An international forum focusing on labor conditions in the Washington State Apple industry was convened in Yakima on August 8. Under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) the forum was one part of a complicated process arising from complaint filed in 1998 by progressive labor unions in Mexico.

The complaint alleges that conditions in Washington orchards violate labor standards mandated by the NAFTA side agreement on labor, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). The complaint could ultimately result in trade sanctions against Washington apples, including loss of export privileges. Mexico currently buys about 30% of Washington's exported apples.

The complaint (official title, Public Communication number 9802, filed with the Mexican Department of Labor) names violations of several of the eleven labor principles of the NAALC, including, the lack of legal protection for farmworker union organizing and collective bargaining, discrimination against migrant workers, a failure to effectively enforce state laws with respect to minimum labor standards and the protection of worker health and safety. In August of 1999, the Mexican government completed its review of the complaint and requested ministerial consultations. The August 8 forum was agreed to by the US and Mexico in May 2000.

Marking the first time that workers have had a chance to confront a US industry under NAFTA rules, the forum was designed for immigrant workers to put their concerns on record, speaking directly to industry and the authorities that enforce the labor laws.

The all day forum was divided into two panel segments, with a plethora of officials in attendance. Hosted by the US Dept. of Labor, and with Mexican labor officials taking notes, panels were composed of representatives from the Washington State Department of Agriculture; The Dept. of Health and Labor and Industries, The US Justice Dept.'s labor section, The United Farm Workers (UFW), immigrant workers in the Washington Apple industry, and a representative from the Washington Growers League. The Mexican Consul for Washington State, Jorge Madrazo attended as an observer.

Also attending as observers/supporters were representatives of labor organizations from Washington State, Canada, and Brazil. A hundred or so people were in the audience, including a considerable number of farmworkers and interested community organizations. Noticeable by their absence, were growers themselves. Their were a couple, and some agribusiness attorneys were in evidence, but the actual representation of the entire Washington State apple industry fell to Mike Gempler, executive director of the Washington Growers League. Denouncing the forum as a "kangaroo court," he called it an unnecessary interference in our already adequate labor laws. Little more than a PR stunt on the part of the UFW.

Farmworkers presented their testimonies of being cheated out of their wages, intimidated against organizing, suffering exposures to unknown pesticides, working with serious injuries and discouraged from seeking treatment under threat of being fired. Gempler responded that "there are two sides to these stories." He complained that it was unfair that the growers didn't have the opportunity to defend themselves. When asked why the growers weren't in attendance, having been invited, Gempler wondered why they should show up just to be vilified.

Making it clear the extent of his displeasure with the very premise of the proceeding, Gempler huffed about its use to "embarrass certain employers and other hardworking people and the United States Government." Questioning Mexico's compliance with its own labor laws, he held up a New York Times from May, with a front page article about Mexico's mistreatment of its own agricultural workers. He said that the WGL discourages its members from mistreating their workers, and indicated conditions aren't as bad as the workers say.

Speaking for our own laws, the somewhat defensive representatives from Washington State agencies by and large didn't have much to say about the elements of the complaint. They all claimed, by and large, to be enforcing the laws to the best of their budgets and mandate. As it is largely the sufficiency of that enforcement, and of the agencies' budgets and mandates that is at issue in the complaint, there was little in the way of mitigation these agencies could offer.

Department of Labor and Industries officials professed shock at the accounts by injured workers of being denied benefits because they are in the country illegally. In truth, as insurance benefits, all workers pay into the system and are officially entitled to benefits, despite their undocumented status. The officials insisted it must have been misunderstandings, and rushed to take information from complaining workers.

Workers complained that Growers always know when the State is going to inspect and had time to prepare. Inspectors for WISHA and the Dept. of Health denied that they warned the growers.

A pesticide inspector from the Washington State Dept. of Agriculture said even he doesn't know where he is going to inspect, he watches for plumes in the fields and goes where he can see spraying is going on. He admitted there was a serious problem with drift.

Pesticides were generally acknowledged as a significant problem. Inadequate training, no training, inadequate equipment, no equipment, no requirement that instructions for pesticide use be provided in Spanish to Spanish speaking workers, no instructions in Spanish on the container labels themselves, speed above safety in the fields.

The Dept. of Health has one pesticide inspector for the whole eastern side of the state (three on the west side). Workers' Compensation claims for pesticide exposure are routinely denied more often than most other types of claims because it is difficult to correlate the worker's injuries with a specific exposure. No documentation is kept, thus, no exposures can be documented.

Workers recounted their stories of doctors that support too many workers' claims too enthusiastically, facing pressure from government and growers alike. A worker who told about being fired after firing an injury claim, told he would be deported if he persisted.

Workers detailed the ways they are cheated out of their wages by spurious fees, endemic undercounting of apples picked under the piece rate pay system. Always the threats of firing and deportation, for complaining, for organizing, for refusing to be cheated.

The were no answers at the forum. No NAFTA mechanism exists for ensuring safety, fair treatment and respect for the workers. There are amnesty proposals floating around Congress. Washington State promises increasing attention to worker housing and even the growers' representative agreed in principle to develop and promote Spanish language instructions for pesticides.

As for the possibility of trade sanctions, neither the US nor Mexican governments would be excited about a trade war sparked by apples. At the same time, treatment of Mexican workers by gringo bosses can be expected to be taken notice of in Mexico. Mexico's president, Vicente Fox has made the situation of Mexican workers in the US a high profile priority of his administration. The testimony of the forum is certain to inform the ongoing discussions between the US and Mexico in a number of areas.

The forum, if not a breakthrough, represents a milestone in the process of justice for immigrant workers. It's the first time that workers have had a chance to express their complaints so everybody could hear, from the Mexican Consul to representatives of Washington's governor and senators to front line bureaucrats. As one woman, speaking in Spanish said to the Washington State representatives sitting on the panel. "We are not here asking for help, we are asking that you fulfill your legal obligations."