Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

The connection between farm labor and immigration policies is a longstanding one, particularly
with regard to U.S. employers’ use of workers from Mexico. The Congress is revisiting the issue
as it debates guest worker programs, increased border enforcement, and employer sanctions to
curb the flow of unauthorized workers. Two decades ago, the Congress passed the Immigration
Reform and Control Act (IRCA, P.L. 99-603) to reduce illegal entry into the United States by
imposing sanctions on employers who knowingly hire persons who lack permission to work in
the country. In addition to a general legalization program, IRCA included legalization programs
specific to the agricultural industry that were intended to compensate for the act’s expected
impact on the farm labor supply and encourage development of a legal crop workforce. These
provisions of the act have not operated in the offsetting manner that was intended: substantial
numbers of unauthorized aliens have continued to join legal farm workers in performing seasonal
agricultural services (SAS).
A little more than one-half of the SAS workforce is not authorized to hold U.S. jobs. Crop
growers contend that their sizable presence implies a shortage of native-born farm workers.
Grower advocates argue that farmers would rather not employ unauthorized workers because
doing so puts them at risk of incurring penalties. Farm worker advocates counter that crop
growers prefer unauthorized workers because they are in a weak bargaining position. If the
supply of unauthorized workers were curtailed, it is claimed, farmers could adjust to a smaller
workforce by introducing labor-efficient technologies and management practices, and by raising
wages, which, in turn, would entice more U.S. workers to accept farm jobs. Growers respond that
further mechanization would be difficult for some crops, and that much higher wages would
make the U.S. industry uncompetitive in world markets without expanding the legal farm
workforce. These remain untested arguments because perishable crop growers have rarely, if ever,
operated without unauthorized foreign-born workers.
Trends in the agricultural labor market generally do not suggest the existence of a nationwide
shortage of domestically available farm workers, in part because the government’s databases
cover authorized and unauthorized workers. While nonfarm employment generally has increased
thus far in the current decade, farm jobs generally have decreased. The length of time hired farm
workers are employed has changed little or fallen over the years as well. Their unemployment
rate has varied slightly and remains well above the U.S. average. Underemployment among farm
workers also remains substantial. In addition, the earnings of farm workers relative to other
private sector employees has changed little over time.
This assessment does not preclude the possibility of labor shortages in particular geographic areas
at particular times of the year. Some statistical evidence suggests that California growers
experienced a tighter labor market in July 2007 compared to peak harvest season a year earlier. It
nonetheless appears that the offer of larger wage increases than those of employers in other
industries contributed to there being sufficient (authorized and unauthorized) workers available to
enable California growers to increase employment on their farms in the year ended July 2007.

Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Farm Workers and Activities of SSA and DHS...............................................................................1
Composition of the Seasonal Farm Labor Force.............................................................................2
A Farm Labor Shortage?.................................................................................................................4
Underlying Assumptions...........................................................................................................5
Employment ..................................................................................................................... ......... 6
July Farm Employment by State.........................................................................................7
Unemployment ................................................................................................................... ..... 10
Time Worked............................................................................................................................11
The Seasonality of Demand: Hours Versus Employment..................................................11
The Number of Days Worked...........................................................................................12
Wa ge s ...................................................................................................................................... 13
California .......................................................................................................................... 15
Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah........................................................16
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 1. Hired Farm Employment...................................................................................................6
Table 2. Total Farm Employment in the United States (excluding Alaska) and in
California and Florida, July 2005-July 2007................................................................................8
Table 3. Number of Hired Farm Workers by Geographic Area, July 2005-July 2007....................8
Table 4. The Rate and Level of Unemployment............................................................................10
Table 5. Hired Farm Workers by Expected Days of Employment................................................12
Table 6. Average Hourly Earnings of Field Workers and Other Workers in the Private
Sector .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 7. Hourly Wage Rates of Hired Field Workers by Area, July 2005-July 2007....................14
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................17

Questions often have arisen over the years about (1) whether sufficient workers are available
domestically to meet the seasonal employment demand of perishable crop producers in the U.S. ¹
agricultural industry and (2) how, if at all, the Congress should change immigration policy with
respect to farm workers. Immigration policy has long been intertwined with the labor needs of
crop (e.g., fruit and vegetable) growers, who rely more than most farmers on hand labor (e.g., for
harvesting) and consequently “are the largest users of hired and contract workers on a per-farm ²
basis.” Since World War I, the Congress has allowed the use of temporary foreign workers to
perform agricultural labor of a seasonal nature as a means of augmenting the supply of domestic ³
farm workers. In addition, a sizeable fraction of immigrants historically have found employment ⁴
on the nation’s farms.
The intersection between farm labor and immigration has again emerged as a policy issue. The
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 effectively quashed the discussions on this subject
between the Bush and Fox Administrations that took place shortly after President Bush first came
into office, but the proposal of a broad-based temporary foreign worker program that President
Bush sketched in December 2003 revived interest in the labor-immigration nexus. (For a
discussion of bills and the President’s proposal, see CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy
Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra Bruno.) The lack of progress on
broad-based immigration reform before the summer 2007 recess has led to speculation that
Congress now will narrow its focus to the supply of temporary foreign workers to the agricultural
sector and to professional specialty occupations.
This report first explains the connection made over the past several years between farm labor and
immigration policies. It next examines the composition of the seasonal agricultural labor force
and presents the arguments of grower and farm worker advocates concerning its adequacy relative
to employer demand. The report then analyzes trends in employment, unemployment, time
worked and wages of authorized and unauthorized farm workers to determine whether they are
consistent with the existence of a nationwide shortage of domestically available farm workers.
The farm labor supply-demand situation by geographic area is examined as well.

During the second half of the 1990s, attention began to focus on the growing share of the
domestic supply of farm workers that is composed of aliens who are not authorized to work in the
United States. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) estimated that foreign-born persons in the

¹^{In t}^h^{is re}^p^o^{rt, t}^h^e^te^rm^{s “}^a^g^r^ic^ulture^”^a^{nd “}^f^a^r^mⁱ^ng^”^w^{ill be}^use^dⁱⁿ^te^rc^ha^ng^e^a^b^ly^a^s^w^{ill the}^te^rm^{s “}^p^ro^duc^e^r^,”
^“gro^wer,^{” an}^d^“f^ar^mer.^”
²^Vic^t^or^J^.^O^liv^eⁱ^r^a^{, A}^nne^B^.^W^.^E^f^f^l^a^{nd, J}^a^c^k^L^.^R^uny^aⁿ^a^{nd S}^h^aⁿⁿ^{on H}^a^m^m^,^Hⁱ^r^e^{d Far}^m^La^bor^on^Fr^{uit, Ve}^ge^ta^ble^,
^and^Hortic^u^ltur^a^{l S}^p^e^cⁱ^alty^F^a^rm^s^,^U.^S^.^Dep^a^rt^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Agri^cu^l^t^u^re,^E^c^oⁿ^o^mⁱ^c^Resear^ch^S^e^rvi^ce,^A^g^ri^cu^l^t^u^ral
^Ec^onom^ic^R^e^por^t⁶⁷^{6, D}^ecem^b^e^r¹⁹⁹³^,^p^.²^.^(Hereaf^t^e^{r ci}^t^e^d^as,^Olⁱ^v^ei^ra,^E^f^f^l^an^d^,^Ruⁿ^y^an^an^d^Hamm^,^Hired^Fa^rm
^Lab^o^r^oⁿ^Fr^uit,^Ve^ge^ta^ble^,^an^{d H}^o^r^tic^ult^u^r^a^l^Spe^cⁱ^a^lty^Far^m^s^.)
³^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on t}^h^e^Ju^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^Te^m^por^ar^y^W^o^r^k^e^r^Pr^ogr^am^s^:^Bac^k^g^r^o^un^d^an^d^I^s^s^u^e^s^,^co^mmⁱ^t^t^ee
^pr^int^,⁹⁶^th^Cong^.,²^nd^s^e^s^s^.⁽^W^a^s^hi^ng^ton:^G^P^O^,¹⁹⁸⁰⁾^.
⁴^P^h^il^{ip L}^.^Ma^rtiⁿ^{, “}^G^ood^Inteⁿ^tio^{ns G}^one^Aw^r^y^{: IRC}^A^a^{nd U.S. A}^g^ric^u^lture^,”^An^nals^of^the^Am^e^r^ic^{an Ac}^ade^m^y^of
^Politic^{al a}ⁿ^d^S^o^cⁱ^al^Sc^ie^nc^e^{, J}^u^ly¹⁹^94.

country illegally accounted for 37% of the domestic crop workforce in FY1994-FY1995. Shortly
thereafter (FY1997-FY1998), unauthorized aliens’ share of the estimated 1.8 million workers ⁵
employed on crop farms reached 52%. By FY1999-FY2000, their proportion had increased to ⁶

55% before retreating somewhat—to 53%—in FY2001-FY2002.

Although a number of studies found that no nationwide shortage of domestic farm labor existed ⁷
in the past decade, a case has been made that the considerable presence of unauthorized foreign-
born workers in seasonal agriculture implies a lack of legal workers relative to employer demand.
Arguably, the purported imbalance between authorized-to-work farm labor and employer demand
would become more apparent were the supply of unauthorized workers curtailed sufficiently—a
fear that has plagued growers for some time.
Crop producers and their advocates have testified at congressional hearings and asserted in other
venues that they believe the latest risk of losing much of their labor force comes from efforts by
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to step-up employment
verification and enforcement activities, in concert with mailings of no-match letters by the Social
Security Administration (SSA). Growers have asserted that these activities disrupt their
workforces by increasing employee turnover and therefore, decreasing the stability of their labor
supply. The perception that government actions negatively affect U.S. agriculture has prompted a
legislative response in the past.

Immigration legislation sometimes has been crafted to take into account the purported labor
requirements of U.S. crop growers. In 1986, for example, Congress passed the Immigration
Reform and Control Act (IRCA, P.L. 99-603) to curb the presence of unauthorized aliens in the
United States by imposing sanctions on employers who knowingly hire individuals who lack
permission to work in the country. In addition to a general legalization program, P.L. 99-603
included two industry-specific legalization programs—the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) ⁸
program and the Replenishment Agricultural Worker (RAW) program—that were intended to

⁵^Ac^c^o^r^dⁱⁿ^g^to^U^.^S^.^D^e^par^tm^eⁿ^{t o}^f^La^bor^Re^p^o^r^t^t^o^C^oⁿ^g^r^e^s^s^:^The^Agrⁱ^c^u^lt^ur^al^La^bor^M^a^r^k^e^t^—S^tat^u^s^a^nd
^Re^c^o^m^m^e^ndati^ons^,^the^1.8^m^{illion f}ⁱ^g^u^re^wa^{s de}^v^e^lope^{d by}^divⁱ^din^g^the^ho^urly^e^a^r^ning^{s of}^fⁱ^e^l^{d a}^{nd liv}^e^s^toc^k^w^o^rk^e^r^s
^into^f^a^r^m^la^bor^e^x^pe^ndit^u^r^e^s^{to e}^s^tim^a^t^e^the^num^be^r^of^w^o^r^k^hour^s^{on c}^r^o^p^aⁿ^{d liv}^e^s^toc^k^f^a^r^m^s^.^A^s^{it w}^a^s^ca^lc^ula^t^e^d
^tha^t⁷²^%^of^the^h^our^s^w^e^r^e^be^ing^w^o^r^k^e^d^{on c}^r^op^f^a^r^m^s^,^the^pe^rc^eⁿ^ta^g^e^w^a^{s the}ⁿ^a^pplie^d^to^the^C^o^m^m^is^{sion o}ⁿ
^Ag^ric^u^ltura^{l W}^o^rk^e^r^{s’ e}^s^ti^m^a^te^f^o^{r 19}⁹²^of^2.^{5 m}^illion^pe^{rsons e}^m^ploy^e^d^f^o^r^w^a^g^e^{s on U.S. f}^a^rm^{s to y}ⁱ^e^l^{d a}^c^u^rre^nt
^e^s^ti^m^a^te^of^the^hir^e^{d c}^r^o^p^w^o^r^k^f^o^r^c^e^.^T^h^e^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^{on ha}^d^de^v^e^lo^pe^{d its}^e^a^r^lie^r^f^a^r^m^em^ploy^m^e^{nt f}ⁱ^g^u^r^e^f^r^o^m^a^v^a^rⁱ^e^t^y
^o^f^d^a^t^a^so^u^r^{ces b}^ecau^{se t}^h^{ere i}^s^no^act^u^a^l^h^{ead co}^un^t^o^f^f^a^r^m^w^o^r^k^ers.^F^o^r^o^t^h^e^{r cu}^rreⁿ^t^estⁱ^m^at^{es o}^f^hⁱ^red^f^a^rm^an^d
^cro^p^w^o^{rkers see}^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^.
⁶^DOL^,^Fⁱⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^s^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e N}^a^tⁱ^o^nal^A^g^ri^cu^l^t^u^r^al^Wo^{rkers S}^u^r^{vey (}^N^A^W^S⁾²⁰⁰¹^-²⁰⁰²^{, Re}^s^e^a^r^c^h^Re^po^{rt N}^o^.^9,^Ma^rc^h
²⁰⁰⁵^.^(Hereaf^t^e^{r ci}^t^e^d^{as DOL}^,^Findi^ngs^fr^om^the^N^A^W^S²⁰⁰¹^-²⁰⁰²^.)
⁷^Co^mm^issioⁿ^oⁿ^A^g^ricu^ltu^{ral W}^o^rk^{ers (C}^AW^),^Re^por^{t o}^f^t^h^e^C^o^m^m^is^sⁱ^on^{on A}^g^rⁱ^c^u^lt^ur^al^W^o^r^k^e^r^s^{, (}^W^a^s^hing^ton:
^G^P^O^,^N^o^v^e^m^b^e^r¹⁹⁹²⁾^.⁽^H^e^r^e^a^f^ter^c^ite^{d a}^s^C^A^W^,^Re^por^{t of t}^h^e^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^{on o}ⁿ^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^lt^ur^{al W}^o^r^k^e^r^s^{.). U}^.^{S. G}^e^ne^ra^l
^A^c^c^ountiⁿ^g^O^f^fⁱ^c^e⁽^G^A^O⁾^,^H^-^{2A Agr}ⁱ^c^u^lt^ur^{al G}^u^e^s^tw^or^k^e^r^Pr^ogr^a^m^:^C^h^a^nge^s^C^o^uld^I^m^pr^ov^e^Se^r^v^ic^e^s^{to Em}^pl^oy^e^r^s
^aⁿ^d^B^e^t^t^e^{r P}^r^o^t^ect^Wo^rkers^,^GAO/HEHES^-⁹⁸^-²⁰^,^Dece^m^b^{er 1}⁹⁹⁷^.^(Hereaf^{ter cited}^as^GA^O,^H^-^{2A Agr}ⁱ^c^u^lt^ur^al
^G^u^e^s^tw^or^k^e^r^Pr^ogr^am^).^DOL^,^A^Profile^o^f^U.S^.^F^a^rmwork^e^{rs: De}^mogra^phic^s^{, H}^ouse^h^old^Comp^osit^ion,^Inc^o^me^an^d
^{Use o}^f^S^e^rvi^ces^,^Research^Rep^o^r^t^No^.^6,^A^p^ri^l¹⁹⁹⁷^.^(Hereaf^t^e^{r ci}^t^e^d^{as DOL}^{, A Profile}^{of U.}^{S. F}^a^rm^work^e^r^s^{.) A}^nd,
^a^nnua^{l c}^a^l^c^u^la^ti^ons^{in t}^h^e^e^a^r^ly^1990s^by^the^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^nts^of^L^a^bor^a^{nd A}^g^rⁱ^c^u^ltur^e^.
⁸^T^h^e^{INS a}^pprov^e^d^m^o^re^thaⁿ¹^m^{illion of}^the^a^p^plic^a^tio^ns^tha^tⁱⁿ^divⁱ^dua^{ls f}^ile^d^un^de^{r the}^SA^W^prog^ra^m^{to be}^c^o^m^e
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

compensate for the act’s expected impact on the farm labor supply and encourage the
development of a legal crop workforce. These provisions of the act have not operated in the
offsetting manner that was intended, however, as substantial numbers of unauthorized aliens have ⁹
continued to join legal farm workers in performing seasonal agricultural services (SAS).
On the basis of case studies that it sponsored, the Commission on Agricultural Workers concluded
in its 1992 report that individuals legalized under the SAW program and other farm workers
planned to remain in the agricultural labor force “indefinitely, or for as long as they are physically ¹⁰
able.” According to the DOL’s National Agricultural Workers Survey, two-thirds of so-called ¹¹
SAWs stated that they intended to engage in field work until the end of their working lives.
For many SAWs, the end of their worklives—at least their worklives in farming—may now be
near at hand. The diminished physical ability generally associated with aging in combination with
the taxing nature of crop tasks could well be prompting greater numbers of SAWs to leave the
fields. Relatively few farm workers are involved in crop production beyond the age of 44 and ¹²
even fewer beyond the age of 54 (19% and 7%, respectively, in FY2001-FY2002). The
Commission on Agricultural Workers noted that the typical SAW in 1990 was a 30-year-old male ^st¹³
who “is likely to remain in farm work well into the 21 century.” As the “average age of SAW-
legalized workers in 2007 will be 47,” increasing numbers of them are likely to be curtailing their ¹⁴
participation in SAS labor force. It thus appears that the 1986 legalization program has become
less useful over time in fulfilling the labor requirements of crop producers.
A combination of factors likely has contributed to the decrease in SAWs’ share of agricultural ¹⁵
employment. While the share of IRCA-legalized farm workers has been falling over time due to
aging and the availability of nonfarm jobs, the leading factor probably is the substantially ¹⁶
increased presence of illegal aliens. In the first half of the 1990s, unauthorized workers rose

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^l^e^gal^p^e^r^m^an^en^t^resi^d^eⁿ^t^s.^Aⁿ^tⁱ^cⁱ^p^atⁱⁿ^{g t}^h^at^S^A^W^s^w^o^u^l^d^l^{eave far}^mⁱⁿ^{g b}^ecau^{se IRC}^A^dⁱ^dⁿ^o^t^requⁱ^r^{e t}^h^em^t^o^remaiⁿ
ⁱⁿ^o^r^d^e^{r t}^o^ad^j^u^st^t^h^ei^{r st}^at^u^s^,^P^.^L^.⁹⁹^-⁶⁰³ⁱⁿ^cl^ud^ed^t^h^{e RA}^W^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^{as a b}^ack-u^p^measu^r^{e t}^o^en^su^r^e^gro^w^er^{s o}^f^an
^ad^eq^u^a^t^e^l^a^bo^{r sup}^p^l^y^.^T^h^{e RAW}^p^r^o^g^ram^w^a^{s n}^e^v^e^{r u}^s^ed^b^ecau^{se t}^h^{e ann}^u^a^l^cal^cu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^o^f^f^a^r^m^l^a^b^o^r^s^u^pp^l^y^an^d
^de^m^a^{nd tha}^t^w^e^r^e^m^a^de^by^the^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^nts^of^La^bor^aⁿ^d^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^ltur^e^durⁱⁿ^g^the^FY¹⁹^90-^FY¹⁹⁹³^pe^rⁱ^o^d^f^oun^d
^no^na^tio^na^{l s}^h^or^ta^g^e^s^of^f^a^r^m^w^o^r^k^e^r^s^.
⁹^Se^a^s^ona^{l a}^g^ric^u^ltura^{l se}^rv^ic^e^s^(SA^S⁾^w^e^re^de^fⁱ^ne^{d broa}^d^l^y^{in IRCA}^a^s^fⁱ^e^l^d^w^o^rk^re^la^te^{d to p}^l^aⁿ^tiⁿ^g^,^c^u^ltiv^a^ting^,
^g^r^ow^ing^a^{nd ha}^rv^e^s^ting^of^f^r^{uits a}^{nd v}^e^g^e^ta^ble^s^of^e^v^e^r^y^kⁱ^{nd a}^nd^o^t^he^{r pe}^risha^b^le^c^o^m^m^oditie^{s. T}^h^e^te^rm^{s “}^S^A^S^,”
^“seasoⁿ^a^l^f^a^r^m^w^o^r^k^,^”^“^fⁱ^e^l^d^w^o^r^k^{” an}^d^“cro^p^w^o^{rk” are u}^s^edⁱⁿ^t^e^r^c^h^aⁿ^g^eab^l^yⁱⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^rep^o^r^t^.
¹⁰^CAW^,^Re^{port o}^f^the^C^o^mmission^on^Agric^u^ltura^{l W}^o^rk^e^r^s^{, p.}^75.
¹¹^DOL^,^U.^S^.^Fa^rmwo^{rkers in}^th^{e P}^o^{st-IRCA Period}^,^Research^Repo^r^t^No^.⁴^,^M^a^rch¹⁹⁹³^.^(Hereaf^t^e^{r c}ⁱ^t^e^d^as^DOL^,
^U.^S^.^F^a^rmwo^{rkers in}^t^h^{e Po}^st-IR^{CA Perio}^d^.)
¹²^DOL^,^Findi^ngs^fr^om^the^N^A^W^S²⁰⁰¹^-²⁰⁰²^.
¹³^CAW^,^Re^{port o}^f^the^C^o^mmission^on^Agric^u^ltura^{l W}^o^rk^e^r^s^{, p.}^80.
¹⁴²⁰^{07 e}^m^a^{il c}^o^m^m^unic^a^{tion f}^r^om^the^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^La^bor^.
¹⁵^A^lte^rⁿ^a^tiv^e^l^y^,^the^r^e^a^r^e^a^num^be^r^of^r^e^a^s^ons^w^h^y^SA^W^s^w^{ould r}^e^m^a^{in in f}^a^r^m^em^plo^y^m^e^{nt (}^e^.g^{., li}^m^ite^{d Eng}^lis^h-
^la^ng^ua^g^e^f^l^ue^nc^y^a^{nd little}^f^o^rm^a^l^e^duc^a^tio^{n). I}ⁿ^lig^ht^of^the^s^e^c^o^m^p^e^ting^f^a^c^t^{ors, the}^CA^W^c^onc^lude^{d tha}^t^{it w}^oul^{d be}
^dif^fⁱ^c^u^{lt to e}^s^tim^a^t^e^the^a^{ttrition r}^a^te^of^SAW^s^f^r^o^m^the^fⁱ^e^l^ds^{. T}^h^e^e^x^is^te^nc^e^of^f^r^a^{ud in t}^h^e^SA^W^pr^og^r^a^m^f^u^r^t^he^r
^c^o^m^p^lic^a^t^e^s^s^u^c^h^a^c^a^l^c^u^la^{tion be}^c^a^u^s^e^the^s^t^oc^k^of^SA^W^s^w^{ho g}^e^nui^ne^ly^w^e^r^e^f^a^r^m^w^o^r^k^e^r^s^is^unk^now^{n: w}^h^eⁿ
^C^ong^r^e^s^s^w^a^s^de^ba^ting^im^mⁱ^g^r^a^tⁱ^on^pr^o^pos^a^l^sⁱⁿ^t^h^e^mⁱ^d-¹⁹⁸^0s^{, t}^h^e^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^ltur^e^e^s^ti^m^a^te^{d tha}^t
^the^r^e^w^e^r^e^300,0⁰⁰^to⁵⁰^0,0⁰⁰^uⁿ^a^uthor^iz^e^d^f^a^r^m^w^o^r^k^e^r^s^,^{but m}^o^r^e^thaⁿ^tw^ic^e^the^u^ppe^r^-^e^nd^e^s^tim^ate^w^e^r^e^le^g^a^lize^d
^unde^r^the^SA^W^prog^ra^m^;^this^la^rge^dis^c^re^pa^nc^y^,^a^s^w^e^{ll a}^s^a^ddition^a^{l re}^s^e^a^r^c^h^{, le}^{d to t}^h^e^wⁱ^de^ly^he^{ld c}^onc^lusⁱ^on^tha^t
^f^r^a^{ud w}^a^s^e^x^te^ns^ive^.
¹⁶^T^h^{e CAW}^d^e^t^e^r^mⁱⁿ^ed^t^h^at^t^h^e^d^e^si^gn^o^f^t^h^{e S}^A^W^p^r^o^g^ra^m^w^a^s,^at^l^eastⁱⁿ^p^a^rt^,^resp^on^si^b^l^{e f}^o^{r t}^h^{e i}ⁿ^{crease i}ⁿ
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

from 7% to 37% of the SAS labor force.¹⁷ Their share climbed to 52% by FY1997-FY1998;¹⁸
then, rose further to 55% by FY1999-FY2000, before it dropped somewhat to 53% in FY2001-¹⁹
FY2002. Moreover, the number of SAS workdays performed by unauthorized aliens more than ²⁰
tripled between FY1989 and FY2002. In addition, of the many foreign-born newcomers to the
sector in FY2000-FY2002, 99% were employed without authorization.
Unauthorized aliens, arguably, have been displacing legal workers from jobs in the agricultural
industry. Farm worker advocates assert that crop producers prefer unauthorized employees
because they have less bargaining power with regard to wages and working conditions than other
employees. Growers counter that they would rather not employ unauthorized workers because
doing so puts them at risk of incurring penalties. They argue that the considerable presence of
unauthorized aliens in the U.S. farm labor force implies a shortage of legal workers.
Farm worker groups and some policy analysts contend that even if the previously mentioned DHS
and SSA activities were to deprive farmers of many of their unauthorized workers, the industry
could adjust to a smaller supply of legal workers by (1) introducing labor-efficient technologies
and management practices, and (2) raising wages which, in turn, would entice more authorized
workers into the farm labor force. Grower advocates respond that further mechanization would be
difficult to develop for many crops and that, even at higher wages, not many U.S. workers would
want to perform physically demanding, seasonal farm labor under variable climactic conditions.
Moreover, employer representatives and some policy analysts maintain that growers cannot raise
wages substantially without making the U.S. industry uncompetitive in world markets which, in
turn, would reduce farm employment. In response, farm worker supporters note that wages are a
small part of the price consumers pay for fresh fruits and vegetables and accordingly, higher
wages would result in only a slight rise in retail prices. These remain untested arguments as
perishable crop growers have rarely, if ever, had to operate without unauthorized aliens in their
workforces.

Trends in the farm labor market generally do not suggest the existence of a nationwide shortage
of domestically available farm workers, in part because the government’s statistical series cover
authorized and unauthorized workers. This overall finding does not preclude the possibility of
spot shortages of farm labor in certain areas of the country at various times of the year.

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^uⁿ^a^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^zedⁱ^m^mⁱ^gratⁱ^oⁿ^b^ecau^{se i}^f^d^e^p^eⁿ^d^eⁿ^t^s^o^f^S^A^W^s^dⁱ^d^no^t^si^mⁱ^l^a^rl^y^h^a^{ve t}^h^ei^{r st}^at^u^s^ad^j^u^st^e^d^,^t^h^ey^mⁱ^gh^t^h^a^ve
^ille^g^a^ll^y^eⁿ^te^re^{d the}^Unite^d^Sta^t^e^s^{to j}^oⁱⁿ^f^a^mⁱ^l^y^m^e^m^b^e^r^s.^{In a}^ddi^ti^on,^the^ne^tw^ork^{or k}ⁱ^nship^re^c^r^uit^m^eⁿ^{t proc}^e^{ss f}^o^r
^SA^S^w^o^rk^c^ontin^ue^{d t}^o^f^l^ouris^{h a}^{nd t}^o^f^a^c^ilita^te^not^on^ly^{job pla}^c^e^m^e^{nt, b}^u^{t a}^l^{so m}ⁱ^g^r^a^{tion by}^a^ssistingⁱⁿ^bor^de^r-
^c^r^os^sⁱ^ng^a^{nd i}ⁿ^a^c^q^uirⁱ^ng^f^r^a^udu^l^e^{nt w}^o^r^k^a^u^thor^iz^a^tioⁿ^doc^um^eⁿ^ts^{. T}^h^e^s^e^fⁱ^nding^s^le^{d the}^C^o^m^m^is^sion^{to c}^onc^lu^de
^tha^t^“^t^he^c^o^nc^e^p^t^of^a^w^o^r^k^e^r^-^s^pecⁱ^fⁱ^c^a^{nd ind}^u^s^t^r^y^-^s^pe^cⁱ^fⁱ^c^le^ga^liza^tion^pr^og^r^a^m^w^a^s^f^unda^m^e^nta^l^l^y^f^l^aw^e^d^{. I}^t^inv^ite^d
^f^r^a^{ud, pos}^e^d^dif^fⁱ^c^u^{lt de}^fⁱ^nitio^na^l^pro^b^le^m^s^reg^a^rding^w^{ho s}^houl^d^o^r^s^h^o^u^ld^no^{t be}^e^ligⁱ^b^le^{, a}ⁿ^{d ig}^no^r^e^{d the}
^long^sta^ndi^ng^pri^o^rity^of^{U.S. im}^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion p}^o^lic^y^fa^v^o^ring^the^un^if^ic^a^tion^of^f^a^m^ilie^s.”^C^A^W^,^Re^por^{t of t}^h^e^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^oⁿ
^{on A}^g^rⁱ^c^u^lt^ur^al^W^o^r^k^e^r^s^{, p. 6}⁷^.
¹⁷^DOL^,^{A Profile}^o^f^U.S^.^F^a^rmwor^k^e^r^s^.
¹⁸^DOL^,^Fⁱⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^s^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e N}^a^tⁱ^o^nal^A^g^ri^cu^l^t^u^r^al^Wo^{rkers S}^u^r^{vey: 19}⁹⁷^-19⁹⁸^{, Re}^s^e^a^r^c^h^Re^{port N}^o^.⁸^,^Ma^rc^{h 2}⁰⁰⁰^.
^(Herea^f^t^{er ci}^t^e^d^{as DO}^L^,^Fⁱⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{s f}^r^o^m^t^h^{e N}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^A^g^ri^cu^l^t^u^r^a^l^Wo^{rkers S}^u^r^vey:^1997-¹⁹⁹⁸^.)
¹⁹^DOL^,^Findi^ngs^fr^om^the^N^A^W^S²⁰⁰¹^-²⁰⁰²^.
²⁰^DOL^,^Fa^rmwo^{rkers in}^th^{e P}^o^st-I^{RCA Perio}^d^an^d^Fin^dⁱ^ngs^fr^om^th^e^N^A^W^S²⁰^01-²⁰⁰²^.

Caution should be exercised when reviewing the statistics on farm workers’ employment,
unemployment, time worked and wages that follow. The surveys from which the data are derived
cover somewhat different groups within the farm labor force (e.g., all hired farm workers as
opposed to those engaged only in crop production or workers employed directly by growers as
opposed to those supplied to growers by farm labor contractors), and they have different sample
sizes. A household survey such as the Current Population Survey (CPS) could well understate the
presence of farm workers because they are more likely to live in less traditional quarters (e.g.,
labor camps) and of unauthorized workers generally because they may be reluctant to respond to
government enumerators. And, some of the surveys have individuals as respondents (e.g., the
CPS and DOL’s National Agricultural Workers Survey) while others have employers as
respondents (e.g., the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service
Farm Labor Survey, FLS). Surveys that query employers are more likely to pickup unauthorized
employment than are surveys that query individuals.
Estimating whether the number of workers in the United States is sufficient to fulfill employer
demand is difficult because there is no agreed-upon definition of a labor shortage. Economists
believe labor markets reach a balance between supply and demand, with a lag, absent government
policies that prevent a shortage or surplus from occurring. For example, economic theory posits
that firms needing more workers to fill jobs in a particular occupation will initially raise wages to
attract employees from elsewhere in the economy and thereby restore equilibrium between supply
and demand in the occupation. In contrast, businesses tend to think there is a shortage in a given
occupation if as many workers as they want cannot be obtained at the current wage being offered.
Estimating shortages or surpluses also is not straight-forward because the supply of and demand
for labor generally cannot be measured directly. There is no proxy for the supply of workers to ²¹
most occupations. An oft-used measure of demand is employment. Accordingly:
• an increase in an occupation’s employment denotes that employers have
increased their demand for labor and may be moving toward—but have not
reached—a shortfall of workers, while
• a decrease in an occupation’s employment signals that employers either have
^{(1) re}^du^{ced t}^h^ei^{r de}^m^aⁿ^d^f^o^{r l}^a^{bor an}^{d m}^a^y^be^m^o^vⁱ^ng^a^w^a^y^f^r^o^m^a^s^h^ort^a^g^e^{, or}
⁽²⁾^m^aⁱⁿ^tain^ed^o^rⁱⁿ^cr^eased^th^eⁱ^r^d^e^m^aⁿ^d^b^u^t^m^a^y^h^a^v^e^ex^h^a^u^s^ted^th^{e s}^u^p^p^l^y^o^f^r^ead^il^y
^av^{ailable w}^o^r^k^ers^.
The trend in wages commonly is used to clarify the latter situation: if employment in an
occupation falls despite employers substantially bidding up wages, it is assumed that the number
of workers readily available to fill jobs in the occupation may have reached its limit.

²¹^Ex^c^e^p^tions^a^r^e^t^hos^e^oc^c^u^pa^tio^ns^w^{ith v}^e^r^y^w^e^{ll de}^line^a^t^e^d^a^{nd w}ⁱ^de^ly^ag^r^e^e^d^upon^c^r^e^d^eⁿ^tia^ls^{. I}ⁿ^t^h^e^c^a^s^e^of
^r^e^gⁱ^s^t^e^r^e^d^nur^s^e^s^,^f^o^r^e^x^am^ple^,^the^num^be^r^of^s^t^ude^nts^g^r^a^dua^ti^ng^f^r^om^nur^sⁱ^ng^pr^og^r^a^m^s^a^s^w^e^{ll a}^s^t^h^e^num^be^r^of
^w^o^rker^{s i}ⁿ^t^h^{e Uni}^t^e^d^S^t^at^{es al}^read^y^lⁱ^cen^sed^{as regi}^st^er^edⁿ^u^r^{ses wo}^u^l^d^co^m^p^o^s^{e t}^h^{e avai}^l^a^b^l^{e sup}^p^l^y^o^fⁱⁿ^dⁱ^vi^d^u^a^l^s^t^o
^t^h^{e o}^ccup^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^.

Other measures that can be examined to shed additional light on the relationship between labor
supply and demand include unemployment and time worked. Both these indicators are analyzed
below to supplement trends in farm employment and wages.
Although the employment of hired workers engaged in crop or livestock production (including
contract workers) has fluctuated erratically over time, the trend overall has been downward (see
columns 3 and 7 in Table 1). The employment pattern among crop workers hired directly by
growers (i.e., excluding those supplied by farm labor contractors and crew leaders) has regularly
risen and then fallen back, but to a higher level through 2000 (column 4). This ratcheting upward
of employment produced a 12% gain over the 1990-2000 period. In contrast, other wage and
salary workers experienced steady and robust job growth over almost the entire period: from 1990
to 2000, wage and salary employment in nonfarm industries advanced by 18%. These divergent
employment patterns suggest that hired farm workers did not share equally in the nation’s long
economic expansion and appear to be inconsistent with the presence of a nationwide farm labor
shortage at that time.
The labor market continued to contract in 2002, despite the 2001 recession’s end in November
2001. Nonfarm wage and salary employment showed signs of revival in 2003 that have since
continued. In contrast, employment of hired farm workers has not followed a consistently upward
trend. (See columns 3 and 7 of Table 1).
Table 1. Hired Farm Employment
^{(numbers in thousands)}
^Eco^{nomic Research}^{National Agricultur}^{al Statist}ⁱ^cs
^{Service (ERS)}^b^{Service (NASS)}^c
^{Total Nonfar}^m^Agric^ultural
^{Wage & Salary}^{Hired Farm}^{Hired Crop}^{Hired Farm}^Service
^Year^Employment^a^Workers^d^Workers^e^Workers^f^Workers^g^Total
¹⁹⁹^{0 105,}⁷⁰⁵⁸⁸⁶⁴¹⁹⁸⁹²²⁵⁰^1,14²
¹⁹⁹^{1 104,}⁵²⁰⁸⁸⁴⁴⁴⁹⁹¹⁰²⁵⁹^1,16⁹
¹⁹⁹^{2 105,}⁵⁴⁰⁸⁴⁸⁴⁰⁹⁸⁶⁶²⁵²^1,11⁸
¹⁹⁹^{3 107,}⁰¹¹⁸⁰³⁴³⁶⁸⁵⁷²⁵⁶^1,11³
¹⁹⁹^{4 110,}⁵¹⁷⁷⁹³⁴¹¹⁸⁴⁰²⁵⁰^1,09⁰
¹⁹⁹^{5 112,}⁴⁴⁸⁸⁴⁹⁴³³⁸⁶⁹²⁵¹^1,12⁰
¹⁹⁹^{6 114,}¹⁷¹⁹⁰⁶⁴⁵¹⁸³²²³⁶^1,06⁸
¹⁹⁹^{7 116,}⁹⁸³⁸⁸⁹⁴³²⁸⁷⁶²⁴⁰^1,11⁶
¹⁹⁹^{8 119,}⁰¹⁹⁸⁷⁵⁴⁵⁸⁸⁸⁰²⁴⁶^1,12⁶
¹⁹⁹^{9 121,}³²³⁸⁴⁰⁴⁴⁰⁹²⁹²³³^1,16²
²⁰⁰^{0 125,}¹¹⁴⁸⁷⁸⁴⁶⁸⁸⁹⁰²⁴³^1,13³
²⁰⁰^{1 125,}⁴⁰⁷⁷⁴⁵³⁹²⁸⁸¹²⁴⁴^1,12⁵
²⁰⁰^{2 125,}¹⁵⁶⁷⁹³³⁷⁰⁸⁸⁶²²⁵^1,11¹
²⁰⁰^{3 126,}⁰¹⁵⁷⁷⁷³⁷²⁸³⁶²³⁶^1,07²

^Eco^{nomic Research}^{National Agricultur}^{al Statist}ⁱ^cs
^{Service (ERS)}^b^{Service (NASS)}^c
^{Total Nonfar}^m^Agric^ultural
^{Wage & Salary}^a^{Hired Farm}^{Hired Crop}^{Hired Farm}^Service
^Year^Employment^Workers^d^Workers^e^Workers^f^Workers^g^Total
²⁰⁰^{4 127,}⁴⁶³⁷¹²³⁶⁸⁸²⁵²⁷⁷^1,10²
²⁰⁰^{5 129,}⁹³¹⁷³⁰³⁹³⁷⁸⁰²⁸²^1,06²
²⁰⁰^{6 132,}⁴⁴⁹⁷⁴⁸³⁵¹⁷⁵²²⁵⁵^1,00⁷
^Source:^{Created b}^y^the^Congre^{ssional Research Service (CRS) from sources cited below.}
^a.^{Data are from th}^{e monthly CPS, a survey}^{of house}^{holds, as report}^{ed by the}^{DOL’s Burea}^{u of La}^bor
^{Statistics (BLS) for ind}^{ividuals age}^{16 or older.}
^b.^{Data are from th}^{e monthly CPS a}^s^reported^{by the}^{U.S. Department of Agricultu}^{re’s ERS for individuals age}
^{15 or older.}
^c.^{Data are from th}^{e Farm La}^{bor Su}^{rvey (FLS), a quarte}^{rly sur}^{vey of f}^{arm operators, as r}^{eported b}^y^th^{e U.S.}
^Department^{of Agriculture’s}^NA^{SS. The statistics reflect individual}^{s on employers’ pay}^{rolls during t}^he
^survey^{week in Ja}^nua^{ry, April, July, and October. Data for Alaska}^{are not included.}
^d.^{In the}^{CPS, an individual’s occupation is based on the ac}^{tivity in wh}^{ich he s}^pent^{the most}^hours^duri^{ng the}
^survey^{week. Hired farm}^worker^{s are those w}^{hose p}^{rimary job is}^{farm work a}^{nd for whic}^{h they}^re^ceive
^{wages, as opposed to un}^{paid family workers or self-employed farm}^{ers. Hired farm worke}^{rs include}
^{individuals engaged in planting, cu}^{ltivating, and harvesting crop}^{s or}^{tending livestock whom growers}^employ
^{directly or through ag}^{ricultural s}^{ervice providers (e.g., farm labor}^{contractors and}^{crew leaders), as}^{well as}
^{farm ma}^{nagers, su}^{pervisors of}^far^{m workers, and}^nurs^{ery a}^{nd othe}^{r workers.}
^e.^{The ERS disaggregates hired far}^m^{workers b}^y^the^{kind of establish}^{ment em}^{ploying them (i.e., establi}^shment^s
^{primarily engaged in cro}^{p produ}^c^{tion, livestock production or other). As “other” includes agric}^ultu^ral
^{service providers, the}^figures^for^{crop workers a}^{re limited to farm workers whom g}^{rowers em}^{ploy directly.}
^f.^{Persons paid directly by fa}^rmers,^{including field workers (i.e.}^{, those who plant, cultivate a}^{nd harve}^st^crops),
^{livestock workers (i.e.}^{, those who tend livestock, milk cows or ca}^{re for poultry), s}^uper^{visory work}^{ers (e.g.,}
^{managers or}^range^{foremen), and}^{other workers}^{on far}^{mers’ pay}^r^{olls (e}^{.g., bo}^{okkeepers, secretarie}^{s or}
^pilots).
^g.^{Persons su}^{pplied to farmers}^{to p}^{erform ha}^{rvest work, for e}^xampl^{e, but paid b}^y^agricultu^{ral service}^firms
^(e.g.^{, farm labor contractors}^{or c}^{rew leaders). Agricultural service}^{workers pe}^{rform work o}ⁿ^farm^s^{on a}
^{contract or fee}^{basis (e.g., veterinarian services, she}^{ep s}^hearing).
Farm employment is subject to considerable seasonal variation which annual average data masks.
Demand for hired farm labor typically peaks in July when many crops are ready to be harvested.
The July employment statistics from the FLS have ranged from less than 1.1 million to less than
1.5 million since 1990, well above the average for some years shown in the last column of Table
1. Farm employment also varies greatly by geographic area. Recent July data disaggregated by
geographic area available from the FLS are examined below to assess whether demand at its peak
has produced labor shortages in some parts of the country.
Employment of hired workers and agricultural service workers rose 0.8% on the nation’s farms
between July 2006 and July 2007, while in Florida total farm employment fell. (See Table 2.)
When compared with the 1.0% increase in employment among nonfarm wage and salary workers

in 2007, the FLS data do not suggest that peak demand for farm workers nationwide and in ²²
Florida exceeded the domestically available supply of labor this past July.
Table 2. Total Farm Employment in the United States (excluding Alaska) and in
California and Florida, July 2005-July 2007
^{Hired Farm Workers a}^nd^Ag^{ricultural Service Workers}
^{Working on}^Far^ms
^{Number (in thousa}^nds)^{Percent Change}^July
^United^Florida^California^United^Florida^California
^States^States
²⁰⁰^{5 134}⁴⁴³³⁴⁷
²⁰⁰^{6 119}⁶⁴⁶³⁰²^-11.0^6.9^-12.9
²⁰⁰^{7 120}⁵⁴³³²²^0.8^-6.5^6.6
^Source:^{U.S. Department of Agr}^{iculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service,}^Fa^{rm Labor}^{, August releases.}
^Note:^{See footnotes in}^{Table 1}^{for definitions of hired farm wor}^{ker and agricult}^{ural service work}^er.
The situation differed considerably for California growers. Total farm employment in the state
rose at an above-average rate of 6.6% as shown in Table 2. The large job growth rate suggests
California’s farmers faced a comparatively tight labor market this past July.
The state’s high rate of job growth on farms largely was due to greater use of workers supplied by
farm labor contractors. As shown in Table 3, employment of hired farm workers in California
increased by 0.5% (1,000) between July 2006 and July 2007. Over the same period, employment
of agricultural service workers increased by 17.1% or 19,000 (from 111,000 to 130,000)
according to data from the FLS. California’s greater use of agricultural service workers accounted
for one-half of the increase in employment of these workers at the national level (38,000).
Table 3. Number of Hired Farm Workers by Geographic Area, July 2005-July 2007
^{Number of Hired Far}^{m W}^o^r^{kers Excluding}
^Agric^{ultural Service Worker}^s
^{(in thousan}^ds)^{(% cha}^nge)^Area
^{July 200}⁵^{July 200}⁶^{July 200}⁷^{July 200}^5-^{July 200}^6-
^{July 200}⁶^{July 200}⁷
^{United States (excluding AK)}⁹³⁶⁸⁷⁶⁸⁴⁷^-6.4^-3.3
^{Hawaii 7}⁷⁶^0.0^-14.3
^{California 206}¹⁹¹¹⁹²^-7.3^0.5
^{Pacific (OR, WA)}¹⁰⁹⁹²⁹²^-15.6^0.0
^Mountain^{I (ID, MT, WY)}²⁹³⁰²²^3.4^-26.7

²²^A^c^c^o^r^d^ing^t^o^C^P^S^da^ta^,^no^nf^a^r^m^w^a^g^e^a^{nd s}^a^la^r^y^em^plo^y^m^e^{nt a}^v^er^a^g^e^d^132,⁴⁴^9,⁰⁰^{0 i}ⁿ^c^a^l^e^nda^r^y^e^a^r²⁰⁰^{6 a}ⁿ^d
¹³³^,7^59,⁰⁰^{0 i}ⁿ^J^aⁿ^u^a^r^y^-^J^u^l^y²⁰⁰⁷^{. (}^M^oⁿ^th^ly^da^ta^f^o^r²⁰⁰⁷^a^r^e^pr^e^lⁱ^m^ina^r^y^a^{nd s}^ubje^c^t^{to r}^e^vⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^.)

^{Number of Hired Far}^{m W}^o^r^{kers Excluding}
^Agric^{ultural Service Worker}^s
^{(in thousan}^ds)^{(% cha}^nge)^Area
^{July 200}⁵^{July 200}⁶^{July 200}⁷^{July 200}^5-^{July 200}^6-
^{July 200}⁶^{July 200}⁷
^Mountain^{II (CO, NV, UT)}²⁶²⁵¹⁸^-3.8^-28.0
^Mountain^{III (AZ, NM)}²⁴²⁵²²^4.2^-12.0
^Norther^{n Plains (KS, NE, ND, SD)}⁴⁵⁴¹⁴⁰^-8.9^-2.4
^{Southern Plains (OK, TX)}⁶³⁵³⁵⁸^-15.9^9.4
^{Delta (AR, LA}^{, MS)}²⁴³⁰²⁵^25.0^-16.7
^{Cornbelt I (IL, I}^{N, OH)}⁵⁴⁵⁵⁵³^1.9^-3.6
^{Cornbelt II (IA, M}^O)³¹²³²⁴^-25.8^4.3
^{Lake (MI, M}^{N, WI)}⁷⁵⁶⁸⁷⁸^-9.3^14.7
^{Florida 41}⁴³⁴¹^4.9^-4.7
^{Southeast (AL, GA, SC)}⁴⁴⁴¹³¹^-6.8^-24.4
^Appalachian^{I (NC, VA)}³⁸⁴⁰⁴⁰^5.3^0.0
^Appalachian^{II (KY, TN, WV)}²⁴²⁷³⁰^12.5^11.1
^Northeast^{I (CT, ME, MA, NH, N}^{Y, RI, V}^T)⁴⁶³⁶³⁹^-21.7^8.3
^Northeast^{II (DE, MD, NJ, PA)}⁵⁰⁴⁹³⁶^-2.0^-26.5
^Source:^{U.S. Department of Agr}^{iculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service,}^Fa^{rm Labor}^{, August releases.}
^Note:^{See notes in}^{Table 1}^{for definitions of hired farm worker}^{and agricultural ser}^{vice worker.}
When statistics on hired farm workers alone are analyzed, they do not signal a scarcity of farm
labor during a period of peak demand. Employment of hired farm workers in the year ended July
2007 fluctuated much like it had previously over time in the 15 regions and 3 states into which
NASS divides the United States. (See Table 3.) Farmers in eight regions, Florida and Hawaii
reduced their demand for direct-hire farm workers this past July. In addition, employment of hired
farm workers remained the same between July 2006 and July 2007 in the Pacific region (Oregon,
Washington) and Appalachian I region (North Carolina, Virginia). Thus, growers used fewer or
the same number of hired farm workers this July in the majority of regions (10 out of 15) and
states (2 out of 3) for which the FLS provides data.
Variable climate conditions may explain a good deal of the long-standing yearly fluctuations in
farm employment. For example, drought or hurricanes could severely curtail crop production in a
given region in one year that would greatly reduce labor requirements; the following year the
same area could have more normal weather conditions that would produce a larger crop and,
hence, a greater demand for labor. A specific example involves Washington state. Different
weather conditions in 2006 than 2005 affected when demand peaked for harvesting cherries,
which in turn affected the supply of labor to other growers in the state. As a result of the delayed
surge in demand for labor among cherry producers in 2006, many workers who usually would

have switched to working for apple growers in August instead continued to harvest cherries. Their
analysis led Ernst W. Stromsdorfer and John H. Wines to conclude that
^dram^at^ic^y^ear^-^t^o-y^{ear s}^e^a^s^{onal ch}^aⁿ^g^e^s^e^x^plain^m^u^c^h^{of th}^{e co}ⁿ^cern^o^f^ag^ric^u^lt^u^r^al²³
^produ^cers^ov^{er th}^{e adequ}^acy^aⁿ^{d ti}^m^e^liⁿ^e^s^s^of^th^{e s}^u^ppl^y^of^s^eas^on^{al ag}^ric^u^lt^u^r^a^l^w^o^rk^e^r^s^.
Employment data paint an incomplete picture of the state of the labor market. At the same time
that employment in a given occupation is decreasing or increasing relatively slowly,
unemployment in the occupation might be falling. Employers would then be faced with a
shrinking supply of untapped labor from which to draw. A falling unemployment rate or level
would offer some basis for this possibility.
As shown in Table 4, the unemployment rate of hired farm workers engaged in crop or livestock
production (including contract labor) is quite high. Even the economic boom that characterized
most of the 1990s did not reduce the group’s unemployment rate below double-digit levels, or
about twice the average unemployment rate in the nation at a minimum. Discouragement over
their employment prospects in agriculture or better opportunities elsewhere may have prompted
some unemployed farm workers to leave the sector as evidenced by their reduced number after

1998 (see column 4 of the table).

Table 4. The Rate and Level of Unemployment
^{Unemployment Rate}^{Number of}^Unemployed
^{Hired Farm Workers}
^Year^{All Occ}^upations^{Hired Farm Workers}^{(in thousan}^ds)
¹⁹⁹^{4 6.1}^12.1¹⁰⁹
¹⁹⁹^{5 5.6}^12.5¹²¹
¹⁹⁹^{6 5.4}^11.5¹¹⁸
¹⁹⁹^{7 4.9}^10.6¹⁰⁶
¹⁹⁹^{8 4.5}^11.8¹¹⁷
¹⁹⁹^{9 4.2}^10.6¹⁰⁰
²⁰⁰^{0 4.0}^10.6¹⁰⁴
²⁰⁰^{1 4.7}^12.1¹⁰³
²⁰⁰^{2 5.8}^11.4¹⁰²
²⁰⁰^{3 6.0}^12.9¹⁰⁰
²⁰⁰^{4 5.5}^11.4⁹²
²⁰⁰^{5 5.1}^9.0⁷²
²⁰⁰^{6 4.6}^9.4⁷⁸
^Source:^{CPS data tabulated by}^t^{he BLS (column 2) a}^{nd the}^{ERS (columns 3 a}^{nd 4).}

²³^W^a^s^h^ing^t^{on Sta}^t^e^Em^ploy^m^e^{nt Se}^c^u^r^ity^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt, “}^A^g^r^ic^ultur^a^l^Em^ploy^m^e^{nt a}^{nd t}^h^e^I^s^s^u^e^of^a²⁰⁰⁶^Se^a^s^ona^l
^L^a^bor^Shor^ta^g^e^,”²⁰⁰^{6 A}^g^rⁱ^c^u^lt^ur^{al W}^o^r^k^for^c^e^{in W}^a^s^hⁱⁿ^gt^on^St^ate^.

^Note:^{In the CPS, an individual’s}^{occupation is based on}^{the activit}^{y in which}^{he or s}^{he s}^pent^{the m}^{ost hours}
^{during the}^sur^{vey week. The}^{ERS defines hired fa}^{rm workers}^{as in}^{dividuals aged 15 or older whose primary job}
^{is farm work and}^{for which}^they^{receive wages. Hired farm}^worke^{rs include individuals engaged in c}^{rop or}
^{livestock production whom grow}^{ers employ directly or th}^{rough a}^{gricultural service}^{providers (e.g.,}^{farm labor}
^{contractors), as well as farm ma}ⁿ^{agers, supe}^{rvisors of far}^{m worke}^{rs, and n}^urser^{y and othe}^{r worker}^s.
Other observers have examined the unemployment rates in counties that are heavily dependent on
the crop farming industry. The GAO, for example, found that many of these agricultural areas
chronically experienced double-digit unemployment rates that were well above those reported for
much of the rest of the United States. Even when looking at monthly unemployment rates for
these areas in order to take into account the seasonality of farm work, the agency found that the ²⁴
agricultural counties exhibited comparatively high rates of joblessness. These kinds of findings ²⁵
imply a surplus rather than a shortage of farm workers.
Another perspective on the availability of untapped farm labor comes from the DOL’s National
Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS). During FY2001-FY2002, the typical crop worker spent
66% of the year performing farm jobs. The remainder of the year, these farm workers either were
engaged in nonfarm work (10% of the year) or not working (16%) while in the United States, or ²⁶
they were out of the country (7%). This pattern also suggests an excess supply of labor,
assuming that the workers wanted more farm employment. Grower advocates contend that the
pattern is a manifestation of working in a seasonal industry. Even in a month of peak industry ²⁷
demand, however, only a small majority of farm workers hold farm jobs.
Another indicator of supply-demand conditions is the amount of time worked (e.g., hours or
days). If employers are faced with a labor shortage, they might be expected to increase the
amount of time worked by their employees.
Recent data reveal no discernible year-to-year variation in the average number of weekly hours
that hired farm workers are employed in crop or livestock production. According to the FLS, the
average workweek of hired farm workers has ranged narrowly around 40.0 hours since the mid-
1990s. Thus, neither the trend in employment nor in work hours imply the existence of a farm
labor shortage.
There also is not much variability in demand over the course of a year based on hours worked. In
2006, for example, the average week of hired farm workers was 33.2 hours in mid-January, 40.8
hours in mid-April, 41.0 hours in mid-July and 41.6 hours in mid-October. (NASS did not
conduct a survey in the first quarter of 2007.)

²⁴^GA^O,^H^-^{2A Agr}ⁱ^c^u^lt^ur^{al G}^u^e^s^tw^or^k^e^r^Pr^ogr^am^.
²⁵^Se^e^a^l^s^o^te^s^tim^ony^of^C^e^c^ilia^Munoz^,^on^be^ha^lf^of^the^N^a^tio^na^{l Co}^unc^il^of^L^a^Ra^za^be^f^o^re^the^Se^na^te^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y
^Subc^om^m^itte^e^{on I}^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^tion,^Ma^y^{12, 19}^99.
²⁶^DOL^,^Findi^ngs^fr^om^the^N^A^W^S²⁰⁰¹^-²⁰⁰²^.
²⁷^DOL^,^Fⁱⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^s^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e N}^a^tⁱ^o^nal^A^g^ri^cu^l^t^u^r^al^Wo^{rkers S}^u^r^{vey: 19}⁹⁷^-19⁹⁸^.

The instability of the demand for farm labor within a year (i.e., seasonality) is reflected in
employment levels more than in work hours per week. The FLS data show that in 2006, for
example, farmers had 614,000 workers on their payrolls in mid-January; 720,000 in mid-April;

876,000 in mid-July; and 797,000 in mid-October.

Another measure of time worked available from the FLS is “expected days of employment” (i.e.,
farm operators are asked the number of days they intend to utilize their hired farm workers over
the course of a year). As shown in Table 5, they anticipated a low of 579,000 farm workers on
their payrolls for at least 150 days in 2006 and a high of 679,000 (un)authorized workers in 2002.
These “year-round” workers typically have accounted for at least three-fourths of hired farm ²⁸
workers in the current decade.
Table 5. Hired Farm Workers by Expected Days of Employment
^{(numbers in thousands)}
^{150 Days or More of}^{Expected Employment}
^{149 Days or Less}
^{Number of Hired}^{Percent of All Hired}^{of Expected}
^Year^Workers^{Farm Wo}^rkers^Employment
¹⁹⁹^{4 597}⁷¹²⁴³
¹⁹⁹^{5 598}⁶⁹²⁷¹
¹⁹⁹^{6 593}⁷¹²³⁹
¹⁹⁹^{7 629}⁷²²⁴⁷
¹⁹⁹^{8 639}⁷³²⁴¹
¹⁹⁹^{9 666}⁷²²⁶³
²⁰⁰^{0 640}⁷²²⁵¹
²⁰⁰^{1 658}⁷⁵²²⁴
²⁰⁰^{2 679}⁷⁷²⁰⁷
²⁰⁰^{3 635}⁷⁶²⁰¹
²⁰⁰^{4 611}⁷⁴²⁴⁶
²⁰⁰^{5 594}⁷⁶¹⁸⁵
²⁰⁰^{6 579}⁷⁷¹⁷³
^Source:^An^{nual average}^{s calcula}^{ted by CRS from q}^uarterly^{releases of the FLS.}
^Note:^{See note in}^{Table 1}^{for d}^{efinition of hired farm worker.}

²⁸^T^h^e^s^e^fⁱ^g^u^re^{s pote}ⁿ^tia^lly^a^r^e^re^le^v^a^{nt to le}^gⁱ^sla^tio^{n tha}^t^w^{ould l}ⁱ^nk^e^lig^ibility^f^o^{r le}^g^a^liz^a^{tion t}^o^tim^e^speⁿ^{t i}ⁿ^f^a^r^m
^w^o^r^k^{. W}^h^ile^s^o^m^e^mⁱ^g^h^t^wⁱ^s^h^to^us^e^the^a^b^ov^e^-^de^s^c^rⁱ^be^{d da}^ta^t^o^r^o^ug^hly^e^s^ti^m^a^t^e^the^num^be^r^of^una^uth^o^rⁱ^z^e^d^f^a^r^m
^w^o^r^k^e^r^s^w^{ho w}^ould^be^e^lig^ible^t^o^a^d^jus^t^s^t^a^t^us^{, t}^h^e^y^de^s^c^rⁱ^be^the^ex^p^ect^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^of^f^a^r^m^e^r^s^a^{nd the}^y^{do not}^dis^tⁱⁿ^g^u^is^h
^b^e^tw^een^leg^a^{l an}^d^illeg^a^{l w}^o^rk^ers^.^In^ad^d^iti^oⁿ^{, t}^h^{e d}^a^{ta co}^u^l^d^p^r^o^d^u^{ce an}^uⁿ^d^e^restim^at^{e b}^ecau^{se th}^e^y^o^m^{it th}^{e m}^o^re
^t^h^an²⁰⁰^,⁰⁰^{0 co}ⁿ^t^ract^w^o^{rkers o}ⁿ^t^h^{e p}^a^y^r^o^l^l^s^o^f^agri^cu^l^t^u^ral^servi^{ce p}^r^o^vⁱ^d^ers.^A^l^t^e^rn^atⁱ^v^el^y^,^t^h^{e d}^a^t^a^co^u^l^{d p}^r^o^d^u^{ce an}
^o^v^erestⁱ^m^a^t^e^b^ecau^{se t}^h^e^yⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e e}^m^p^l^o^y^e^e^{s n}^o^t^no^rm^al^l^y^t^houg^h^t^of^a^s^f^a^r^m^w^o^r^k^e^r^s⁽^e^.g^{., book}^k^e^e^p^e^r^s^,^pil^o^ts⁾^.

According to the NAWS, the number of actual farm workdays varies by legal status.²⁹
Unauthorized workers averaged 197 days in crop production, compared to 185 days for
authorized workers in FY2001-FY2002. More unauthorized than authorized workers were likely
to spend at least 200 days in farm jobs (58% and 50%, respectively). Within the authorized
population, citizens averaged 175 days and permanent residents, 195 days of employment in
farming during the year.
As previously stated, economic theory suggests that if the demand for labor is nearing or has
outstripped the supply of labor, firms will in the short-run bid up wages to compete for workers.
Consequently, earnings in the short-supply field would be expected to increase more rapidly than
earnings across all industries or occupations. The ratio of, in this instance, farm to nonfarm wages
also would be expected to rise if the farm labor supply were tight.
As shown above in Table 6, the average hourly earnings of field (excluding contract) workers
rose to a greater extent than those of other employees in the private sector between 1990 and
2006, at 73.2% and 64.3%, respectively. Nonetheless, field workers’ pay hardly increased
compared to other workers’ pay: at $9.06 per hour in 2006, field workers still earn little more than

50 cents for every dollar earned by other private sector workers.

Table 6. Average Hourly Earnings of Field Workers and Other Workers in the Private
Sector
^{(in nominal do}^llar^s⁾
^{Average Hourly Wa}^ges
^{of Pr}^odu^{ction o}^r^{Ratio of Hou}^rly
^{Nonsupervisory}^{Field Worker}
^{Average Hourly}^{Workers in the Private}^{Wages to Private}
^Year^{Wages o}^f^{Field Workers}^Nonfarm^Sector^Nonfarm^W^{orker Wa}^ges
¹⁹⁹^{0 $5.23}^$10.2⁰^0.51
¹⁹⁹^{1 5.49}^10.5²^0.52
¹⁹⁹^{2 5.69}^10.7⁷^0.53
¹⁹⁹^{3 5.90}^11.0⁵^0.53
¹⁹⁹^{4 6.02}^11.3⁴^0.53
¹⁹⁹^{5 6.13}^11.6⁵^0.53
¹⁹⁹^{6 6.34}^12.0⁴^0.53
¹⁹⁹^{7 6.66}^12.5¹^0.53
¹⁹⁹^{8 6.97}^13.0¹^0.54
¹⁹⁹^{9 7.19}^13.4⁹^0.53
²⁰⁰^{0 7.50}^14.0²^0.53
²⁰⁰^{1 7.78}^14.5⁴^0.54
²⁰⁰^{2 8.12}^14.9⁷^0.54

²⁹^DOL^,^Findi^ngs^fr^om^the^N^A^W^S²⁰⁰¹^-²⁰⁰²^.

^{Average Hourly Wa}^ges
^{of Pr}^odu^{ction o}^r^{Ratio of Hou}^rly
^{Nonsupervisory}^{Field Worker}
^{Average Hourly}^{Workers in the Private}^{Wages to Private}
^Year^{Wages o}^f^{Field Workers}^Nonfarm^Sector^Nonfarm^W^{orker Wa}^ges
²⁰⁰^{3 8.31}^15.3⁷^0.54
²⁰⁰^{4 8.45}^15.6⁹^0.54
²⁰⁰^{5 8.70}^16.1³^0.54
²⁰⁰^{6 9.06}^16.7⁶^0.54
¹⁹⁹^0-2⁰⁰^{6 c}^hange^73.2%^64.3%^—
^Source:^{Created b}^y^{CRS from F}^{LS (column 2) and BLS (column}³⁾^{employer sur}^{vey data.}
^Note:^F^{ield workers are a su}^bse^{t of hired farm work}^{ers w}^{ho eng}^{age in planting, tending a}^{nd ha}^rve^{sting crops.}
^{The data relate to all field worke}^{rs regardless of met}^{hod of payme}^{nt (i.e., those paid an hourly rate,}^{by th}^{e piece}
^{or a combination of the two). Workers paid directly by agric}^ultur^{al service providers are e}^xcluded.
An over-the-year comparison of farm and nonfarm wage data for the nation in the peak demand
month of July also does not suggest the presence of a labor shortage. As shown in Table 7, the
hourly wages of field workers increased at an accelerating rate between July 2005-July 2006 and
July 2006-July 2007. But, growers generally did not bid up wages to attract workers to a greater ³⁰
degree than employers in other industries.
However, growers in three areas—California, Mountain II (Colorado, Nevada and Utah) and
Mountain III (Arizona, New Mexico)—raised wages in July 2007 to a much greater extent than
the U.S. average for field workers (4.3%) and for employees in private nonfarm industries
(4.1%). It appears that only California’s above-average wage increase may have been associated
with labor scarcity.
Table 7. Hourly Wage Rates of Hired Field Workers by Area, July 2005-July 2007
^{Hourly Wage o}^f^{Field Worke}^{rs Excludin}^g
^Agric^{ultural Service Worker}^s
^{(in cur}^{rent dollars)}^{(percent cha}^nge)^Area
^{July 200}⁵^{July 200}⁶^{July 200}⁷^{July 200}^5-^{July 200}^6-
^{July 200}⁶^{July 200}⁷
^{United States (excluding Alaska)}^8.61^8.93^9.31^3.7^4.3
^Hawaii^10.0⁰^10.2⁶^10.7^{0 2.6 4.3}
^California^8.76^8.92^{9.80 1.8 9.9}
^{Pacific (OR, WA)}^8.60^9.50^9.64^10.5^1.5
^Mountain^{I (ID, MT, WY)}^8.39^8.41^8.36^0.2^-0.6
^Mountain^{II (CO, NV, UT)}^8.62^8.33^9.25^-3.4^11.0

³⁰^B^a^s^e^{d on}^da^ta^c^o^lle^c^t^e^d^by^the^U^.^{S. B}^u^r^e^a^u^of^L^a^bor^Sta^tis^tic^s^f^o^r^pr^o^duc^ti^{on a}ⁿ^d^no^ns^u^p^e^r^vⁱ^s^o^r^y^w^o^r^k^e^r^s^{in pr}^iv^a^t^e
^nonf^a^r^m^indus^tr^ie^s^,^a^v^e^r^a^g^e^hour^l^y^e^a^r^ning^s^g^r^ew^b^y^3.9%ⁱⁿ²⁰⁰⁶^a^{nd by}^4.1%ⁱⁿ^t^h^e^J^a^nua^r^y^-^J^ul^y²⁰⁰⁷^pe^rⁱ^od.^T^h^e
^em^ploy^ee^s^ha^{d a}^v^e^r^a^g^e^hour^ly^e^a^rⁿ^ing^s^of^$1^6.¹³ⁱⁿ²⁰⁰⁵^{, $}¹⁶^.⁷⁶ⁱⁿ²⁰⁰⁶^{, a}ⁿ^d^$1^7.4⁵ⁱⁿ^J^u^ly²⁰⁰⁷⁽^p^r^e^lim^ina^r^y^da^ta
^s^ubje^c^t^to^r^e^vⁱ^sⁱ^on)^.

^{Hourly Wage o}^f^{Field Worke}^{rs Excludin}^g
^Agric^{ultural Service Worker}^s
^{(in cur}^{rent dollars)}^{(percent cha}^nge)^Area
^{July 200}⁵^{July 200}⁶^{July 200}⁷^{July 200}^5-^{July 200}^6-
^{July 200}⁶^{July 200}⁷
^Mountain^{III (AZ, NM)}^7.90^7.55^8.34^-4.4^10.5
^Norther^{n Plains (KS, NE, ND, SD)}^8.15^8.94^9.13^9.7^2.1
^{Southern Plains (OK, TX)}^8.07^8.53^8.14^5.7^-4.6
^{Delta (AR, LA}^{, MS)}^7.59^8.06^8.14^6.2^0.9
^{Cornbelt I (IL, I}^{N, OH)}^9.20^9.46^9.22^2.8^-2.5
^{Cornbelt II (IA, M}^O)^8.86^9.85^9.44^11.2^-4.2
^{Lake (MI, M}^{N, WI)}^8.66^9.37^9.52^8.2^1.6
^{Florida 8.75}^8.39^8.50^-4.1^1.3
^{Southeast (AL, GA, SC)}^8.39^8.21^8.57^-2.1^4.4
^Appalachian^{I (NC, VA)}^8.44^9.14^8.80^8.3^-3.7
^Appalachian^{II (KY, TN, WV)}^8.46^8.64^8.55^2.1^-1.0
^Northeast^{I (CT, ME, MA, NH, N}^{Y, RI, V}^T)^8.88^9.28^9.58^4.5^3.2
^Northeast^{II (DE, MD, NJ, PA)}^8.71^9.26^9.62^6.3^3.9
^Source:^{U.S. Department of Agr}^{iculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service,}^Fa^{rm Labor}^{, August releases.}
^Note:^{A hired field worker is anyone, other tha}^{n an}^{agricultural s}^{ervice worker, who was}^{paid for}^{at least one}
^{hour of work on}^{a farm}^spe^{nt pla}^{nting, tending and}^harvesting^cro^{ps (including operation of fa}^{rm m}^{achinery on}
^{crop farm}^{s). The figures}^{reflect al}^{l ways in which}^{farm worke}^{rs are}^{paid (e.g., by the hour, b}^y^the^pie^{ce). The}
^{wage rate is calculated based on t}^{otal wages paid and hours worke}^{d during the}^sur^{vey week.}
The wage rate of field workers in California increased by 9.9% between July 2006 and July 2007.
(See Table 7.) The wage rate of agricultural service workers employed on the state’s farms rose ³¹
as well (5.4%). These above-average wage increases likely contributed to the state’s
comparatively high increase of 6.6% in hired farm worker and agricultural service employment in
July 2007, as previously shown in Table 3. According to the August 2007 Farm Labor release of
July data, “continued concern [of California growers] about potential labor shortages due to
increased border security [led them to pay] ... workers more in order to compete with the higher
paying construction industry.”
Some southwestern growers also reportedly reacted to the tightening of the farm labor market this
summer by
^rais^ing^crops^acros^s^t^h^{e border}^w^h^ere^m^a^ny^{of th}^e^w^o^r^k^er^s^{are ... Wes}^t^ern^Gro^w^ers^,^aⁿ
^as^s^o^ciation^repres^en^ti^ng^f^a^r^m^e^r^sⁱⁿ^C^a^li^f^o^rn^{ia an}^d^A^r^izon^{a, c}^oⁿ^d^u^c^{ted an}ⁱⁿ^f^o^rm^a^l^s^u^rv^ey^o^f

³¹^W^a^ge^r^a^te^s^of^indivⁱ^dua^ls^w^ho^p^e^r^f^or^m^w^o^r^k^{on f}^a^r^m^s^unde^r^a^c^o^ntr^a^c^t^or^f^e^e^a^r^r^a^ng^em^eⁿ^{t a}^r^e^a^v^aⁱ^la^ble^f^r^om^the
^FL^{S f}^o^r^only^C^a^lif^or^nia^a^{nd Fl}^orⁱ^d^a^.^Iⁿ^J^u^ly²⁰⁰^{6, t}^h^e^h^our^ly^w^a^g^e^r^a^te^of^a^g^rⁱ^c^u^ltur^a^{l s}^e^r^v^ic^e^w^o^r^k^e^r^s^{in C}^a^lif^or^nia
^w^a^s^$9.4⁹^{; i}ⁿ^J^u^ly²⁰⁰⁷^{, $}¹⁰^.⁰⁰^.

^its^m^e^m^b^ersⁱⁿ^t^h^{e s}^p^ring^{. T}^w^e^l^v^e^larg^{e ag}^rib^u^sⁱⁿ^e^s^s^es^t^h^{at a}^c^kⁿ^o^w^l^e^d^g^e^d^h^a^vⁱⁿ^g^o^p^e^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s³²
ⁱⁿ^Mexi^{co report}^e^{d a}^t^o^t^a^l^of¹¹^,000^w^o^rk^ers^[t^]h^ere.
This is one of the actions that economists hypothesize employers will take to bring a scarce labor
input into balance with demand. It is akin to the offshoring of work engaged in by other U.S.
industries. Thus, the farm labor market in California functioned as economists theorize: growers
were able to attract more workers by substantially raising wages, and they economized on U.S.
labor by offshoring production.
The well above-average wage increases among field workers shown in Table 7 in Mountain II
(Colorado, Nevada and Utah) and Mountain III (Arizona, New Mexico) is related to the same
factor that pushed up the average hourly wage of all hired farm workers—namely, “a greater ³³
percentage of salaried workers putting in fewer hours.” The lower demand for labor, evidenced
by fewer hours worked, appears due to different climate conditions in July 2007 compared to a
year earlier. The reduced employment in Mountain II this past July resulted from the winter wheat
harvest “being behind last year’s pace,” and the lower employment in Mountain III resulted from
“abnormally hot and extremely dry weather” that limited activity on farms during the survey’s ³⁴
reference week.

In summary, indicators of supply-demand conditions generally are inconsistent with the existence
of a nationwide shortage of domestically available farm workers in part because the measures
include both authorized and unauthorized employment. This finding does not preclude the
possibility of farm worker shortages in certain parts of the country at various times during the
year. The analysis does not address the adequacy of authorized workers in the seasonal farm labor
supply relative to grower demand.
Whether there would be an adequate supply of authorized U.S. farm workers if new technologies
were developed or different labor-management practices were implemented continues to be an
unanswered question. Whether more U.S. workers would be willing to become farm workers if
wages were raised and whether the size of the increase would make the industry uncompetitive in
the world marketplace also remain open issues. These matters remain unresolved because
perishable crop growers have rarely, if ever, had to operate without unauthorized aliens being ³⁵
present in the domestic farm workforce.

³²^“^S^hort^oⁿ^L^a^bor,^Fa^rm^e^r^s^{in U}^.^{S. Shif}^{t to}^Me^xⁱ^c^o^,”^{New Yo}^{rk T}ⁱ^mes^{, Se}^pte^m^be^r^{5, 2}⁰⁰⁷^.
³³^N^A^SS,^Far^m^La^bor^{, A}^u^gu^st²⁰⁰⁷^,^p.^{1 an}^{d co}ⁿ^v^er^satⁱ^o^{n b}^e^t^w^een^C^R^S^an^d^NA^S^S^st^af^f^.^N^A^S^S^cal^c^u^l^a^t^e^{s w}^a^{ge r}^a^t^e^s
^b^a^sed^oⁿ^t^o^t^a^l^w^a^g^e^{s p}^aⁱ^d^an^{d hou}^{rs w}^o^rked^d^u^rⁱⁿ^{g t}^h^{e su}^rvey^w^e^e^k^.^S^a^l^a^ri^ed^w^o^{rkers are p}^aⁱ^d^{a p}^r^e-set^su^m^p^e^r^w^e^e^k
^or^m^onth,^f^o^r^e^x^am^ple^,^tha^t^isⁿ^o^t^dir^e^c^tly^link^e^{d to t}^h^eⁱ^rⁱⁿ^put⁽^u^nli^k^e^hour^ly^w^o^r^k^e^r^s^w^{ho a}^r^e^pa^id^b^a^s^e^{d on t}^h^e
^num^be^r^of^hour^s^the^y^a^c^t^ua^ll^y^w^o^r^k⁾^or^theⁱ^r^ou^tp^{ut (}^u^nlik^e^pi^ece-r^a^t^e^w^o^rk^ers^w^h^o^{are p}^aⁱ^d^b^a^sed^on^t^h^{e am}^ount^of
^cro^p^s^t^h^ey^h^a^rvest⁾^.
³⁴^C^onv^e^r^s^a^tion^be^tw^e^eⁿ^C^R^S^a^nd^N^A^{SS s}^t^af^f^.
³⁵^Iⁿ^t^h^e^c^onf^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^r^e^por^{t f}^o^r^t^h^e^D^O^L^’^s^FY^{2000 a}^p^pr^opr^ia^ti^{on (}^H^.^R^e^p^{t. 1}^06-⁴⁷⁹⁾^{, D}^O^L^w^a^s^c^h^a^r^g^e^{d w}^{ith r}^e^por^ting
^{on w}^a^y^s^{to pr}^om^ote^a^le^g^a^{l f}^a^r^m^w^o^r^k^f^o^r^c^e^a^{nd on}^opt^io^ns^f^o^r^s^u^c^h^th^ing^s^a^s^im^pr^ov^ing^f^a^r^m^w^o^r^k^er^c^o^m^p^eⁿ^s^a^{tion a}ⁿ^d
^de^v^e^loping^a^m^o^r^e^s^t^a^b^le^w^o^r^k^f^o^r^c^e^.^T^h^e^r^e^por^{t (}^U^.^S^.^D^e^par^tm^eⁿ^t^{of L}^a^b^o^r^Re^p^o^r^t^t^o^C^o^ngr^e^s^s^:^The^Agrⁱ^c^u^lt^ur^al
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

^Li^nd^a^Le^vi^ne
^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^L^a^b^o^r^Ecoⁿ^o^m^ic^s
^l^l^e^vⁱⁿ^e^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov^{, 7-}⁷⁷⁵⁶

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^Lab^o^r^M^a^r^k^e^t^—St^a^tus^an^{d Re}^c^o^m^m^e^ndati^ons⁾^w^a^s^is^s^u^e^dⁱⁿ^D^e^c^e^m^b^e^r²⁰⁰⁰^{. R}^e^c^o^m^m^e^nda^tionsⁱⁿ^c^l^ude^{d c}^ontiⁿ^uⁱ^ng
^ap^p^r^op^ri^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^o^{r A}^g^W^o^{rk (i}^.^e^.^,^anⁱⁿ^t^e^rⁿ^et^-b^ased^,^oⁿ^-^lⁱⁿ^e^j^o^b^m^a^t^c^hⁱⁿ^g^sy^st^e^m^sp^eci^fⁱ^cal^l^y^f^o^{r agri}^cu^l^t^u^ral^em^p^l^o^y^ee^s
^a^{nd e}^m^ploy^e^r^s⁾^{, e}ⁿ^c^our^a^g^ing^g^r^e^a^te^r^us^e^of^a^u^tom^a^te^{d em}^ploy^ee^v^e^rⁱ^fⁱ^c^a^{tion s}^y^s^t^em^s^,^a^{nd f}^u^r^t^he^r^pur^s^u^ing^H^-^2A
^prog^ra^m^stre^a^m^lining^w^h^ile^m^a^inta^ining^f^a^r^m^w^o^rk^e^r^prote^c^tions^{. T}^h^e^r^e^por^t^c^onc^l^ude^d^tha^t^I^R^C^A^’^s^f^a^r^m^le^g^a^liza^tion
^p^r^o^g^ram^f^aⁱ^l^e^d^t^o^t^u^rⁿ^an^uⁿ^a^u^t^hori^zedⁱⁿ^t^o^an^a^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^zed^w^o^rkf^o^rc^e.^It^assert^ed^t^h^at^p^r^op^o^s^al^{s t}^o^{ease gro}^w^er^{s’ acc}^ess
^{to te}^m^pora^r^y^f^a^r^m^w^o^r^k^e^r^{s outsid}^e^the^e^x^isting^H-2A^prog^ra^m^“^w^o^u^ld^no^{t c}^r^e^a^t^e^a^le^g^a^{l dom}^e^s^tic^a^g^ric^u^ltura^l
^w^o^rk^f^o^rce”^an^dⁱⁿ^st^{ead “w}^o^u^l^d^l^o^w^e^r^wage^{s an}^d^w^o^rkiⁿ^{g an}^d^lⁱ^vⁱ^{ng c}^onditi^ons^{in a}^g^ric^u^lt^ura^l^j^{obs r}^e^sultingⁱⁿ^f^e^w^e^r
^dom^e^s^tic^w^o^r^k^e^r^s^c^ontinui^ng^e^m^p^l^oy^m^e^{nt in a}^g^rⁱ^c^u^ltur^e^aⁿ^d^pe^r^p^e^t^ua^ting^theⁱⁿ^dus^tr^y^’^s^de^pe^nde^nc^e^{on a}^f^o^r^e^ig^{n la}^b^o^r
^f^o^rce.^”^T^h^{e rep}^o^r^t^no^t^e^{d t}^h^at^oⁿ^e^ap^p^r^o^ach^t^o^creatⁱⁿ^{g an}^a^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^zed^sup^p^l^y^o^f^cro^p^w^o^{rkers h}^a^dⁿ^e^{ver b}^een^t^rⁱ^e^d^,
^na^m^e^l^y^{, inc}^r^e^a^s^ing^wa^ge^{s a}^{nd im}^prov^ing^w^o^rk^ing^c^ond^itio^ns^“^b^y^norm^a^liz^ing^le^ga^{l prote}^c^tio^{ns f}^o^{r f}^a^r^m^w^o^rk^e^r^{s a}^nd
ⁱⁿ^creasiⁿ^{g mech}^anⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ^,^{” w}^hⁱ^c^{h h}^a^{s t}^h^e^p^o^t^entⁱ^a^l^t^o^at^t^r^act^m^o^{re U.}^S^.^w^o^{rkers t}^o^agri^cu^l^t^u^{re and}^rai^s^{e t}^h^e
^pro^duc^tiv^ity^of^a^possibly^s^m^a^lle^r^f^a^r^m^la^{bor f}^o^rc^e^.^{In re}^c^o^gⁿ^itio^{n t}^h^a^t^the^r^e^mⁱ^g^h^{t be}^shor^t-ru^{n i}ⁿ^c^r^e^a^s^e^s^{in g}^r^ow^e^r^s’
^la^bor^c^o^s^t^s^w^e^r^e^the^s^e^r^e^c^o^m^m^eⁿ^d^a^tio^ns^im^plem^eⁿ^te^{d, D}^O^L^ur^g^e^{d C}^ong^r^e^s^s^w^a^s^ur^g^e^{d to c}^ons^ide^r^w^a^y^s^{to te}^m^por^a^r^il^y
^{assist th}^em^.