A key ag bill that goes from good to bad to (finally) a little better

OLYMPIA–A key bill for agriculture, Senate Bill 5172, took a bumpy route before being passed by the Legislature during the final weekend.

Senate Bill 5172, introduced by one of my Republican colleagues, 14th District Sen. Curtis King of Yakima, attempted to defuse a potential time bomb caused by a recent court ruling that could cause a devastating problem for Washington’s dairy industry and other parts of our state’s economy.

For 60 years, state law exempted the agriculture industry from paying overtime wages after 40 hours per week. However, in November the state Supreme Court ruled in Jose Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, Inc. that this long-standing law was unconstitutional. The majority’s opinion said nothing about whether overturning the law also meant up to three years of retroactivity on wages would apply. Since then, dairy farmers and other agricultural employers have worried that they could be forced to pay their employers with retroactive overtime going back three years. It was estimated that dairy farmers collectively could have to pay $84 million in retroactive overtime.

Under the original version of SB 5172, which I co-sponsored, an employer who had followed the overtime-exemption law up until it was overturned couldn’t be assessed damages under the state’s wage and hour laws for three years of retroactive compensation.

Unfortunately, Democrats on the Senate Labor, Commerce and Tribal Affairs Committee passed amendments that basically reversed the bill’s original intent. Among other things, the amended bill removed the agricultural-overtime exemption from the overtime law, and created an agricultural overtime-pay reimbursement account with related provisions on payments.

Many in agriculture hoped elements from the original bill would be restored so the final version would be more acceptable to farmers. Last weekend, the House and Senate moved in a positive direction on this ag retroactive bill. While the bill going to the governor is viewed as an improvement over the version first passed by the Senate, it unfortunately wasn’t enough of an improvement for me to vote for it.

While the final version will keep dairy farmers from being sued for retroactive overtime, it fails to address problems down the road. The bill does not take into account the other benefits that farmers provide workers, such as housing or a vehicle to use from their home to the farm. What other types of workers receive an employer-provided home with utilities? The bill also doesn’t address “seasonality,” in which farm workers work long hours during certain parts of the year, such as harvest, but then work fewer hours than normal during slower parts of the year.

It’s interesting, for lack of a better word, how Democrat lawmakers could meddle with overtime in the ag industry while looking past an overtime issue that is literally right in front of them. During my nearly three decades as a state lawmaker, I’ve noticed there is also a “seasonality” with legislative staffers. During our session, staff put in very long and unusual hours, working evenings and weekends, even holidays. While legislative staff are given “comp time” to make up for the holidays they worked during session, they have to essentially donate an extraordinary number of hours before they can qualify for overtime compensation. Most staffers don’t work enough OT to qualify, even though all of them work extra hours during session. I wonder if my Democrat colleagues are even aware. It begs this question: If the Legislature is so concerned about mandating overtime for agricultural workers, why doesn’t it do a better job of providing overtime for its own employees during session?