negative.

Sixty-six percent of the one-third who indicated anopinion felt that employees generally liked incentives.Another 15 percent felt workers were about evenly di-vided between those who liked and those who dislikedincentives; 3 percent felt employees disliked incentives;and 16 percent were not sure. One respondent, withwhom I personally agree, said that “good workers”liked incentives.

Incentives That WorkedThe most frequently mentioned benefit of pay incen-

tives was better work quality. Examples given by thediverse group of respondents ranged from improve-

Gregory Encina Billikopf

ments in bed straightness in land preparation, to cul-tural practices in budding, thinning, pruning, and har-vesting tree fruit crops, to milk quality factors includingbacterial and somatic cell count.

Farmers also observed that their incentives led work-ers to increase productivity and lower costs, to payattention to detail, and to report problems rather thanignore them. Incentives also helped farmers measurework efforts, reduce turnover, and reduce complaintsabout difficult conditions (such as the night shift). Asanother plus, employers felt that incentives gave work-ers added flexibility. For instance, during picking, work-ers could work harder for fewer hours and leave beforeit got too hot. And workers who hustled could earnmore.

Effective labor management programs bring side ben-efits, and incentives are no exception. Several farmersreported improved worker morale and loyalty.

Problems with IncentivesParadoxically, for respondents who were either nega-

tive or ambivalent about incentives, quality was onceagain at the top of the list. Their observations, however,were of decreased work quality. About two-thirds ofthese respondents appear to have rewarded employeesfor increased productivity but had not established checksand balances to protect quality. Farmers can either re-ward employees for surpassing quality standards or dis-cipline those who do not meet minimum requirements.

Output incentives may cause unexpected problems.The medication that employees used to keep hogshealthy in one operation cost more than the operatorsaved in reduced mortality rates. Caps on spendingneed to be added when setting this type of incentive.

A few farmers who offered incentives for qualityencountered poor productivity. Their employees be-came too focused on quality. Once again, a balancebetween quantity and quality needs to be rewarded.

Next in importance after poor work quality in the listof difficulties, farmers noted that employees did notalways change their behavior after the incentive was inplace. Often the reason is that workers simply do notsee the connection between the reward and their addedhustle. A successful grower in the first-year of a pro-gram gave his three best-quality workers lunch at alocal restaurant. Employees may not try as hard in thefuture, if they see that the same few tend to be the onlyones rewarded. Studies show that top workers todayare likely to be tops tomorrow.

Some employees may not try hard out of a fear thatthe harder they work, the more the employer will ex-pect of them. And yet others prefer to work at a slowerpace and earn less. When employees do not seem moti-

Incentives: Those That WorkedAnd Those That Failed

8 Labor Management Decisions

vated by an incentive program, farmers may want tonote how widespread the situation appears. If only afew workers are not interested in the incentive, perhapsthe difficulty lies with them. If 40 percent of the em-ployees are not motivated by the incentive, the problemmay be the way the incentive was developed or pre-sented to them. In some cases, farmers simply need togive the incentive more time to work.

Some farmers felt their employees were not gettingenough of a reward for their effort. I know of farmerswho pay very small incentives that motivate employ-ees, nevertheless. In these cases, workers are motivatedby the recognition from the farmer and the satisfactionof helping to meet company goals. In others, workersfind that recognition is nice but does not pay the bills.

One farmer reported that some employees did notmake minimum wage when working under piece rate.If a substantial number of employees are not makingminimum wage, perhaps the piece rate level is set toolow. It is also possible that some of the employees arenot qualified to do the job. I favor the use of briefpractical tests where employees prove they can do thejob before being hired. It may also be possible to placeworkers making less than minimum wage in a differenttype of task, rather than have everyone performing at alevel below their capacity.

Other problems with incentives included (1) profitsharing that was not profitable and (2) reduced valuefor the commodity (the reduced profit margin meantthat the farmer could not afford the incentive). Employ-ees often do not see the connection between their hardwork and pay under profit sharing. One farmer felt thatprofit sharing was a plus for him because it helpedemployees feel the ups and downs right along with theowner. Commodity prices can fall through no fault ofpeople at a given ranch.

Some farmers found that employees took their incen-tive pay for granted. They expected either a check at theend of the year or an extra amount in their regularpaycheck. Even though incentives may be paid at ir-regular intervals, farmers may want to keep employeesinformed about their performance more frequently. Toemphasize the incentive, it helps to pay it at a differenttime than with the regular paycheck. One farmer re-ported lack of gratitude on the part of employees whowere allowed to leave work early. Employees mayhave feared that showing gratitude would mean addi-tional responsibility. Perhaps they had to work hard sothey could leave and felt they earned the privilege.

Other difficulties included the effect changes had onincentives, complicated record-keeping, and lack ofworker understanding. It may be worth waiting beforeestablishing an incentive program when changes, suchas introduction of new machinery, are foreseen. Records

are critical, but should be kept simple. Keeping theprogram understandable helps, but increased commu-nication between the farmer and employees is oftenrequired.

A final difficulty reported by farmers was supervi-sors’ lack of interest in the incentive program. Perhapssome supervisors do not see how they will benefit.Some workers may earn more under incentives thantheir supervisors. At times farmers pay supervisors apercentage of the incentive given. This is a fine idea,but it is critical that the supervisor be rewarded for allthe important criteria that the farmer seeks to fulfill. Ifpaid only on the basis of production, the supervisormay be the first to ignore quality.

Future StudyThis study raised more questions than it answered.

In the near future a follow-up incentive pay question-naire will be mailed to interested farmers.

A set of guidelines on developing or fine-tuning anincentive pay program is available at no charge fromthe author at University of California Cooperative Ex-tension, 733 County Center III, Modesto, CA 95355(phone 209/525-6654). ■■

In November 1991, Governor Wilson established theFarm Worker Services Coordinating Council (FWSCC)by executive order W-20-91. The Council is chargedwith helping state agencies that serve farm workers todevelop more consistent policies and more effectivedelivery mechanisms. It is to deliver a report of policyrecommendations to the Governor by November 15,1992.

Membership stipulated in the executive order in-cludes Secretaries or Directors, or their respective des-ignees, of the following California agencies: Health andWelfare Agency (Council Chair), Department of Foodand Agriculture, Department of Industrial Relations,Office of Child Development, Department of Educa-tion, Department of Finance, Employment DevelopmentDepartment, Department of Health Services, Depart-ment of Housing and Community Development, andDepartment of Economic Opportunity. Although theorder does not provide a FWSCC seat to the Agricul-tural Labor Relations Board, it does authorize the Coun-cil Chair to appoint representatives from other stateagencies, a Job Training Partnership Act grantee, andthe agricultural industry.

Governor to Be Advised onFarm Worker Services

9Winter-Spring 1992

The initial meeting of the Council was in Sacramentoon February 24. Spoken or written testimony is invitedfrom all interested parties at a series of six public hear-ings. The first two were in Calexico (April 14) and SantaRosa (May 6), and three of the others are scheduled forCosta Mesa, Salinas, and Fresno (see Events, page 10).

Written testimony, offers to speak at the hearings,and questions about Council activities may be addressedto the attention of Roberta Valla or Dale Kooyman,FWSCC Support Unit, Employment Development De-partment, Job Service Division, MIC-37, 800 CapitolMall, P.O. Box 826880, Sacramento, CA 94280-0001.Phone inquiries are welcome at 916/654-5911 or 916/654-6202. ■■

By April 1, 1992, agricultural employers were re-quired by Cal/OSHA Safety Order 3457 to supply toi-lets, hand-washing facilities, and drinking water forhand laborers, including irrigators. Employers includefarm labor contractors.

Under legislation passed in 1990, the California Divi-sion of Occupational Safety and Health was directed tobegin a "special emphasis" field sanitation inspectionprogram, commonly called a sweep, on April 1. TheSan Joaquin Valley was expected to be one of the primetargets. Complaints received by county health depart-ments are often referred to Cal/OSHA.

Failure to provide field sanitation results in a mini-mum penalty of $750. Inspectors will also look for otherserious hazards, however, and will check for a writteninjury and illness prevention program. Serious viola-tions carry maximum fines of $7,000 each.

Drinking water must be sufficient, pure, and cool.Employers are required to provide one hand-washingfacility for each 20 employees or fraction thereof. Iffewer than 5 hand laborers are employed, separate toi-lets for each sex are not required.

Employers are also responsible for ensuring thatworkers use facilities and for telling them of good hy-giene habits to minimize health hazard exposure. Writ-ten records of toilet servicing are to be kept for 2 years.

English/Spanish hygiene posters and brochures, anda copy of the field sanitation rule, are available for $1.00,payable to "County of Fresno," from the UC Agricul-tural Personnel Management Program, 1720 SouthMaple Avenue, Fresno, CA 93702.

New Field Sanitation StandardWill Be Enforced

Events

Agricultural Personnel ManagementWorkshop Held in February

Agricultural Personnel Management for ExtensionEducators, a special in-service program for Farm Advi-sors, Extension Agents, and Specialists, was held inNapa, California, February 26 – 28, 1992. Registrantscame primarily from the western United States, but alsofrom Kentucky, Texas, and British Columbia. The pro-gram, planned and co-sponsored by the APMP, includedpresentation and discussion of such topics as: federaland state labor management regulations; characteristicsof the agricultural workforce; selection and supervisionof employees; wage structures; and integrating familyand business interests in personnel decisions. Eachparticipant received a binder containing the speakers’presentation notes or text, handouts, and resource ma-terials. The USDA has also distributed the binders foruse as a basic reference in agicultural personnel man-agement throughout the United States land grant sys-tem. An outgrowth of the February workshop is forma-tion of a West Coast Committee on Farm Labor Man-agement Education, with participation from California,Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Furtherinterstate collaboration on educational materials devel-opment is also planned.

Above, groups examine problems that arose on a farm when anemployee was promoted to supervisor. Below, participantscompare notes on clients' experiences with incentive programs.

Steve Sutter

10 Labor Management Decisions

Future Events

Health and Safety Seminars . Presentations in the seriesheld by the UC Agricultural Health and Safety Center atDavis have been scheduled for the remainder of Mayand June. All seminars are on Fridays at 12:00 noon inthe Institute of Toxicology and Environmental HealthConference Room on Old Davis Road, Davis. For fur-ther information, phone Janice Abrinko, Ag Health andSafety Center, 916/752-4050.

May 22. James Grieshop, Specialist/Lecturer, Commu-nity Education, Department of Applied Behavioral Sci-ences, UC Davis, "Delivering Safety Training and Haz-ard Awareness Information to Agricultural Workers."

June 5. Ralph Lightstone, Attorney, California RuralLegal Assistance, topic to be announced.

June 19. Rob McConnell, Division of Environmentaland Occupational Medicine, Mt. Sinai School of Medi-cine, "Peripheral Neuropathy of Methamidophos/Neurobehavioral Effects of Organophosphates."

California Agricultural Employment Work Group. Wednes-day, May 13, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., at 750 N Street, Sacra-mento. For further details, phone Tony Bland at 916/741-4194.

Farm Worker Services Coordinating Council. The nexttwo public hearings have been arranged, and details arebeing finalized for the third. For more informationphone Dale Kooyman at 916/654-6202 or Roberta Vallaat 916/654-5911.

May 20, 2:00 to 8:00 p.m. Costa Mesa: Orange CountyOffice of Education, 200 Kalmus Drive.

June 3, 2:00 to 8:00 p.m. Salinas: Community Center,940 North Main Street.

June 17. Fresno area. Details to be announced.

Free Seminar on Cal/EPA Agricultural Hazard Com-munication Standard. June 11, 8:30 a.m. to noon, at theUniversity of California Kearney Agricultural Center,9240 South Riverbend Avenue, Parlier. New employeecommunication, training, and documentation require-ments accompany the new Cal/EPA standard. A short"down to earth" presentation on sexual harassment inagriculture will also be presented by a local attorney.The seminar is co-sponsored by the UC CooperativeExtension Agricultural Personnel Management Programand the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner. Pre-registration is a must. Phone Chrys Moore or SteveSutter at 209/488-3285.

Pesticide Training in Northern California. Hands-on pes-ticide applicator training workshops are being con-ducted in May by the California Statewide IntegratedPest Management Project's Pesticide Education Program(PEP) in cooperation with Cooperative Extension county

.

offices: May 12 at the Nichol's Estate in Arbuckle; May14 at the Agricultural Practices Facility, UC Davis; andMay 28 at a site to be announced in Yuba City. The May12 and 14 workshops will be in English and Spanish; theMay 28 workshop, in Punjabi language only, for Sikhagricultural workers. Topics will include: protectiveclothing and the pesticide label; pesticide mixing andloading; leaks and spills; first aid for pesticide expo-sure; application equipment components and calibra-tion; environmental protection; cleanup and disposal.The workshop will comply with a significant portion oftraining mandated by the California Department of Pes-ticide Regulation for employees handling pesticides andwill offer qualified applicator continuing educationcredit hours. Cost will be $40 for preregistration; and$50 for registration within 7 days of the workshop. Forinformation, phone IPM/PEP at 916/752-2733. ■■

Making Every Dollar Count (Su Dinero Puede Rendir Mas) .A 44-page money management guide for farm workers,prepared by Connie Costello, Karen P. Varcoe, andMyriam Grajales-Hall, University of California, River-side, with funds from the APMP. In easy-to-read lan-guage, the illustrated bilingual booklet provides adviceon cutting expenses and saving money, as well as in-structions for setting up a year-round spending plan. Itgives tips on how to stay out of financial trouble, dealwith unemployment, and cope when bills cannot bepaid, and includes a list of community resources. Cop-ies are free, but a shipping fee is charged on orders ofsix or more ($2 for 6 – 25 copies; $3 for 26 – 50 copies; $6for 51 – 160 copies). Order from Consumer EconomicsProgram, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521(phone 714/787-5241).

El Ingles Necesario Para Vivir y Trabajar en Los EstadosUnidos (English Needed to Live and Work in the UnitedStates). The 122-page pocket-size booklet of useful En-glish words and phrases for Spanish speakers coversbasic grammar and usage, as well as English pronuncia-tion. It includes lists of useful words and expressions,as well as a basic Spanish-English dictionary, to help intasks such as looking for work, being on the job and athome, handling medical problems, shopping, eatingout, and dealing with money, the post office, schools,and government offices. Publication and distributionwas funded by a grant through the UC Riverside Foun-dation. For information, contact Myriam Grajales-Hall,Spanish Media Service, Cooperative Extension, High-lander Hall, University of California, Riverside, CA92521 (phone 714/787-4397).

Agricultural Labor Research Symposium: June 1991Proceedings, California Agricultural Studies 91-6,

Resources

11Winter-Spring 1992

contains panel presentations and general discussionon studies of farm workers, farm labor contractors,and agricultural labor management. The researchconference, held June 5–6, 1991, in Napa, California,was organized by the California State EmploymentDevelopment Department (EDD) and co-sponsoredby the University of California and U.S. Departmentof Labor. A free copy of the 170-page proceedingscan be obtained from Special Projects Unit, LaborMarket Information Division, MIC 57, EmploymentDevelopment Department, Box 942880, Sacramento,CA 94280-0001 (phone 916/424-7310).

Hired Hands in California's Farm Fields, Giannini Foun-dation Special Report, June 1991. Essays by VardenFuller on California farm labor history and policy, al-though most have been published elsewhere, are col-lected for the first time in a 194-page publication by theAgricultural Issues Center, University of California,Davis. Part One presents a condensed version of Pro-fessor Fuller's 1939 Ph.D. dissertation, "The Supply ofAgricultural Labor as a Factor in the Evolution of FarmOrganization in California." Part Two includes essayson labor-management relations, 1955–64, and Part Threecovers development of a national and state farm laborpolicy. Copies are available from ANR Publications,University of California, 6701 San Pablo Avenue, Oak-land, CA 94608-1239 (phone 510/642-2431).

ADA Guides: EEOC in Washington, D.C., offers a hand-book, in binder format, for employers: A Technical As-sistance Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act (in two volumes, amanual and a resource directory). Employers may ob-tain a single copy of the manual at no charge by writing:Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)Office of Communications, 1801 L Street, N.W., 9th Floor,Washington, D.C. 20507 (phone 1-800-669-EEOC). Otherbooklets and fact sheets that can be obtained from localor district offices, or from Washington include: TheAmericans with Disabilities Act: Questions and Answers;The Americans with Disabilities Act: Your Responsibilitiesas an Employer; The Americans with Disabilities Act: YourEmployment Rights as an Individual with a Disability. Lo-cal EEOC offices are in Fresno, Oakland, San Jose, SanDiego, and district offices are: 901 Market Street, Suite500, San Francisco, CA 94103 (phone 415/744-6500) or3660 Wilshire Blvd., 5th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90010(phone 213/251-7178).

Farmers Tax Guide , Publication 225, from the InternalRevenue Service is a useful year-round reference ex-plaining how federal tax laws apply to farming. Topicscovered by the free, 95-page booklet include tax changes,deductible expenses, depreciation, casualty and theftlosses, employment taxes, the examination and appealsprocess, and farm accounting. A copy can be orderedby phoning 1-800-TAX-FORM, or through Steve Sutter,

UC Cooperative Extension, 1720 South Maple Avenue,Fresno, CA 93702 (phone 209/488-3285).

Catalog of Selected Safety Materials and Resources tohelp agricultural employers develop injury and illnessprevention programs has been prepared by Steve Sutterand Jenny Rodriguez in English and Spanish. The book-let gives titles, addresses, and phone numbers for sev-eral hundred free and low-cost safety resources. Cost is$2, payable to the County of Fresno, 1720 South MapleAvenue, Fresno, CA 93702 (phone 209/488-3285).

Hired Farmworkers: Health and Well-Being at Risk , re-ports findings of a study, by the U.S. General Account-ing Office, comparing federal health and safety protec-tions for migrant and seasonal farm workers with thosefor other workers. The study, conducted through inter-views with farm worker advocates, migrant health pro-grams, and agricultural employer organizations, wasrequested by Representative Edward R. Roybal (D –Los Angeles), chair of the House Select Committee onAging. One free copy of the report, HRD-92-46, may beobtained by phoning GAO at 202/275-6241.

Posters for Translation. Spanish/English for Landscaping/Agriculture and Spanish/English for the Equestrian containlists and pronunciation guides for commonly usedwords. The landscaping/agriculture poster includesplant types, food crops, gardening equipment, handtools, weather, and planting and cleanup procedures.The equestrian poster includes tack, feeds, commonchores and procedures, and parts of the horse. Postersare $9.95 each, plus shipping and tax, from TranslationPosters, P.O. Box 1745, Lucerne Valley, CA 92356 (phone619/248-9018).

Video Tape. Dairy Safety — It's No Accident is a 26-minute video tape for training dairy employees in safety.A segment on cattle handling covers moving cattle,working with dams and calves, artificial insemination,working with bulls, and safety in the milking parlor. Ageneral dairy segment includes hazardous chemicals,feeding livestock, facility safety, and vertical silo andmanure pit safety. The tape is available for $95 plus tax,shipping, and handling from AgAmerica Communica-tions, P.O. Box 370, Carpinteria, CA 93014 (phone 800/678-GROW). ■■

Beef Packinghouse Union Elected

The United Food and Commercial Workers has beencertified to represent 1,760 food production employeesat the National Beef Packing Company slaughter andfabrication plant in Liberal, Kansas. The vote was 863to 671 in favor of the union in an election held by theNational Labor Relations Board. Wages, health care,job security, and speed of the production line weremajor issues in the election. ■■

12 Labor Management Decisions

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP CODE

Agricultural Personnel Management ProgramUniversity of California319 Giannini HallBerkeley, CA 94720

In accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and University policy, the University of California does not discriminate in any of its policies, procedures, or practices on the basis ofrace, religion, color, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, veteran status, medical condition, or handicap. Inquiries regarding this policy may be addressed to theAffirmative Action Director, University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 300 Lakeside Drive, Oakland, CA 94612-3560. Telephone (415) 987-0097.

My principal occupation is:

Please add my name to the free mailing list for Labor Management Decisions.

SUBSCRIPTION

NonprofitOrganization

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

Berkeley, CaliforniaPermit No. 374

Agricultural Personnel ManagementProgram Staff:

Gregory Encina Billikopf, Area Agricultural PersonnelManagement Farm Advisor (Stanislaus, Merced, and

San Joaquin counties), UC Cooperative Extension, 733County Center III Court, Modesto, CA 95355 (phone209/525-6654)

Howard R. Rosenberg, Director, APMP, and Coopera-tive Extension Specialist, Department of Agriculturaland Resource Economics, University of California, Ber-keley, CA 94720 (phone 415/642-7103)

Stephen R. Sutter, Area Agricultural Personnel Man-agement Farm Advisor (Fresno, Kings, Merced, andTulare counties), UC Cooperative Extension, 1720 SouthMaple Avenue, Fresno, CA 93702 (phone 209/488-3285)

Betsey H. Tabraham, Coordinator, APMP, 319 Gian-nini Hall, University of California, Berkeley 94720(phone 415/642-2296)

Special contributors to this issue:Norman J. Hetland (page 5), Staff Research Associate,

Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,UC Berkeley

Pedro Ilic (page 6), Farm Advisor – Small Farm Pro-gram, UC Cooperative Extension, Fresno County

James Severson (page 1), Attorney, McCutchen, Doyle,Brown & Enersen, San Francisco

Contributors

Labor Management Decisions is published three times a year by the Agricultural Personnel Management Program, Division ofAgriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. Articles may be reprinted with credit.

We welcome readers' opinions, news items, and other information. Letters will be published as space permits.

Future issues of Labor Management Decisions will be mailed only to those who have asked to be on thesubscription list since publication of the Spring 1991 issue. If you have not yet done so and want to beplaced on the list, please complete and send this form to: Agricultural Personnel Management Program,319 Giannini Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 (phone: 415/642-2296; FAX: 415/642-6108).