Farmworker minimum wage on track to become Maine law
Jun. 3—AUGUSTA — Maine farmworkers could soon be covered by the state's minimum wage law for the first time after lawmakers voted this week to extend the law to the state's agriculture industry.
The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross, D-Portland, is similar to one proposed last year by Gov. Janet Mills. That effort fell short after lawmakers passed an amended version of the bill and Mills vetoed it.
The new legislation, LD 589, passed 74-72 in the House of Representatives on Tuesday and 22-12 in the Senate on Monday. The bill got final passage in the House in the afternoon on a 74-73 vote and was enacted in the Senate with no roll call. It is now headed to the governor.
While the governor is expected to sign the bill into law, aides did not respond Tuesday to a question about whether she supports it.
Meanwhile, a separate bill that would provide legal protections to farmworkers who discuss their working conditions and pay with other farmhands was rejected by the House, 75-71. That same bill had been previously approved by the Senate, meaning the bill will die between chambers unless a compromise is reached.
Under existing law, Maine farmhands can earn as little as $7.25 an hour. That is the federal minimum wage, which has not been raised since 2009.
Talbot Ross' bill, which was supported by a range of agricultural associations, would require farmworkers be paid at least the state minimum wage, which is currently $14.65 an hour and increases automatically with inflation.
Advocates have been trying to persuade lawmakers to require the state minimum wage for farmworkers for years. They came close to succeeding last year after a stakeholder group proposed a compromise that Mills introduced to the Legislature. A version of Mills' bill was enacted in both chambers, but the governor vetoed it, citing changes made during the committee process, including a provision that would have allowed workers to sue over alleged violations.
During floor debates this week, supporters argued the exclusion of farmworkers from minimum wage laws was a long-standing injustice that needs to be corrected. Many farmers are already paying the state minimum or more, and the others should be required to do the same, they argued.
The version of the bill working its way through the Legislature doesn't allow workers to sue over violations. It also would allow farmers to continue paying employees based on piecework, or the amount they can harvest or process in a shift, as long as they earn at least the minimum hourly wage.
Opponents said the bill would hurt farmers and put them out of business, and that it would jeopardize piecework positions for some who do it to supplement their incomes but don't meet the minimum wage standard.
Rep. Gary Drinkwater, R-Milford, said the bill would make it more difficult for seniors or teenagers to be paid by piecework, because they may not be able to harvest enough blueberries to justify their employment.
"Anyone who cannot rake enough blueberries to meet the hourly wage simply won't be hired," Drinkwater said. "This bill shuts out the very people who depend on seasonal work."
Rep. Rafael Macias, D-Topsham, said the bill sends a message to farmworkers that they and their work are valued.
"For too long, agricultural workers, those who plant our food, harvest berries, wrap wreaths, milk cows and work long hours under the sun, have been excluded from basic wage protections most of us take for granted," Macias said. "These exclusions are rooted in a shameful legacy, and they have no place in the Maine of today. All of our hearts should hurt for this long injustice."
During a Senate floor debate Monday, Talbot Ross argued that the bill was necessary to correct the historical injustice of underpaying farm hands. She said passing the bill would send the message that Maine would "no longer tolerate a system built on exclusion and inequity."
After that, the floor debate devolved when Republicans took offense to references to historical discrimination.
"I planned to sit this one out," said Sen. James Libby, R-Standish. "But I can't sit in my chair and listen to people talk about, 'you must support this bill this or else you don't care about minorities.' That is not true."
Sen. Joseph Martin, R-Rumford, said he was offended that "somebody would call it racist for someone to pick blueberries or strawberries." And Sen. Scott Cyrway, R-Albion, fondly recalled doing piecework as a child, saying such work was not "slave labor" and "we are not second-class citizens."
Those inferences drew a sharp rebuke from Talbot Ross, who said Republicans twisted her words and that listening to the debate was "some of the hardest moments for me to sit in this chair." She stressed that she was criticizing systems, not individuals.
"Calling people racist? I work very hard every single solitary day not to do that because I do not believe that's where the discussion should start," Talbot Ross said.
"Maybe read United States history, because I am talking about a pattern of discrimination, not individual people who may be of a certain ideology. I'm talking about patterns that history cannot deny. And I will not sit here and have you twist my words to claim otherwise."
Despite the votes in favor of the minimum wage, a bill that would afford legal protections to farmhands who discuss their working conditions and pay with each other appears doomed.
Those protections are guaranteed to private sector workers through the National Labor Relations Act, but farmworkers are excluded and state lawmakers have made repeated attempts to protect what is known as "concerted activity."
Opponents of LD 588 argued that it would allow farmworkers to form unions, citing testimony from labor unions advocating for collective bargaining rights for farmers.
Supporters argued that the bill would simply allow workers to talk about wages and working conditions, but would not give them collective bargaining rights.
While previously supported in the Senate, the House voted 75-71 to reject the bill Tuesday. It will likely die between the chambers unless a compromise is reached or enough House members change their votes.
Copy the Story Link
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TechCrunch
35 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
Moratorium on state AI regulation clears Senate hurdle
A Republican effort to prevent states from enforcing their own AI regulations cleared a key procedural hurdle on Saturday. The rule, as reportedly rewritten by Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz in an attempt to comply with budgetary rules, would withhold federal broadband funding from states if they try to enforce AI regulations in the next 10 years. And the rewrite seems to have passed muster, with the Senate Parliamentarian now ruling that the provision is not subject to the so-called Byrd rule — so it can be included in Republicans' 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' and passed with a simple majority, without potentially getting blocked by a filibuster, and without requiring support from Senate Democrats. However, it's not clear how many Republicans will support the moratorium. For example, Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee recently said, 'We do not need a moratorium that would prohibit our states from stepping up and protecting citizens in their state.' And while the House of Representatives already passed a version of the bill that included a moratorium on AI regulation, far-right Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene subbsequently declared that she is 'adamantly OPPOSED' the provision as 'a violation of state rights' and said it needs to be 'stripped out in the Senate.' House Speaker Mike Johnson defended the provision by saying it had President Donald Trump's support and arguing, 'We have to be careful not to have 50 different states regulating AI, because it has national security implications, right?' In a recent report, Americans for Responsible Innovation (an advocacy group for AI regulation), wrote that 'the proposal's broad language could potentially sweep away a wide range of public interest state legislation regulating AI and other algorithmic-based technologies, creating a regulatory vacuum across multiple technology policy domains without offering federal alternatives to replace the eliminated state-level guardrails.' Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW A number of states do seem to be taking steps toward AI regulation. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a high-profile AI safety bill last year while signing a number of less controversial regulations around issues like privacy and deepfakes. In New York, an AI safety bill passed by state lawmakers is awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul's signature. And Utah has passed its own regulations around AI transparency.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump touts ‘great unity' in GOP after Iran strikes, pushes to get ‘big, beautiful' bill done
President Trump touted the 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, as he called on the party to focus on getting his agenda bill through to his desk. 'Great unity in the Republican Party, perhaps unity like we have never seen before,' Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Sunday. 'Now let's get the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill done. Our Country is doing GREAT. MAGA!' he added. The president's remarks come after he announced Saturday evening that U.S. forces bombed three Iranian nuclear sites and said to Iran in a social media post, 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' The bombs targeted three nuclear sites in Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow, located inside a mountain. Six 'bunker buster' bombs were reportedly dropped on Fordow, while more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles were launched at the other two sites. The bombings put the U.S. directly in Iran's crosshairs for retaliation and made it an active participant in the Mideastern war, which Israel launched with airstrikes against Iran on June 13. Ahead of the strikes, news outlets had focused on the so-called 'civil war' in the GOP, between the pro-Israel foreign policy hawks and supporters who identified more with the 'America-First' agenda. Members of both groups had been publicly lobbying the president in opposite directions as he considered taking military actions against Iran. While some anti-interventionist Republicans—including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—still publicly criticized the strikes, most of the GOP expressed support following the announcement. The news also comes as the Senate enters a pivotal week for the president's massive agenda bill, which Republican leaders in Congress still say they hope to get done by July 4.
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
‘There was no imminent threat,' Thomas Massie says in joining Ro Khanna in decrying Iran strike
Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — two lawmakers with very different views and priorities on most issues — came together Sunday to decry President Donald Trump's airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Khanna and Massie told host Margaret Brennan on CBS' 'Face the Nation' that Congress was not briefed ahead of the military action, which they see as unconstitutional. The pair introduced a resolution last week to block U.S. involvement in the conflict between Iran and Israel. 'I'm always open to new intelligence, but the procedure should have been Congress be briefed before we decided to enter war and actually have a vote on it,' Khanna said to Brennan. 'The reality is, people want regime change in Iran, and they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail.' House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on X Saturday that the president 'fully respects' Article I of the Constitution, and the targeted strike follows 'the history and tradition' of prior military actions. Massie said Johnson's latter remark was likely referring to the War Powers Act of 1973, which allows for a president to take limited, targeted actions in a crisis without prior congressional approval, but that it was 'peculiar' to hear this from the Speaker of the House. 'That's been misinterpreted. There was no imminent threat to the United States which is what would authorize that,' Massie said. 'We haven't been briefed, they should have called us all back, and frankly we should have debated this war powers resolution that Ro Khanna and I offered instead of staying on vacation.' Khanna said Massie was showing 'courage' in speaking for parts of the MAGA base who have continually reiterated they do not want continuing wars in the Middle East. After Trump announced the airstrikes, MAGA largely fell in line with the action despite debates last week over the potential for U.S. military action in Iran amid continuing Israel-Iran missile exchanges. 'The tragedy in this country is that we keep entering these overseas wars, we triumphantly declare the mission is accomplished the day after, and then we're left with Americans bearing the consequences for decades,' Khanna said.
