By Edgar Sanchez, Special to the UFW

Doroteo Jimenez, a Lodi farm worker, remains outraged over the death of his niece Maria Isavel Vasquez Jimenez, a 17-year-old farm laborer.

When Maria Isavel fainted from heat exhaustion on a farm east of Stockton on May 14, 2008, “no one made any effort to help her,” least of all her supervisors, who failed to dial 911, Jimenez said this week.

The delay in getting her to a hospital led to her death two days later, he said.

This May 16, the third anniversary of Maria Isavel’s tragic passing, the Assembly will vote on SB 104, the Fair Treatment for Farm Workers Act.   Jimenez will join hundreds of other farm workers at the Capitol, to advocate for the bill, amid a sea of colorful United Farm Worker signs.

Jimenez has picked crops for more than 20 years, but never at a union farm.

Yet he supports SB 104, stating, “I hope the governor signs this new law…so that farm workers will take advantage of it …”

Previously approved by the Senate, SB 104 would allow farm laborers to select unions through traditional polling place elections in the workplace, or through a new procedure away from the fields.  The new process, involving confidential state-issued ballots, would help workers avoid intimidation from anti-union bosses.

Jimenez began fighting for farm workers’ rights three years ago this month, “to ensure that no more farm workers die” the way Maria Isavel did.

For Maria Isavel and her uncle, May 14, 2008 dawned as just another day in the cycle of the fields.

“Both of us arrived together that day” at the Farmington vineyard owned by West Coast Grape Farming Inc., he said.  It was only her third day on the job, at the place where her uncle had toiled for three weeks.

Water-filled thermoses would be placed for the workers along the edges of their work areas.  But, on May 14, the thermoses were not delivered until after10 a.m., roughly four hours into her shift, Jimenez said.

As afternoon temperatures climbed into the mid-90s, Maria Isavel, who had also been without proper shade as she pruned vines, collapsed.  Her fiancé, Florentino Bautista, who is in his early 20s, was also on her work crew.

“If someone had dialed 911, an ambulance would have responded from the fire department, which is not too far away,” Jimenez said.

Instead, at the end of the work day, Maria Isavel was driven to her Lodi home, a trip that took an hour, Jimenez said. That evening, she was taken to a Lodi clinic, then to the nearby hospital where she died.

Her death was triggered by an accidental, work-related heatstroke, the San Joaquin County Coroner concluded.

Maria De Los Angeles Colunga, owner of the now-defunct Merced Farm Labor Contractors, and her brother, Elias Armenta, initially were charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of their employee, Maria Isavel.  According to the Associated Press, it was the nation’s first criminal case involving a farm worker’s heat-related death.

As part of a plea deal, Colunga pleaded guilty in San Joaquin County Superior Court to a misdemeanor count of failing to provide shade.  Armenta , the firm’s safety coordinator, pleaded guilty to a felony count of failing to follow safety regulations that resulted in death.

Both were sentenced to community service and probation.  Colunga was also fined $370, while her brother was fined $1,000.

“There was no justice for my niece,” Jimenez said, maintaining that the crime demanded prison time.

Jimenez was fired from the Farmington ranch a few days after his niece died. According to Jimenez, he had requested and given a day off to meet with the Deputy Chief of Staff of former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“The permanent supervisors told me I didn’t have a job any more,” he said, noting that by then, Merced Farm Labor was out of business, its license having been suspended by the state.

Jimenez currently works at a Napa vineyard.  “My boss has given me permission to be in Sacramento on May 16,” he said.

Edgar Sanchez is a former writer for The Sacramento Bee and The Palm Beach Post

We heard last week about outlines of the Parsky Commission report that would radically shift the tax burden in California.  We even heard that offshore drilling may have been snuck into the draft at the last minute.  Last week, the commission held a public meeting which featured more details, including the intimation that 3% of the population would see half of the tax break under the Parsky plan.  They made the public wait for seven hours and then gave one individual a minute to make a comment.  Yesterday, the final public meeting was held, and right before it, Jean Ross offered some facts and figures showing how the commission’s recommendation would amount to the Latvia-ization of the state of California, with a massive transfer of wealth to the upper classes at the expense of working families.

The biggest winners would be the state’s millionaires, who would receive personal income tax breaks averaging $109,000 per year. The biggest losers would be middle-income families who would receive a tiny, if any, reduction in their personal income taxes and who would pay substantially more for goods and services due to the new “value-added” tax the Commission proposes to replace revenues lost due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and repeal of the corporate income tax.

The magnitude of the shift proposed by the Commission is nothing short of stunning. The changes to the personal income tax structure alone would reduce income taxes paid by the poorest 62 percent of California taxpayers by $4 per year, on average, while providing six-figure breaks to the millionaires. The bottom 81 percent of the income distribution – the vast majority of all Californians – would receive 10 percent of the personal income tax cut, while the top 0.2 percent would receive 27 percent of the benefits.

And that’s the “good news.” The Commission would repeal the corporate income tax and the state’s portion of the sales tax and replace it with a new tax on business net receipts – a tax that has never been tried anywhere in the US – that the Commission’s own consultant notes would raise prices of goods and services, while exerting downward pressure on wages and benefits […]

Some might be willing to support these changes if they ended California’s persistent budget crises. But again, the Commission’s own estimates predict that revenues raised by the new tax system would grow more slowly over time than those raised by the state’s current tax system. Thus, the Commission’s recommendations would lead to larger, not smaller, budget shortfalls in the future.

At the committee hearing yesterday, commissioners requested an analysis of the impact of the recommendation for taxpayers, and it came out precisely as Ross stated – “The 10 million taxpayers making less than $50,000 would pay $100 million more in taxes while the 7 million taxpayers who make more than $50,000 would get $6.8 billion in tax cuts.”

This will not be a consensus document, most of the liberals on the panel won’t sign it.  And even the news reports today acknowledge that the changes would “largely benefit the wealthy.”  Clearly the Governor will put his weight behind it, but that’s meant nothing in Sacramento for several years.  The question is whether the Democratic Legislature would dare to massively reward the rich so nakedly by accepting these recommendations.  Because the business community is actually against it, worried about the effect of the net receipts tax, I’d still guess no, but people should be letting their Representatives know that they will not get away with a transparent shift in wealth from the middle class to the super-rich.