Farmworkers in Maine one step closer to gaining state minimum wage guarantee, other labor rights

Farmworkers in Maine are one step closer to gaining certain labor rights. 

The Legislature’s Labor and Housing Committee recommended moving forward with bills giving agricultural workers the state minimum wage and the right to engage in concerted activity such as talking about their wages among each other without penalty. 

Under the minimum wage bill from Gov. Janet Mills, agricultural jobs would be paid at least $14.15 per hour and subject to the same annual cost-of-living increases provided to other hourly workers. There are also recordkeeping requirements for employers, all of which were among the joint recommendations from the co-chairs of the Agricultural Worker Minimum Wage Committee. 

However, the governor’s bill did not include a limit on mandatory overtime and the ability to take a voluntary, unpaid 30 minute break after six hours of work, which were not universally recommended by the task force. For Rep. Valli Geiger (D-Rockland), these exclusions were “very hard to swallow.”

“It’s just criminal that we are willing to treat farmworkers differently,” Geiger said of those exclusions. 

Supporters of farmworker minimum wage bill call it a ‘positive step’ but want to see more

The committee advanced an amended bill by a vote of 6-4. Mills’ proposal stipulated that  farmworkers go through the Department of Labor to bring any action against their employer for wage violations. A majority of the committee opted to strike that provision and allow for a right to bring private action. 

Republicans didn’t support the amended bill because they said they wanted a lower wage floor for piece-rate work, when workers are paid by the unit. Based on public testimony, Rep. Gary Drinkwater (R-Milford) said small farmers may be unable to hire some people who are elderly, young or who have disabilities to do jobs like raking blueberries if they had to pay them at least minimum wage even if their production volume may be lower.

Rep. Dick Bradstreet (R-Vassalboro) suggested a version of the bill that would create a $10 floor for piece-rate workers, rather than the full $14.15, which his Republican colleagues supported. 

Still no right to unionize

The Democrats on the committee also advanced by a 6-4 vote a bill that would give farm employees the right to discuss wages and engage in other concerted activity. 

This bill, LD 525, was carried over from last session and originally proposed granting agricultural workers the right to unionize. 

Republicans also opposed this legislation because they felt the public didn’t have sufficient opportunity to weigh in on the amended language. However, committee co-chair Sen. Mike Tipping (D-Penobscot) pushed back on that idea because the language was pulled from a bill that passed the House and Senate last session.

Still, Republicans said they couldn’t support the bill because of the last-minute change. Sen. Matt Pouliot (R-Kennebec) said it’s “not a good way to legislate.”

As someone who supports collective bargaining and the right for employees to unionize, Rep. Marc Malon (D-Biddeford) said he saw the revisions as a compromise. 

Geiger said allowing employees to discuss wages would help decrease any gender or racial wage gaps. 

No support for housing bill, but also maybe no need

Another related bill carried over from last session did not receive support from the committee. 

Since farmworkers often live in employer-provided housing, LD 1483 sought to make it so that an employer couldn’t interfere with reasonable access to services like a healthcare worker, an attorney or a member of the clergy. The bill wanted to ensure that only an employee can bar someone from entering their home. 

But as Michael Guare, an attorney with Pine Tree Legal Assistance, explained, those employees already have the right as tenants to receive guests. A previously decided case in Maine courts upheld that right, he said.

Even more, Guare feared that a bill like LD 1483 could face legal challenges because federal courts have found it unconstitutional for a government-imposed requirement to interfere with the rights of a property owner. 

LD 1483 could be seen as a government imposition that interferes with a property owner’s rights. And in many ways it is not necessary because tenants — even those living in their employer-owned housing — already have the right to allow in a guest.

The committee was unanimous in its decision to not recommend the bill move forward.