In Their Own Words

Farmworkers are vital to the success of California’s agricultural industry and the broader agrifood system, yet many face economic, social, and health-related challenges. Nearly two-thirds of California crop workers have household incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, more than half self-identify as undocumented, and their jobs are regularly ranked as highly dangerous.

These and other challenges have, in part, been attributed to historical discrimination and the resulting exclusion of farmworkers from federal labor laws, including laws with protections related to youth employment, unionization, minimum wages, and overtime standards. In 2016, California passed legislation to gradually phase in overtime standards beginning in 2019. Since then, four other states—New York, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado—have passed similar legislation.

Overtime regulations aim to improve worker well-being by requiring higher pay for working long hours. However, worker incomes could fall if employers reduce hours to avoid paying overtime rates, making workers who value extra income more than additional leisure time worse off. In this case, employers would also need to hire additional workers, invest in labor-saving technology, or make larger changes like switching to less labor-intensive crops.

My research using the National Agricultural Workers Survey shows that in the two years following the phase-in of California’s overtime standards for agricultural workers, the average California crop worker experienced reduced hours and earnings. Fewer workers worked at or just below the prior overtime threshold of 60 hours per week, and more worked at or just below the 2020 threshold of 50 hours per week. Reduction in hours was accompanied with decreases in workers’ weekly take-home pay. These changes are consistent with employers cutting individual worker hours to remain under overtime thresholds.

This early evidence suggests that the law may not be benefiting the workers it aims to protect, but additional research is needed. It is possible that despite these outcomes, workers are happy to accept the lower pay in exchange for fewer working hours and more leisure time. Additionally, the law might have led to increased job opportunities in agriculture, improving well-being for previously unemployed or underemployed individuals, or resulted in safer working environments, since research suggests longer hours can increase workplace injuries. On the other hand, workers and their families who were depending on this lost income may now need to seek out additional employment opportunities, negating these other benefits and adding the inconvenience of traveling between jobs. I am currently exploring these and other outcomes using alternative data sources.