In the battle over Oregon’s proposed agricultural workforce standards board, opponents and supporters are depicting starkly different versions of farmer-employer relations in the state.

Labor advocates say House Bill 2548 is necessary to correct historic injustices to farmworkers, who still endure harsh conditions, low wages and punishment if they complain.

“Oftentimes, when they do speak up in the workplace, they are met with retaliation,” said Ira Cuello-Martinez, policy and advocacy director for PCUN, a nonprofit representing farmworkers.

Farmers who oppose the legislation counter that it poses an existential threat to family operators who already strive to do well by their workers in an overly regulated environment.

“You shouldn’t need a degree in public policy, a compliance team and multiple lawyers to run a business,” said Rep. Vikki Breese Iverson, R-Prineville, whose family raises livestock.

Under the latest version of HB 2548, an 11-member board representing growers, workers, government officials and others would establish minimum standards for pay, scheduling and other conditions affecting agricultural workers.

Employers would also be prohibited from terminating workers without just cause, with some exceptions, such as the end of the harvest season. 

Proponents say HB 2548 is meant to correct for the historical exclusions from labor protections faced by farmworkers, who’ve generally been left out of conversations affecting their industry.

The problem is summed up by the adage that whoever isn’t at the negotiating table is on the menu, said Alberto Gallegos, political and government affairs organizer with the Service Employees International Union.

“Farmworkers have been on the menu for far too long,” Gallegos said.

Farmers who testified against the bill said Oregon already has strict labor regulations, so lawmakers concerned about worker mistreatment should invest in enforcement rather than add another layer of bureaucracy.

“Go after the bad guys. Don’t hurt the good guys,” said Shelly Boshart Davis, R-Albany, whose family grows grass seed and ships straw.

Critics fault HB 2548 for usurping the role of lawmakers in establishing workplace standards and failing to offer any venues for appealing unreasonable regulations.

“It creates an unelected and unaccountable governing body,” said Jenny Dresler, lobbyist for the Oregon Farm Bureau.

Opponents argue it’s unfair for the bill to exclude agriculture among all other industries from the state’s at-will employment policy, as it would only allow farmers to fire workers for misconduct and incompetence.

“I should have the right to make necessary staffing decisions for my business without the overhanging threat of a lawsuit,” said Leslie Tamura, board chair of the Columbia Gorge Fruit Growers nonprofit. “And I should not have to keep employees who do not meet performance expectations only because I am terrified of being sued.”

The proposal would only allow plaintiffs to be compensated for litigation expenses if they win a lawsuit over wrongful termination, leaving growers to eat the costs even if they prove the accusations are unfounded, critics say.

“Even if our employers go to court and win, they’re unable to recoup their attorneys fees,” Dresler said.

Brandon Hazenberg, a dairy farmer near St. Paul, Ore., said neither he nor his workers were ever approached about workplace conditions by the bill’s backers.

It’s doubtful that organizations pushing for HB 2548 truly speak for most of Oregon’s farmworkers, and instead represent the interests of a “select few,” Hazenberg said.

“I sincerely believe that if you interviewed the overwhelming majority of farmworkers in this state, they would tell you they’re being treated very well,” he said.

However, not everyone in the agricultural community came out against the proposal. 

Friends of Family Farmers, a nonprofit representing small growers, see the bill as a way to ensure a healthy and productive workforce, said Alice Morrison, the group’s co-director of policy and development.

“Not all farmers view this issue the same way,” she said. “Farmers in the state of Oregon are not a monolith.”

Morrison said she objected to the characterization of the board’s members as “bureaucrats,” noting that farmers and workers would both be represented.

“I want to be clear — these are members of our community,” she said.