McDonald's vs. the Tomato Pickers

By Kari Lydersen, The NewStandard. Posted December 20, 2005.

Having forced Taco Bell to pay tomato pickers a penny more per pound, a farmworkers' organization in southern Florida is pressuring McDonald's for a similar agreement. But the group charges that the fast-food chain has attempted to circumvent the campaign, instead signing on to a corporate responsibility pledge that critics suspect was cooked up by companies working to maintain the dismal status quo suffered by laborers in American tomato fields.

Last spring, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) won an unprecedented victory when their boycott and protests convinced Taco Bell and parent company, Yum Brands, to ensure companies from which it buys tomatoes will pay their field hands one cent more per pound and adhere to a relatively progressive workers' rights code. This fall, the CIW launched a campaign demanding McDonald's sign a comparable agreement, hoping that McDonald's, even more so than Taco Bell, could help raise wages and improve working conditions across the board.

The organization of mostly immigrant workers is asking that McDonald's pay a "fair increase" per pound for the tomatoes it purchases and that the restaurant chain ensure the price increase gets passed on to the tomato pickers. The Immokalee Workers also asks that McDonald's "establish an enforceable code of conduct to ensure safe working conditions" in the fields where its tomatoes are picked.

In a letter the CIW asks supporters to pass on to the fast food giant, the group writes: "Your recent initiative to offer only fair trade coffee in your New England restaurants demonstrates your commitment to the principles of fair wages and working conditions for those who produce the food you sell. You have the opportunity to ensure the same kind of dignity for the tomato pickers in your supply chain by following the lead established by Yum Brands earlier this year."

But the CIW says that after several talks with McDonald's officials, they have made little headway. Company representatives did not return any of several calls about this issue.

The company has, however, joined an initiative called the Socially Accountable Farm Employer (SAFE) voluntary certification program. The initiative purports to certify producers that have "complied with all applicable laws and regulations governing employment" and foster a work environment "free of hazard, intimidation, violence and harassment."

SAFE was announced November 3 and so far is run by board members from two organizations: the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association industry group and the Redlands Christian Migrant Association, a nonprofit providing childcare to migrant workers.

Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association spokesperson Ray Gilmer explained that SAFE will be a voluntary certification program, in which an international auditing firm called Intertek, which already performs safety audits for McDonald's, will annually evaluate participating growers and award them a SAFE certification if they are found in compliance.

Input and protections absent

But critics of SAFE -- most prominently the CIW and the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights -- point out that SAFE does not include any input from workers and does little to address low wages. Some workers in Immokalee currently bring in about $8,000 a year.

The initiative also does not guarantee workers overtime pay or the right to organize. It only requires that growers follow all applicable laws, which, for farmworkers in the US, provide few legal protections. The National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees the right to unionize, does not apply to agricultural workers. And the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts them from overtime pay.

Amanda Shanor, program director with the Center for Human Rights, said she suspects McDonald's is using SAFE as a way to avoid signing an agreement guaranteeing better wages and organized labor protections.

"McDonald's has decided to work with the growers instead of the workers," she said. "CIW or any other workers had no say in what the SAFE Code of Conduct would entail or how it would work ... Without worker input, a meaningful code of conduct, and a real mechanism to address the workers' sub-poverty wages, this is not a real solution."

In interviews with The NewStandard, the two organizations participating in SAFE acknowledged that so far no workers have been involved in the initiative, but said a diversity of groups will be represented by board members. They would not, however, specifically say that workers would be included.

"This is a fledgling organization," said Redlands Christian Migrant Association director of community relations Matt Bokor. "Our hope is that it moves the needle in a positive direction for farmworkers. It's not a panacea; no one's thinking it's the be-all and end-all, but we envision in five years' time there'll be enough buy-in from growers that you'll see orange juice with the SAFE seal in stores and also OJ without it, and the shopper might choose the SAFE product."

Kari Lydersen is a core contributor to The NewStandard, a nonprofit and anti-commercial independent news site.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »