Speech #970235937

However. the act proved ineffective. After a decade of experience and several congressional studies. the Congress in 1974 adopted sweeping amendments. The amendments provided an express private right of action to migrant workers. it extended coverage to intrastate contracting activities. It extended registration requirements. it imposed affirmative duties on the Secretary of Labor to monitor and investigate the activities of contractors. and. It imposed substantive duties on a contractor with respect to transportation and housing. The amendments also imposed on farmers and other employers the requirement of confirming that a contractor in properly registered and the requirement to maintain payroll redcords on migrant workers furnished by the contractor. Unfortunately. the experience under the 1974 amendments has been anything but satisfactory. Newspapers and the neas magazines still periodically report on continuing exploitation of migrant workers. on squalid housing. and on unscrupulous crew bosses. At the same time. strong criticism has been directed against the Department of Labor. particularly against its expansive interpretation of the act and its enforcement policies. Congressional hearings have confirmed that the Department in the past concentrated its scarce resources on securing the registration of every employer who might conceivably be construed a farm labor contractor. In an inordinate number of cases. farmers and other agricultural employersbasically fixed situs employers. who were easy targets for Government enforcementwere cited for technical violations dealing with registration requirements. The impact of this enforcement policy has not been the improvement of the migrant workers lot in the workplace. The overriding result has been the harassment of agricultural employers. They have expended valuable time and energy in attempting to comply with burdensome registration requirements which in fact are of little utility when it comes to stationary employers. They have wasted resources fighting legal battles over technical violations. If anything. the whole enforcement philosophy of the past has undermined cooperation between the Government and the agricultural employer community in curbing the exploitation of migrant workers. The bill introduced today seeks to rectify these fundamental prbblems with current law. It eliminates redtape. paperwork. and administrative burdens. Yet the bill preserves the rights of migrant and seasonal farm workers against abusive employment practices. As outlined in the Secretarys transmittal letter. this consensus measure follows certain basic principles. First. unlike FLCRA. the bill distingu!shes between the traditional. itiner4tt crewleaders and fixed situs agricultural employers by totally eliminating the obligation of fixed situs employers to register as crewleaders. Second. it maintains the basic farmworker protections under the present FLCRA and has made clear that these protections are to be provided by the appropriate agricultural employer or association. irrespective of whether that employer is a crewleader or a fixed situs employer. those protections pertain to vehicle safety. adequate housing. disclosure of wages. and working conditions. and maintenance of certain records. Third. the bill distinguishes between migrant agricultural workers and seasonal agricultural workers. under the bill migrant agricultural workers are those who are working away from their home overnight. while seasonal agricultural workers are those who live at home and commute to agricultural employment. Fourth. exemptions are provided for labor unions. family businesses and small businesses. Fifth. ambiguous words and phrases which hii.ve caused extensive litigation under FLCRA have been eliminated.