According to the Capitol Alert, Senator Florez is reporting the Governor plans to veto legislation that would give workers on California farms the same overtime pay standards as most labor forces.  Below is an op-ed by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg on this significant civil rights related measure and why the Governor should sign it.    

It Is Time to End Discrimination Against

Hard Working Latino Farm Workers

By Senator Darrell Steinberg

Many Californians, including myself, are part of the growing chorus condemning Arizona’s show me your papers law.  A CNN poll this week found that three out of four Hispanic-Americans fear that it will result in discrimination and racial profiling.  No wonder.  The Arizona law requires law enforcement officers to detain and sometimes arrest people they “suspect” of being undocumented.   When someone is stopped it will be based on the color of their skin.  And if they can’t produce proof of citizenship on the spot they will be arrested.  

Once you step outside your home, can you prove your citizenship?  I can’t.  

But I wonder how many Californians are aware that our state has its own controversy over a law which discriminates against Latinos.  To put it simply, California’s law provides standard overtime pay to almost every private employee except for one group – farm workers, among the hardest working Californians.   And predominantly Latino.  Unlike other private workers they are denied standard overtime pay.  This is unjust.  And it is discriminatory.

I have joined Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez who is leading our effort to abolish the farm worker overtime discrimination law.  The Legislature passed Senator Florez’s SB 1121 this year.  But this long overdue reform will not become law without the signature of Governor Schwarzenegger, who has until August 2, to make his decision.  

There are historical connections between all discriminatory policies like the Arizona and California laws – they can be traced back to a time when institutional racism was openly endorsed by political leaders and even the courts.

The origins of excluding farm workers from the overtime law trace back to the segregated south during the Great Depression.

In the 1930’s an important part of the New Deal was the establishment of fair employment practices for American workers, including overtime pay.  But Congress was forced to compromise with powerful southern legislators who argued that fair labor practices for rural black workers would destroy their plantation system of agriculture.  

What did they mean by their “plantation system of agriculture?”  Everyone knew what they meant.  Eight out of ten plantation workers were African-American.  The southern system was almost entirely dependent upon a cheap supply of African-American labor.  Mistreated black workers in the cotton belt were essential to the traditional rural plantation system.

The southern legislators negotiating to exempt farm workers from new fair labor laws were not about to give up this oppressive system.  In the end, the southern employers won and farm workers were denied overtime pay.    

One Florida Congressman at the time was completely candid.  Representative J. Mark Wilcox bluntly stated in the Congressional Record that “there has always been a difference in the wage scale of white and colored labor.”  He went on to observe “you cannot put the Negro and the white man on the same basis and get away with it.”  Others warned that overtime premiums would actually harm the minority workers themselves because employers would be forced to cut back hours.  

In 2010 California farmers are by no means racist or motivated by ethnic prejudice.  However, the arguments against correcting the discrimination in the existing overtime law are reminiscent of the old arguments.  I have heard, for instance, that thousands of Latino workers will have their hours cut if we pay them overtime.  

One cable show host asked me recently if I could point to the exact words in the Arizona law that mandated racial profiling – as if it did not matter what impact the law would have so long as the offensive words did not appear in the text.  Neither does California’s overtime law contain explicit language about ethnicity.  

But we all know who is affected.  The Governor should do the right thing and sign SB 1121 into law.

Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg today called the Governor’s May Revise budget proposal a “non-starter.” Saying the Governor has chosen to surrender: “That he sees California as unfixable and that he proposes a budget that kills the economy and harms so many.”

Full Transcript of Steinberg remarks follow.

I could speak for a long time about the past and where to point the finger.

I could talk about sledgehammers, and automobiles and torn up credit cards.

I could talk about blowing up boxes.

I could talk about one of many silly metaphors.

But I will leave it at this: I am disappointed that the Governor has chosen to surrender.

That he sees California as unfixable and that he proposes a budget that kills the economy and harms so many.

It is a non-starter.

If God forbid this budget became a reality, California would be the only state in the union to not have a safety net for children.

Leadership is not about blaming others. It’s about finding solutions to tough problems to preserve the state and its people.

In their comments throughout the day the Governor’s representatives have described the cuts he proposes as quote “terrible.”

I believe him …but his actions say it would be more terrible to delay $2.1 billion in corporate tax breaks than to save children, the elderly, and the most vulnerable.

His actions say it is more terrible to impose a tax on oil profits than complete elimination of county mental health services and child care.

He appears to have decided that the solutions are too difficult to achieve so he will accept these “terrible” cuts.

We refuse to wave the white flag.

California’s elected leaders- including myself- and the governor and the others need to stand up.

Given the choice between enacting $6 billion in cuts to services for the elderly, children and the disabled, or delaying corporate tax breaks, I’m for delaying corporate tax breaks.

Given the choice between cutting education by nearly $3 billion or seeking revenues from oil companies extracting oil in California, I’m for getting revenues from oil companies profiting handsomely in this state.

But I want to go beyond I think what you expect here which is sort of the give and take….

And [provide a] the recitation of our genuinely held beliefs and philosophy.

I want to state my perspective on the overall situation very clearly.

In my view-having now my tenth year in the legislature, second year as leader, having served on numerous budget conference committees-we have come to the end of trying to prop up this failed structure.

There is no more triage.

The status quo is unsustainable.

Our government is not structured to quickly and effectively respond to an economic crisis of this magnitude.

We are so balkanized that the people don’t know who collects the taxes and who provides the services.

Yes we need revenue, and we will fight for revenue, but not to prop up this outdated structure.

We must use this crisis now, not next year, not another report, not another study.

We need to bring government closer to the people.

The inside term is “realignment.”

What it means to the people of California is that we must take many of these state programs that otherwise may be decimated, and give them to the locals and the school districts.  Give them restored revenue and the ability to raise revenue themselves.

This is not theory.  This is not academic.  This is not a luxury.

Those who say – “too difficult, too complicated”, I challenge you to do this:

Bring forward an alternative that balances the budget, preserves essential public investments, and does not rely on gimmicks.  

Finally, I do want to respond to one thing that the Governor highlighted in his comments about the tax structure.

I think we all agree that California’s tax structure needs updating.  But to say that we are living through this budget crisis solely or primarily because of the tax structure is just plain wrong.

The Legislative Analyst said clearly that if we had adopted the Parsky Commission’s recommendations . . . revenue would actually drop $10 billion.

[The] Governor has this theory about GDP that he keeps talking about, but this is what we know about California:

Personal consumption in California has fallen by the largest percentage since 1980.

Home prices have plunged dramatically since 2007 from an average of $484,000 a home to $250,000.

The share of corporate income tax paid in California has fallen by nearly half since 1981.

So this idea that if our tax structure had only kept up with some phantom robust growth in our economy over the last couple of years . . .

This country, the world, and this state are living through the most precipitous drop in revenue, and it would be precipitous no matter what tax system we had.

The real answer here is we must restructure and realign this outdated structure that we have here in California and we need to provide the revenue to the entity that is in the best place to provide the services.