In Memoriam: Lewis Janowsky

June 18th, 2015

Western Growers extends our deepest condolences to the family, friends and co-workers of former Western Growers employee, Lewis P. Janowsky. Janowsky passed away on Saturday, June 13, 2015, at his home in Santa Ana, California, surrounded by his family and close friends, of complications from pancreatic cancer. He was 64 years old.

Lew spent six years at Western Growers, working as a staff attorney, after passing the California Bar in 1980.  He left to start his own law firm, Rynn & Janowsky, LLP in 1986. According to his obituary, Lew embraced his role as an advocate for California growers during the tumultuous early years of UFW organizational activity.

Services will be held on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, at 11:00 a.m., at the University Synagogue, located at 3400 Michelson Drive, Irvine, CA 92612.

Donations may be made in Lew’s memory to the National Pancreatic Cancer Foundation.

See the full obituary HERE.

H-2A Visa Processing “Glitch” Update

June 19th, 2015

Over 10 days following its initial announcement that a hardware failure halted the processing of over 3000 H-2A visas nationwide, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to work on a fix to the biometric data transmission system used to process security checks. There has been no official word from the U.S. State Department or from DHS about when the problem will be fixed.

At the urging of Western Growers and various other ag groups, yesterday, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John McCain (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Patty Murray (D-WA) sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry asking him to address the matter as soon as possible and to allow for the prioritization of H-2A visas over non-emergency applications once the matter is resolved.

Meanwhile, in California alone, 600 applications are pending approval. Over 400 of those workers remain in hotels in Tijuana, Mexico, awaiting approval of their visas.  The snag has cost California produce farmers between $500,000 to $1 million per day in lost revenue, leaving berries and other crops rotting in the fields.

At issue is not only lost revenue and inconvenience, but as employers, growers are also concerned about the safety of their workers who may be targeted by smugglers and cartel members during the delay. The issue also highlights the obvious need for immigration reform.

Western Growers will continue to stay engaged on this issue and will provide updates once they are available.  CLICK HERE to read our previous Spotlight piece on this issue and to view a front page Wall Street Journal piece quoting Western Growers.

Timely Reporting of Workers’ Comp Claims Saves Money

June 23rd, 2015

A study by the National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI) confirms what experienced workers’ compensation experts have been saying for years — delayed reporting of workers’ comp claims will cost you. Specifically, the report said that the late reporting of claims: 1) costs employers more in dollars, increasing the loss ratio of business entities, 2) increases their experience modifications, and 3) ultimately has a negative effect on workers compensation premiums, regardless of the insuring company.  

Reviewing claims that were reported more than two weeks after the initial injury, increased the cost of the claim by 35 percent.  For example, a claim that was reported within two weeks ultimately cost about $13,500.  The same type of claim — delayed by just one week — increased in cost to $17,785, or more than one third higher. 

The NCCI found that this trend was apparent in the four most common types of claims: sprains/strains, fractures, contusions, and lacerations.  The researchers excluded claims for occupational diseases and cumulative trauma, which are complicated by the difficulty of identifying the actual accident date.  Fatal and permanent total claims were also excluded.  So a business can have a significant impact on the cost of its workers’ compensation claims by training its staff to report claims as soon as they occur.  This can help minimize the cost of the claim thereby reducing the experience modifications and the workers comp premium for the business.

Western Growers Insurance Services can assist members with training their managers, supervisors and employees on the process for handling workers compensation claims and assist the business in finding the best workers compensation provider for its business.  For more questions, contact Greg Nelson at (949) 885-2287.

Some H-2A Workers Still Stuck at the Border

June 25th, 2015

Yesterday, Western Growers President and CEO Tom Nassif appeared on Bloomberg Television to urge immediate remedies related to a computer hardware “glitch” that has prevented the processing of thousands of U.S. visas around the world since June 9. The glitch affected applications for H-2A agricultural workers needed in, California, Arizona, Washington and other parts of the U.S.

Nassif also reiterated the need for Congress to take steps on immigration reform legislation that would legalize the existing ag workforce. He said that many legislators want to fix the problem, but don’t have the votes to make it happen.

While there are reports that some ag workers have been processed and are on-the-job, some remain stranded in border towns, according to WG members affected by the crisis. In the Wall Street Journal today, Miriam Jordan reported that the computer glitch has been partially solved and quotes a state department spokeswoman saying that “45,000 visas were issued by Wednesday,” (yesterday) and that 1,750 seasonal agricultural workers who had been stuck at the border have been issued visas. The glitch affected the flow of applicant’s biometric information, such as fingerprints.

Brown Appoints Top ALRB Attorney as Counsel

June 25th, 2015

Sylvia Torres-Guillen, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board’s (ALRB) general counsel, has left the agency to serve as special counsel to Governor Jerry Brown.  Torres-Guillen’s tenure was marked by major policy and personnel changes as well as controversial actions in a number of cases, most notably the UFW’s attempt to force Gerawan Farms and its employees to accept an ALRB-imposed contract after a 20 year absence by the union and a parallel vote by Gerawan employees on decertification of the union.  The employees’ votes from the November 2013 election remain uncounted and impounded by the ARLB.  According to the Fresno Bee, it is unknown whether Torres-Guillen’s departure will have any effect on the outcome of the ongoing dispute.

Water. Rest. Shade.

June 30th, 2015

Weather forecasts this week show temperatures in California’s Central Valley are expected to reach the mid 90’s while the mercury will be pushing 110 degrees in the Imperial Valley and in western Arizona.  Western Growers would like to remind members to adhere to your state’s specific regulations regarding heat illness prevention (HIP), particularly in California where more stringent HIP regulations recently went into effect May 1. Remember: Water. Rest. Shade.

Reminder — California’s Paid Sick Leave Law Takes Effect July 1

June 30th, 2015

The new California paid sick leave law (AB 1522) — which requires that all employees receive a minimum of paid sick leave per year and requires employers to track sick leave accrual and use — takes effect on July 1.

Here is a brief summary of what this change will mean to Western Growers members:

  • Employers must give employees (including seasonal, part-time and/or temporary employees) working at least 30 days a year in California paid sick leave (PSL)
  • Employers must decide to either keep track of each employee’s accrual and use of PSL or include them under existing, more generous ‘Paid Time Off’ policies
  • Employers can rely on existing sick leave or ’Paid Time Off’ policy to comply, but only if their policy meets the laws’ minimum requirements, which include specific notice, accrual, use, and carryover rules
  • Employers must provide employees with one hour of PSL for every 30 hours worked. Unused sick leave carries over from year to year, but accrual can be capped at 48 hours. In addition, an employee’s use of PSL can be capped at 24 hours per year. In the alternative, employers can elect to provide three days of PSL for immediate use at the start of each year, in which case any unused leave does not carry over to the next year
  • The Labor Commissioner interprets the “three day” requirement to track the employees’ actual hours. Thus, if an agricultural employee uses PSL and misses three 10-hour days, the employee ostensibly should be paid for 30 hours (not 24) assuming he or she has accrued that many hours
  • Employees’ accrued PSL must be reflected on their pay stub or issued on another sheet of paper simultaneously with paychecks
  • Employers must add a California PSL section to employee handbooks and provide required notices to employees and workplace posters

Employers are advised to review their existing leave, notice and tracking policies and procedures with legal counsel to ensure that they are in compliance with the new law, particularly with regard to seasonal or other workers not historically eligible for leave benefits. The law contains many ambiguities and unanswered questions, so a thorough review of new and existing policies with legal counsel can help minimize the risk of a lawsuit in the future.

Please contact Jason Resnick at (949) 885-2253 for more information.

Wall Street Journal — U.S. Visa System Back Online

June 30th, 2015

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the system failure which prevented the processing of visas around the world for over two weeks — including H-2A visas for farm workers — has been resolved.  Initially it was estimated that the inability of the State Department to process H2A visas cost California farmers between $500,000 and $1,000,000 per day.  WG Vice President and General Counsel Jason Resnick spoke with reporters from the paper about the disruption and said that although “It is too soon to get an exact estimate” of the total financial losses sustained by the agriculture industry, “In California, we know that crop losses were at over a million dollars a day” during the nearly three week delay. 

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE WSJ STORY  (Please note, due to paywall restrictions, WG is not permitted to distribute this piece and only readers with paid subscriptions can access this story.)

Western Growers Applauds House Passage of Trade Promotion Legislation, Urges Agreement on TAA

June 12th, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For interviews, contact:        
Wendy Fink-Weber
Senior Director of Communications
(949) 885-2256
or
Jeff Janas
Communications Manager
(949) 885-2318

IRVINE, Calif. (June 12, 2015) — Today, by a vote of 219 to 211, the House of Representatives passed the portion of the Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 that would renew Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) for the Administration. Unfortunately, it did not pass a provision renewing Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) that was part of the Senate bill.  This failure keeps the entire package from being sent to the president for his signature. House passage of TPA follows the strong bi-partisan support it garnered in the Senate last month. It is an important tool that allows U.S. negotiators to conclude trade negotiations and further expand export opportunities for fruit, vegetable, and tree nut producers.

In response to today’s House action, Western Growers President and CEO, Tom Nassif issued the following statement:
 
“The fresh produce industry applauds the House for passing legislation to renew Trade Promotion Authority. We especially commend the 24 members of the California, Arizona, and Colorado delegations who voted YES on TPA for their bi-partisan support renewing this important trade negotiating tool.  We hope this vote indicates a growing desire by members on both sides of the aisle to reach out in the spirit of compromise and pass pragmatic legislation that addresses real economic issues.  In the meantime, we urge members in both parties to come to an agreement for moving the remaining trade provisions needed to send this critical legislation to the president’s desk for signature.

While the produce sector experiences an overall trade deficit, $15 billion in U.S. exports of fresh produce commodities compared to nearly $19 billion in imports, the expansion of foreign markets is critical to opening and expanding markets for the fresh produce industry.  TPA will allow our U.S. negotiators to get the best deal possible with our trading partners.  It establishes trade-negotiating objectives that reflect today’s economic challenges and creates a robust framework for Congressional and stakeholder input before Congress takes an up or down vote on trade agreements.”
 

PRESS RELEASE: Western Growers Hails Passage of Trade Bill in Senate; Awaits Presidential Bill Signing

June 24th, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For interviews, contact:        
Wendy Fink-Weber
Senior Director of Communications
(949) 885-2256
or
Jeff Janas
Communications Manager
(949) 885-2318

IRVINE, Calif. (June 24, 2015) — Today, by a vote of 60 to 38, the Senate passed legislation renewing Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) for the Administration. With the Senate’s action, the legislation will now go to the president, who is expected to sign the bill in the days ahead. Today’s vote follows the strong bi-partisan support this legislation garnered in the Senate last month in addition to last week in the House. TPA is an important tool that allows U.S. negotiators to conclude trade negotiations and further expand export opportunities for fruit, vegetable, and tree nut producers.

In response to Senate passage of the legislation, Western Growers President and CEO, Tom Nassif issued the following statement:
 
“Today’s action represents a significant win for the fresh produce industry.  Through strong leadership in the House and Senate we have seen members  on both sides of the aisle reach out in the spirit of compromise and pass pragmatic legislation that will address real economic issues.  Following today’s Senate vote, we especially commend Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John McCain (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Cory Gardner (R-CO) for resisting opposition in both parties and continually supporting this important trade negotiating tool as the congressional process unfolded over the last month.”

While the produce sector experiences an overall trade deficit, $15 billion in U.S. exports of fresh produce commodities compared to nearly $19 billion in imports, the expansion of foreign markets is critical to opening and expanding markets for the fresh produce industry. TPA will allow our U.S. negotiators to get the best deal possible with our trading partners. In the near term, passage of TPA paves the way for the completion of Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and what we anticipate to be significant market opening opportunities across the Pacific Rim.

Western Growers Announces Support of Western Water Bill

June 25th, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For interviews, contact:        
Cory Lunde
Director of Strategic Initiatives & Communications
(949) 885-2264
or
Jeff Janas
Communications Manager
(949) 885-2318

IRVINE, Calif. (June 25, 2015) — Statement by Western Growers President and CEO Tom Nassif in support of the Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015 introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives today:

“The House water supply legislation offered today appropriately focuses on using the infrastructure we have now in a more balanced way to protect California’s economy and endangered species, and places needed emphasis on creating new water infrastructure to prepare our state for a changing climate. The legislation offers similar common sense measures for drought-stricken states throughout the West. We applaud House Members who have drafted the bill and we encourage other members of the House to engage on this legislation and push forward a Western drought relief bill as swiftly as possible.

Obviously, legislation needs to advance in the Senate as well and we strongly encourage Senators from drought-impacted Western states to likewise take up and move drought legislation.

For too many years, predating the current drought, we have pleaded for Congress to enact bipartisan solutions that will restore reasonable surface water supplies to farms and communities in Central and Southern California, and to bring needed storage projects throughout the West closer to reality. Our members cannot withstand more partisan fighting that results in nothing being done. We hope today marks a truly new beginning.”

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE New Director Killian Has Deep Ag Roots

June 11th, 2015

In the late 1860s, Mark Killian’s ancestors first started farming in Arizona.  Since that time, the family has continually been involved in agriculture, which made his selection as the new director of the Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADA) a natural choice.

“The Killians and Ellsworths, which are the two families that are my ancestors, were among those sent to Arizona by Brigham Young to settle St. Johns, Arizona.  We’ve been ranching and farming here ever since.”

Mark’s grandfather moved his wing of the family to Mesa in 1929, which is where Mark grew up.  His grandfather was a citrus and cotton grower and established one of the first citrus packing operations in the Sunny Mesa Citrus Growers organization.  His father followed suit as did Mark and his siblings.  In fact, while this phone interview was conducted with Mark Killian in his ADA office in Phoenix, he noted that he was up at 5 a.m. walking through the cows and heifers on his ranch and conferring with other family members on their ongoing farming operations.  “I’ll be concentrating on department work all day, but on my drive home, I’ll call my brothers and my dad and talk about the business.”

Killian said wearing more than one hat is natural for his family.  “Besides ranching, my grandfather was in the banking business and my dad was a lawyer.  By trade, I am a commercial real estate broker.”

Killian first got involved in public service in the early 1980s when he ran for the state legislature and won a seat in 1982.  He served for 14 years, including a stint as Speaker of the House.  “In fact, when I was in the Arizona Legislature, I sponsored the bill that established the Arizona Department of Agriculture.”

After retiring from the Legislature, he headed the state’s Department of Revenue for six years and also became a member of the Arizona Board of Regents, a position he still holds today.  And during all that time, he continued to be involved in the family farming operations and his other business pursuits.

At some point, his name was floated for the top position with ADA, and, after discussing it with his family business partners, he threw his hat in the ring.  “I said if the governor needs me, I am willing to serve.”

In his short time at ADA he has examined the organization and set several priorities.  “We have some awesome employees,” he said. “Many of whom have been in state service for more than 20 years.  We have more (in that category) than other departments.  My biggest challenge immediately is to do some legacy planning so that we have the people to fill their shoes as these longtime employees start to retire.”

Secondly, Killian said it is no secret that over the past eight years, ADA has taken its fair share of budget cuts because of the poor economy.  Staffing and dollars, he said, need to be upgraded.  Killian expects to bring his concerns to the legislature to see where funds can be found to pull the ADA up to the level where he believes it should be.  “I need to visit with policymakers and explain how important this department is.  We are at ground zero for our state’s bio-security.”

He noted that Arizona has turned the corner economically and there should be additional funds that can be tapped in upcoming budgets.  He did not advocate initiating any new fee-based services.  “I know you just can’t impose something on business without finding out what their needs are first.”

He believes Arizona is in a great position to increase its agricultural output.  “We want to encourage the farmers and ranchers from California and the Midwest to look at us.  Arizona is in a great position to continue to grow.  We have a lot of open land and water is not a problem.”

While others have said there could be long-range water problems as resources from the Colorado River dry up or are diverted elsewhere, Killian does not see it that way.  “I don’t believe all this doomsday talk about the Colorado River going dry and that being the end of us,” he said.  “We are sitting on hundreds of millions of acres of brackish water” that can be utilized in agriculture.

He said that in the 1980s, the Arizona Legislature was very forward thinking when it passed several pieces of water legislation dealing with groundwater management and the banking of ground water.  “That has put us in a great position.  I am not pessimistic at all.  Arizona is in a very good situation.”

Killian said agriculture is a very important part of the Arizona economy as it is a $17 billion industry.  And he said that doesn’t even include the purchase of supplies from cars to tractors that is generated from that sector of business.  He believes agriculture can be the cornerstone of continued growth and is advocating for the creation of an Office of Rural Economic Development.

The ADA’s top official believes that agriculture’s biggest problem is one of perception.  “We produce clean and healthy products,” but too often, he says, the industry is castigated when it deserves applause.  He said it is a matter of education.  There are too few members of the Arizona Legislature with agricultural backgrounds and the increasingly urban population doesn’t have a connection with the farming community.  Killian believes more can be done through social media to tell agriculture’s story and inform an unknowing public about the benefits of a thriving agricultural industry within the state.

Preordained Career Provides Satisfaction

June 11th, 2015

Director Profile

John McPike

Vice President

California Giant Berry Farms

Director since 2014

Member since 1985

FAMILY BACKGROUND:  It is a story played over and over again in the fresh produce industry of a career passed from father to son.  John McPike grew up in Watsonville where his father of the same name managed several different vegetable grower-shipper operations during his career, including West Coast Farms.  The elder McPike was successful in his own right and served a stint on the Western Growers Board of Directors during his career.  Son John joined the board in 2014 as a representative of the Cal Giant Company.  “I always figured I’d follow in my dad’s footsteps and I did,” he says of his produce industry career.

GROWING UP IN THE AG SPACE: Young John spent his summers in high school and college working the fields either driving a tractor or on a harvesting crew.  It was no surprise that he went off to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo in the late 1970s and emerged in 1981 with a degree in crop science.

STARTING HIS CAREER DOWN UNDER:  “For my college graduation, I received a one-way ticket to Australia,” he says.  John worked for a citrus company as a fieldman and contemplated making the land down under his permanent residence.  “I thought about it but couldn’t get a permanent visa.”  So he came back home and went to work for a Los Angeles wholesaler.

THE BERRY CONNECTION: McPike started with Cal Fruit on the Los Angeles market selling lettuce, a skill and a commodity he no doubt learned from his father.  “After a while, the Gilfenbains, who owned Cal Fruit, opened up a shipping deal in Santa Maria.”  McPike moved to Santa Maria to help run that deal, which included a strawberry farm.  He stayed with Cal Fruit for a couple of years and then joined Cal Giant as their man in the Santa Maria area.

A CAREER IS MADE: For about 25 years now, John McPike has worked for Cal Giant from the company’s Santa Maria office.  He basically manages the growing operations for the company in Oxnard, Santa Maria, Salinas, Watsonville and Florida.  In Santa Maria he is centrally located—at least for the California farms—and can get to each of the firm’s farms and growers within a few hours.

THE WESTERN GROWERS CONNECTION: His connection with Western Growers goes back to the days when his father was on the board.  It seemed like a natural to get involved himself when the time came.  Just as he is an offspring of a former WG board member so are many of those whom he is serving with.  But he noted that there are several members whose years of service span the terms of he and his father.

ON THE PERSONAL SIDE: John and his wife, Kathy, have been married 26 years and have three daughters who respectively graduated from the University of Washington, Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo and Chico State.  At this point, none have matriculated to the family business of agriculture.  John considers himself an outdoors kind of guy and enjoys hiking as well as playing golf.

California State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson represents the 19th district, which stretches along the coast from Oxnard to Guadalupe

June 11th, 2015

(Editor’s Note: The questions and answers have been paraphrased for brevity and clarity.)

 

Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson was first elected to the California Assembly in 1998 where she served for six years.  After a several year hiatus, she was elected to the State Senate in 2012.

 

From your start in Boston, how did you end up in the Golden State?

I grew up just outside of Boston as a suffering Boston Red Sox fan as we went 85 years in between championships.  I came out to California to go to college at Scripps College in Claremont, where I majored in government and sociology.  I did go back to Boston to attend law school at Boston University, but I came back as soon as I could.  I didn’t even attend the commencement ceremony after I graduated from law school.  I fell in love with California and came back here for good in June of 1975.

 

Can you tell us a little bit about your career in the legal realm?

I was fortunate enough to begin my career in the district attorney’s office in Santa Barbara County.  I did that for a couple of years before moving to Los Angeles to practice law for a few more years.  Then I moved back to Santa Barbara and went into private practice in a law firm with my husband, the Law Offices of Eskin and Jackson.  I was in that practice for 18 years involved in civil litigation in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties and way too much family law.

 

You first ran for office in 1998.  What brought you into the political arena?

That was my first run for political office, but I had been involved in politics at the grass roots level, especially in women’s rights issues, for many years.  In fact, my first lesson in democracy and civics and women’s issues took place when I was a young girl and wanted to play Little League baseball in Boston.  I was a very good player, but the Little League would not let me be on a team because I was a girl.  My parents said if I disagree I should fight and I did.  I put together a petition to allow girls to play in Little League.  I walked around the neighborhood and got many people to sign it—though some did not—and I sent it to the Little League.  I did not hear anything back at all which surprised me…and was my first lesson.  I decided that someday when I had the opportunity, they would regret that.

 

I suspect, you very much enjoyed watching the Little League World Series this last year, which featured the first girl baseball player to play in that event?

I very much enjoyed that!

 

When you did run for office did you have a signature issue?

I didn’t have a signature issue, but I was very involved in domestic violence issues and the rights of victims.  In fact, I helped found the first domestic violence shelter in the area.  I was also involved with the establishment of a rape crisis center.  I was very interested in the rights of victims especially concerning sex-based crimes.

I also had a lot of interest in the activity surrounding off-shore drilling and making sure that our magnificent coastline remained intact.  I learned a lot about the environment and land use and energy and how those issues worked together.  Those were my key issues while in the Assembly.

 

After you termed out of the assembly, did you return to private law practice?

I did not.  I was involved in several things over the years, including teaching at UC Santa Barbara and at Antioch University.  I started two non-profit organizations and did a local radio talk show.  I also ran for the State Senate in 2008 for Tom McLintock’s old seat against his protégé Tony Strickland.  I lost by 4/10ths of a percentage point.

I’ve maintained that passion for public service throughout.  California has always been known as the state that invents the future.  We are always looking for new ideas.  I wanted to be part of solving problems again, and so I did run for the State Senate again in 2012 and won.  My goal is to continue to try and help my constituents and articulate a vision for the future.  We need to adopt new technologies while still holding on to the values that we hold dear.

 

You have quite a bit of agriculture in your district.  What is your take on California’s ag industry?

It’s a perfect example of how we need to adapt technology to fit our needs.  Take drone technology.  It can be very useful in surveying an area, identifying problems and maximizing the efficiency of the land.  At the same time, there are issues about privacy that have to be addressed.

I think it is very important that we use new technology to help agriculture maximize its yields and to efficiently use whatever tools we have.

With regard to water, I don’t think we should scapegoat agriculture or any other sector.  We need to figure out the best use of our water and use it efficiently.  But I don’t think water should be the subject of profit.  It should not be profit driven.  We need to make sure agriculture has enough water to grow its crops and sustain its farms.

We are in difficult times, and right now people need to use water sparingly and we need to maximize its use.  But out of adversity comes opportunity.  I think it is very good that we are having a conversation about water.  It is extremely important to my constituents.  I have a lot of agriculture in my district.

 

You have now served two stints in the Legislature.  Has it changed?  Is there more cooperation?  Some have credited the top two primary system for electing candidates that are not at each political end of the spectrum but more moderate and willing to work together.

I don’t see that the top two primary system has accomplished that.  I think the people are tired of the acrimony in Sacramento and Washington where it is even worse.  The public wants us to cooperate and I believe we are trying to focus on working together and trying to do what’s best for the state.

 

What’s in your political future?

Most likely I will run for reelection in 2016, which will take me to 2020.  By that time I will have reached a significant birthday and I will have to decide what I’d like to do.  But right now I am focused on the immediate future which is to do the best job I can representing my constituents.

Our members and your constituents produce the finest fruits, vegetables and nuts in the world.  Are you a consumer of our products?

Absolutely!  I love strawberries from Oxnard and Santa Maria, the flowers from Carpinteria, the good wine my district produces.  I am a regular at the local farmers’ markets. I love the avocados, the raspberries, the lemons and citrus, and, of course, the broccoli that grows in my district.  And the fresh flowers.  I am very much an advocate of the farm-to-fork movement and also of the effort to get salad bars in our schools.  Establishing a habit of healthy eating for our youngsters is very important.  It is better for everyone when they eat more fruits and vegetables.

Agriculture is a very important economic driver in my district, from farmers to fishermen, we have it all.

California Air Resources Board Remains Extremely Active

June 11th, 2015

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) continues to be one of the most active agencies within California government.

A host of state and federal laws and regulations mandate that California make further progress in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG), nitrous oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions.  These mandated reductions are in addition to the significant and costly emissions reductions that have already been made in our state under the AB 32 mandate.  AB 32 (2006) requires California to reduce its GHG to 1990 levels by 2020.  California is well on its way to reach this target, but more reductions are required to meet the goal.  In fact, the bar was just elevated by Governor Jerry Brown in April.  He issued an executive order establishing a new California GHG target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.  This order represents the first phase of his ultimate goal of attaining an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050.

It is important to note that Cap and Trade and other AB 32 related programs have largely targeted the large GHG emitters, such as power plants and refineries.  However, the need to make additional major emissions reductions provides certainty that California’s smaller emitters and other types of emissions sources will come under increasing scrutiny by both the legislature and CARB to evaluate potential emissions reduction strategies.  WG staff maintains an active presence at CARB to ensure that both the board members and staff have a solid understanding of how agriculture will be impacted by their regulatory decisions.  This understanding is especially important given the challenges our industry is facing with the consequences imposed by the ongoing drought.  Agriculture is recognized by CARB for being a leader in supporting emissions reduction efforts like the Carl Moyer Program, which encourages growers to reduce emissions by obtaining grants to offset part of the cost of purchasing cleaner engines and equipment.  This is a cost-effective and voluntary program that many growers continue to utilize.

CARB is also looking at other aspects of transportation and goods movement.  In April, CARB updated its Sustainable Freight Strategy (SFS), which identifies the goal and pathways for California to reach zero and near-zero emissions within the freight transport system.  The freight system covers trucks, aircraft, ocean vessels and rail.  The SFS is designed to impact seaports, airports, rail yards and lines, distribution centers, warehouses, high traffic roads and border crossings.  WG staff provided testimony at the meeting expressing significant concerns about the likely impacts that the SFS will have on the overall functioning and cost effectiveness of California’s freight system.  This impact is tangible because our members and workers provide half of the nation’s fresh fruits, vegetables and tree nuts and nearly half of America’s fresh organic produce.  This food has to be transported a number of times before it is able to be enjoyed by consumers.  Growers are not price-makers, they are price-takers.  The CARB board members and staff appeared to pay particular notice to the comment that growers are unique in that they are not able to shift increased costs along by increasing food prices.

We are particularly concerned about the following items within the SFS: a proposed facilities emissions cap, a transportation refrigeration units (TRU) phase out, large spark-ignition equipment (forklifts), an opacity limit reduction and the renewable gas standard.  As an illustration, the facilities emissions cap would implement an emissions reduction target for an entire facility.  This is very problematic because agricultural facilities are already complying with numerous air quality regulations and could now be further burdened with overlapping restrictions and costs targeting the same facility and equipment.  Many facilities also operate on a seasonal basis, and the impact that this proposed cap would have on their operation is not clear.  The SFS proposes to target TRUs by developing a regulatory requirement to prohibit the use of fossil-fueled TRUs for cold storage in phases.  Incentives would be utilized to support infrastructure for new technology.  There are many open questions that need to be answered by CARB.  Will the new TRUs be efficient in keeping food safe?  Will they be cost-effective, reliable and easily maintained?  These are but a few of the many concerns that WG staff will be ensuring CARB understands and helps resolve as the SFS continues to be developed and implemented.

WG members are encouraged to learn more about these issues.  We will provide periodic updates and links to proposed rules in “Spotlight,” and of course members are always welcome to contact WG staff ([email protected]) at any time.

Corrugated Packaging: Keeps Shipping Produce Green, Clean and Lean

June 11th, 2015

By Dennis Colley, president of the Fibre Box Association

 

Growers, shippers and packers have a long history of using corrugated containers to send their fresh produce to distributors and retailers.  Most have built an infrastructure to fit and facilitate packing in corrugated boxes.  Successful operations require an efficient system for managing the entire process and supply chain—growing, harvesting, packing, shipping and maintaining positive relations with retail customers.

That’s a lot of moving parts, and packaging is just one piece of the rather complex path a fresh product takes from field to store.  There’s a lot of buzz about GMOs, organic vs. non-organic products, environmental and health impacts, and food safety—all critical issues that growers face in their business.

Corrugated packaging provides real contributions to holistically addressing some of the most pressing issues: environmental responsibility, package cleanliness and efficient economics.

 

Keeping it Green

A new survey shows that for the fourth consecutive year the recovery rate for old corrugated containers (OCC) has hovered right around the 90 percent mark—that’s 90 percent of the corrugated produced in the United States successfully recovered for recycling.  Corrugated recovery has been rising steadily for decades—from 54 percent in 1993 to 80 percent in 2009 to 89–91 percent over the past four years.

According to the U.S. EPA, the recovery of corrugated packaging far outstrips that of other packaging materials.  For 2012, the EPA published a municipal waste characterization report showing that corrugated accounted for 74.6 percent of the packaging that was recovered for recycling.  Far behind, 8.3 percent of recovered packaging was glass; 4.9 percent plastic; 4.4 percent metal; and 7.8 percent “all other” packaging materials.

Some producers face special challenges in transport packaging, such as a need for their products to be kept moist or iced in transit.  Traditionally, wax was used as a moisture barrier to preserve box strength for these applications, which met its purpose but made recycling the containers much more difficult.  Retailers and producers with sustainability imperatives viewed waxed corrugated as an area for improvement.

Growers today have plenty of recyclable alternatives to wax. The Fibre Box Association’s recyclability standard allows wax alternatives to be tested, proven and certified recyclable.  Grower shippers can specify these new coatings for their corrugated containers, and have them imprinted with the symbol indicating they are certified repulpable and recyclable, to show their support for environmentally responsible packaging that also protects their precious cargo.

 

Keeping it Clean

Food safety is probably the biggest issue facing the produce industry today and packaging has its role.  The corrugated industry recently conducted research to validate the cleanliness of its packaging products for food.  The research studied the possible presence of bacteria in corrugated containers.

Third-party testing and analysis conducted by the University of California-Davis and toxicology experts Haley & Aldrich confirmed 100 percent of tested corrugated containers met acceptable sanitation levels.  Experts examined 720 swab samples taken from containers produced by six different corrugated manufacturers at grower/shipper locations in three different U.S. regions, the Pacific Northwest, California and Florida.

One hundred percent of the evaluated samples were below 1,000 CFU per swab confirming that corrugated containers provided for food packaging meet acceptable sanitation criteria at the point of use.  Typical corrugated manufacturing practices are responsible for the low levels of bacteria.  Corrugated containers are engineered for single use specifically for the product they contain.  After use, there’s nothing to wash.  The corrugated box is returned to the paper mill where the recycling process greatly reduces bacterial loading.

This continuous cycle of using boxes, recycling them and then creating new boxes not only translates into package cleanliness, it also contributes to the sustainability of the corrugated industry.

 

Keeping it Lean

Several case studies have been done comparing the supply chain costs of using corrugated containers vs. reusable plastic containers (RPCs) for transporting fresh produce.  All of these studies have shown that corrugated remains the most cost-effective solution—especially for grower shippers, who bear the brunt of cost increases for reusable crates.

The latest economic case study showed that shipping onions in corrugated saved 10.4 percent annually versus shipping in RPCs.  Using data provided by a large onion grower, the Full Disclosuresm modeling tool was used to analyze total annual costs involved in using each of the two packaging systems.  The study showed higher costs incurred throughout the supply chain using RPCs rather than corrugated, and the grower shipper shelled out the lion’s share of that burden.

Some of those extra costs are obscure and easily overlooked.  In this situation, these included additional labor at the packing shed, more collapsed pallets at the distribution center, and monthly administrative and “add-on” fees.  RPCs arriving wet required extra labor to wipe them down before feeding them to the filling line.  When shipping long distances, RPCs consistently resulted in more collapsed pallets at the DC than corrugated.  And additional administrative costs and fees were also incurred each month.  These three extra costs added up to about 13.5 cents per case.

A cost analysis showed a total annual supply-chain cost of $7.3 million for corrugated vs. $8.06 million for RPCs.  In other words: total packaging, shipping and handling costs were 10.4 percent higher using RPCs.

The retailer’s costs were 9.9 percent higher using RPCs, and the onion grower paid 15.4 or $0.17/case more.

Case studies show corrugated containers to be the lowest-cost supply-chain solution for fresh produce, especially for the grower.  These facts have been demonstrated for strawberries, tomatoes, apples, broccoli, citrus, grapes and watermelon.

 

The Total Package

Change for the sake of change is not always a good thing.  Corrugated has been around for a long time, and it still works well as a cost-effective, high performing, recyclable shipping container.  Corrugated boxes also offer branding opportunities through full color printed graphics.  Single use provides an advantage in package cleanliness.  And multiple economic studies show corrugated to be the most cost-effective transport packaging solution.  Green, clean and lean.

(Dennis Colley is president of the Fibre Box Association, and this column represents that industry’s view of produce packaging.  It does not necessarily represent the view of Western Growers staff or board of directors.)

California Family Rights Act Amendments Effective July 1

June 11th, 2015

New amendments to the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) have been promulgated with the purpose of more closely aligning the CFRA with the federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and providing much needed clarification.  The new regulations will take effect on July 1, 2015.

Key Changes

The amendments are voluminous, but here is a list of some of the key changes to the CFRA:

  • The assigned worksite is deemed the home base for determining if there are 50 employees within a 75-mile radius.  The location of the employee’s worksite is important in determining whether he or she is eligible for FMLA or CFRA leave, since he or she must be employed at a worksite with 50 or more employees or within 75 miles of a worksite with at least 50 employees. For employees with no fixed worksite, their worksite is the site: (i) to which they are assigned as their home base, (ii) from which their work is assigned, or (iii) to which they report.
  • An employee who was not eligible for CFRA leave at the start of a leave, because the employee had not been employed for at least 12 months, may become eligible for protected CFRA leave while on leave, because leave to which an employee is otherwise entitled counts toward the 12-month service requirement.  The employer should designate as CFRA leave that portion in which the employee has met the 12-month requirement.
  • The amendments clarify that “joint employer” status is to be determined based on all of the circumstances, including the economic realities of the situation.  Where a joint employment relationship exists, the employee should be counted by both employers when determining CFRA eligibility for the employer’s employees.
  • Employers must now respond to employees’ CFRA leave requests within five business days rather than 10 calendar days.
  • “Key employee” is defined as a salaried employee among the highest 10 percent of the employer’s workforce, similar to the definition under the FMLA. Subject to certain notice requirements, an employer can deny a key employee who takes CFRA leave reinstatement to the same or comparable position if the employer has suffered sustained and grievous economic injury or substantial long-term economic injury.
  • Expands protections against interference with protected CFRA rights and retaliation.
  • Adds a new affirmative defense situations where an employee fraudulently obtains or uses CFRA leave.  Such employees are not entitled to reinstatement or maintenance of health insurance, but the burden on proof is on the employer.
  • Updates the required workplace poster, adds a new medical certification form, and removes language from CFRA that permits the use of the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) sample medical certification form. Employers should, therefore, stop using the DOL certification form and instead use the sample CFRA certification form.

 

Key Differences

While the amendments bring welcome clarification and alignment with the FMLA, there remain California-specific provisions that are different from FMLA. For example:

  • The amendments specify that pregnancy disability is not covered under CFRA, but it is a serious health condition under the FMLA
  • Employers are required to maintain an employee’s group health benefits for the duration of an employee’s protected pregnancy disability leave of up to four months, as well as during any subsequent CFRA leave of up to 12 weeks
  • Employers are prohibited from asking employees to provide additional information in the certification process, such as symptoms or the underlying diagnosis
  • It is impermissible for employers to treat a leave for the employee’s own serious health condition differently than for other CFRA protected leaves
  • Employees may be permitted to elect and employers may require employees to use sick leave during an unpaid portion of CFRA leave for the employee’s own serious health condition, as well as to substitute sick leave during CFRA leaves not for the employee’s own serious health condition, and to use vacation or PTO for any unpaid CFRA leave.

 

What Employers Should Do Now

  • Before July 1, 2015, employers should update their leave policies, practices and posted notices, and ensure that supervisors are trained on the new regulations as well as how CFRA, FMLA, and other leaves of absences work together.
  • Ensure that leave requests are received by the appropriate person in a timely manner, since the new regulations shorten the time for responding to leave requests.
  • Remember that the new notice must be translated into any language that is spoken by at least 10 percent of the workforce.  Translations are expected to be made available on the DFEH website.

“No Fumigants” by 2020 in California

June 11th, 2015

The number of efficacious fumigants currently available and the flexibility to use them in California is rapidly diminishing in key agricultural settings and impacting operations.  While California has the country’s most stringent fumigant use restrictions to protect human health and the environment, many regulators and activists fail to recognize how rigid and demanding the current registration and oversight process is for all crop protection products in this state and continue to communicate they are not a viable option.  Many efforts are aimed at eliminating them by 2020.  So, what is the future of fumigants?

Western Growers has a history of advocating for the registration and safe use of crop protection tools that are critical to producers, including fumigants.  However, the use and availability of the few remaining fumigants is questionable.  WG has been persistently communicating that producers with high pest pressure may not have viable alternatives to the appropriate use of fumigants for pest control.  During a WG Science & Technology webinar hosted in February 2015, Jim Wells, President of the Environmental Solutions Group, provided an overview of the regulatory environment associated with four key fumigants.  If your operation has utilized methyl bromide, chloropicrin, metam sodium or 1-3 D/telone, you may want to think about the changes and challenges associated with the use of these fumigants.

While methyl bromide has been phased out, 1-3D/telone is under township caps (which limits the number of applications and pounds/application), chloropicrin and metam sodium are the only options available to many growers with changing mitigation measures and restrictions.  Most of the use restrictions of these fumigants are associated with their designation as Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs).  The rest of this article provides a summary about the status on the use of these fumigants based on the webinar update earlier this year.

In 2005, methyl bromide was phased out after being declared an ozone depleting substance in 1992, some very critical uses (CUEs) remain under the Montreal Protocol, but they are reviewed and updated every year.  However, the Environmental Protection Agency decided to discontinue most of the CUEs in the United States in 2013.  At this moment, 2016 will be the last allowed CUE for the production of strawberries and during pre-plant activities.  Currently considering that the Montreal Protocol allows for an emergency use exemption of 20 metric tons per event, the ag industry consortium is pursuing federal legislation to define an “emergency use” and to place this process under the United Stated Department of Agriculture.

From 2011 to 2014, the use of 1-3 D/Telone increased, in particular in strawberries.  However, the total usage is still lower than the total used in 1989.  In 2012, producers of tree/vines, vegetables and strawberries were the three top users of this fumigant.  Currently, applications are limited by a township cap system.  EPA defines a township as 36 sections of 640 acres or 23,040 acres.  Currently, applications of 1-3 D are limited to 350 townships per year.  The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is currently conducting a risk assessment to consider new available data.  The existing California management plan for 1-3 D is about 13 years old.

In 2010, mitigation measures adopted as permit guidance dictated the use of metam sodium.  Some of these measures included buffer zones, post application water seals and acreage restrictions.  In 2012, the labels (at the federal level) were reviewed and additional measures were included.  DPR has harmonized permit guidance with revised labels.  Based on 2012 data, metam sodium was widely used in several crops, two major ones include: tomatoes and carrots.

A risk assessment for chloropicrin was conducted about 10 years ago.  The FDA released new labels in 2012, and DPR developed mitigation measures from 2011 to 2015.  Mitigation actions include a maximum daily acreage (EPA allows 160 while DPR only allows 40 in a 24 hours period), minimum buffer zones (based on the type of film used), overlapping buffer zones (acreages may be combined), notification/monitoring (DPR is more specific) and buffer zone credits (also impacted by the type of tarp used).  Revised labels are expected in 2016.  Users are subject to the most stringent requirements either at the state or federal level.

What should you expect this year and what is WG doing?

DPR is currently proposing new regulations related to pesticide applications near schools and also regarding fumigant notification.  DPR hosted a workshop April 9, 2015, in Sacramento to allow impacted parties with an opportunity to share thoughts about the feasibility of these proposed regulations.  Upcoming workshops are expected before a proposed regulation is released this fall.  WG continues to work with industry partners and government agencies to ensure the continued and safe use of these crop protection tools.  WG staff has provided feedback to regulatory bodies and continues to communicate that fumigant safety should be based on science and risk as opposed to emotional or personal agendas.  Western Growers is engaged with regulatory officials and will continue to be engaged.  However, we encourage you feedback and any suggestions about other efforts or activities we should pursue.  What are your thoughts?  Join this conversation by providing your feedback in our blog: http://www.wga.com/sci-tech/agknowledge

ACA Mistakes? Protect Yourself with Liability Coverage

June 11th, 2015

Many companies have been challenged with the regulations and requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Starting in January 2015, companies with 100 or more full-time employees were required to provide health care to these employees and offer the coverage to their dependents in order to comply with the law.

The health care package must fit these standards:

  • The health care offered must include a number of basic elements, including:
  • preventive care
  • prescription drugs
  • hospital stays
  • The coverage must be affordable, not to exceed 9.5 percent of the wages of the employee
  • The benefits provided must meet “minimum values.”  (For a more detailed explanation of this, see Western Growers “Ag Employers Guide to Health Care Reform”)

If the employer fails to provide any coverage at all, they may be subject to “taxes” of up to $2,000 per employee.  If it offers coverage that fails to meet the minimum coverage requirements, the company may be subject to “taxes” of up to $3,000 for each employee.  Failure to adhere to the regulations can therefore cost an employer thousands of dollars.

The law gets even more complicated in January 2016 when the threshold for employers to offer coverage drops to 51 or more employees.  This will increase the number of affected employers significantly in 2016, and the regulations and penalties remain the same.

Most employers have worked very hard to understand the requirements of the ACA.  Western Growers has worked closely with many members in order to fully explain the new law and to help members to follow the regulations as closely as possible in order to avoid the fines that accompany violation of the new law.  But the law can be confusing and difficult to fully comprehend.

Many issues complicate the situation. Most common in the agriculture industry is the confusion surrounding how to identify the number of full-time employees.  Although it might seem that employees working more than 130 hours per month would appear to be full-time employees, the seasonal nature of agricultural workers makes calculating the number of full-time workers challenging.  The number of employees varies from month to month, and employers can use different methods for determining whether employees are full time workers, seasonal workers, or if some workers are exempt from ACA regulations.

A company can easily make a mistake in choosing the right coverage and making the right offer to its employees.  That’s where having the right experts on hand is key and Western Growers is here to help.

First and foremost, a company can get a lot of guidance from a well-educated and experienced insurance broker.  Western Growers has been immersed in the intricacies of the ACA since its inception in 2010.  Our staff is well trained and educated in the law’s unique features and requirements, especially as it relates to agriculture.  We work closely with member companies to help them select the proper coverage and communicate the benefit coverages to the employees of the company.  This helps to avoid most of the mistakes made regarding health benefits.

Even under the best conditions, though, mistakes can occur.  In those situations, companies can protect themselves by purchasing employee benefit liability coverage.  This is an endorsement that can be added to general liability coverage that will pay for losses as a result of an error made on an employee benefit program, including health benefits and the ACA.  This coverage pays any sums for which the company is legally liable due to acts, errors or omissions regarding employee benefit programs.

Employee benefit liability coverage can provide for coverage for ACA errors or omissions, and it can provide coverage for other benefit programs such as retirement plans, profit sharing, group life, group accident, stock ownership plans and other employee-related benefits.  The coverage pays for losses related to errors made by owners, managers or employees in administering and managing the programs.  It usually pays the amount of the loss as well as many expenses related to the claim including defense costs, all taxes, bonds and other items.  It does not, however, pay for workers’ compensation or ERISA plans, as those are covered by other insurance policies.

Employee benefits liability coverage can be an inexpensive way to increase protection for companies from issues that arise from ACA compliance.  Western Growers Insurance Services can secure this coverage through a number of its general liability providers.  If interested in more information, contact Greg Nelson.

ACA Responsibilities for Smaller Employers

June 11th, 2015

Dear Jon,

We have 80 full-time employees and offer a health benefit plan to only about 15 of our people (primarily management).  We understand that in 2016 we must offer a health plan to the rest of our employees, but how do we identify the individuals to whom we should offer or are required to offer coverage?

Looming Employer Mandate Inquiry in Newman

 

Dear LEMIN,

In 2015, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s large employer mandate went into effect.  Initially, thanks to some transition relief, the mandate only applies to large employers with 100 or more full-time employees (including full-time equivalents).  In 2016, the mandate will apply to employers with 50 or more full-time employees (including full-time equivalents), but right now employers that fall into that 50–99 range have an extra year before the mandate kicks in.

The mandate requires that a large employer offer minimum essential coverage that meets minimum value and is affordable to substantially all full-time employees and dependents at least once per year or face potential tax penalties (if and when a full-time employee received subsidized coverage at either a state or federal health insurance exchange).  Importantly, an employer need only offer coverage to full-time employees.

There are two primary methods an employer can use to identify full-time employees

  • The monthly measurement method
  • The look-back rules

Under the monthly measurement method, full-time employees are those who are working 30 hours a week or 130 hours month.  These individuals must be offered coverage after a waiting period of no longer than 90 days.  Under the look-back rules, full-time employees are defined the same way.  Individuals who are working 30 hours a week or 130 hours a month must be offered coverage after a maximum 90-day waiting period.  However, the look-back rules provide additional flexibility for employers that employ seasonal, variable or part-time employees.  An employer may use measurement periods (as long as 12 months) to identify whether its seasonal, variable, and part-time employees are working full-time over the course of that measurement period.

It’s time for you to make a decision:  will you use the monthly measurement method or the look-back rules.  If your employees skew towards seasonal, variable, or part-time using the look-back rules will likely prevent these individuals from participating as they will not qualify under a longer measurement period.  You will not be required to make an offer to these individuals if they don’t qualify as full-time.  Obviously, this could be a dramatic cost-savings for you. Please note however, that failing to offer coverage may put you at a competitive disadvantage when seeking labor.

If you were to use the monthly measurement method, employees working 30 hours a week or 130 hours a month must be offered coverage after no longer than a 90-day waiting period.  Individuals who may not qualify for coverage under the look-back rules will qualify under the monthly measurement method.  Employers with a seasonal workforce, employees who work less than six to seven months customarily during the same part of the year, can drastically reduce their health benefit plans costs and employer mandate liabilities by using the look-back rules.

If you are interested in learning more about the look-back rules and how they work, I recommend downloading the Ag Employer’s Guide to Health Care Reform available to all WGA members through our store.  You can find it here:  www.bitly.com/aghcrguide.  For more information about this article or if you have other questions about health care reform, contact our Health Care Reform team today at [email protected] or 800-333-4WGA. Write to Dear Jon at [email protected]. For more information and resources on Health Care Reform, visit www.wgat.com/health-care-reform.