Farmworkers Take Legal Action Against Trump's Wage Policy Changes

Legal Action Taken Against Wage Cuts for H-2A Visa Workers

A coalition of farmworkers, along with various advocacy groups, has initiated legal proceedings against the Trump Administration over recent modifications to wage policies affecting foreign agricultural laborers under the H-2A visa program. This visa scheme is utilized for the temporary employment of foreign individuals to fill labor shortages in the U.S. agricultural sector.

The recent changes instituted by the U.S. Department of Labor alter the methodology behind calculating the adverse effect wage rate (AEWR), which establishes the minimum hourly wage for H-2A visa holders. This rate is crucial to ensuring that the wages of American farmworkers are protected from being undermined by cheaper foreign labor.

According to a press release issued by the UFW Foundation, the amendments are expected to reduce H-2A workers' wages by as much as $5 to $7 per hour. The Department of Labor has claimed that the intent behind this policy adjustment is to address labor shortages while still keeping consumer costs stable.

Diego Iñiguez-López, who serves as the Director of Government Affairs for the United Farmworkers Foundation, criticized the policy, framing it as a financial advantage to large agricultural companies. He stated, “It’s more of a Christmas gift to huge agricultural corporations,” emphasizing that these changes may redirect approximately $2.46 billion annually from workers to employers.

Iniguéz-López also warned that the new wage policy could negatively impact domestic workers' earnings, particularly those working alongside H-2A laborers. He explained, “The rule’s going to allow employers to use cheaper labor, ultimately incentivizing them to use H-2A workers over U.S. workers who are willing and able to do this work.”

The lawsuit states that in Michigan, the legally mandated H-2A wage could fall beneath the state minimum, potentially dropping to $12.46 per hour. Concurrently, domestic agricultural workers could see their wages diminish from $18.15 to $13.78, as indicated in the legal filings.

Iñiguez-López further remarked on the profound financial implications this wage decline could impose on farmworkers, affecting their ability to cover basic needs such as food, housing, transportation, and healthcare. He noted, “It forces them to get second jobs, make cuts to groceries, gas, and other necessities, and it forces them to move because they wouldn’t be able to afford where they currently live.”

He added, “A large percentage of farmworkers already live in poverty, and these wage cuts will deepen that poverty all for the purpose of corporate greed.”

Among the plaintiffs are farmworkers connected to Michigan, including Irene Mendoza, a U.S. citizen who has been earning only $17 an hour, falling short of the promised $20. Another U.S. citizen farmworker, Margaret DeAnda Magallon from Kalamazoo, expressed concerns about needing extra work or relying on food assistance due to the anticipated wage reductions.

Iñiguez-López contends that the newly implemented rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a forum for public input. This assertion is supported by the UFW Foundation's press release, which highlights the absence of a public comment period.

The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration that the revised wage policy is unlawful and aims to prevent any adverse effects on farmworkers across the nation.