iowa underground blog

A post from Willing Worker below reminded me of something I was going to post: this June marks the 20th anniversary of the end of the P-9 strike of the Hormel plant in Austin, MN.

A brief account of the strike from Wikipedia:

In 1985, workers at Hormel went on the Austin Hormel Strike in Austin, Minnesota at the Hormel headquarters. Frustrated by low wages and dangerous conditions, they started one of the largest strikes of the 1980s. The strike began in August of 1985, with the sanction of the International level of the Union, P-9. The local chapter of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union P-9 led the strike, but was not supported by their parent union. After six months, a significant number of replacement workers crossed the picket line prompting riots in Austin. Wayne P. Goodnature was Sheriff at the time. In January 21, 1986, the Governor of Minnesota, Rudy Perpich, called in the National Guard to protect the replacement workers (derisively called scabs). This unpopular move brought on protests against the governor and Governor Perpich soon withdrew the National Guard from Austin. The action had more effect on the national union which ousted the local P-9 and the strike was ended in June 1986, making the length of the strike 10 months. Over 700 of the workers did not return to their jobs, refusing to cross the picket line as some had chosen to do. Ultimately, however, the company did succeed in hiring new workers at lower wages. It is still disputed as to who actually made the original National Guard request. The strike was chronicled in the film “American Dream”, which won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1990.

Minnesota Public Radio also ran a story two years ago about the strike. The unions finally conceded, which allowed Hormel to cut the wages and benefits that kept Austin, MN a proud, blue-collar town. Since then, Austin’s population has followed the pattern of rural migration and wage declines that are prevalent of all areas of rural America.

A documentary filmed in 1990 about the strike won an Academny Award for Best Documentary:

Wikipedia: American Dream

Something important to note (from the film description):

Hormel cut the hourly wage from $10.69 to $8.25 after posting a net profit of $30 million.

This is a story from last week, but there are some interesting ramifications here – and an interesting view of the ethical problems surrounding illegal immigration.

Last week, egg farms owned by Austin “Jack” DeCoster were raided by immigration services. The raids on the egg “farms” netted 36 illegal immigrants.

Immigration agents detained at least 36 illegal immigrants during a raid on egg farms in Wright County.

Bob Teig, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents conducted the raid June 14 at several DeCoster egg farms. No charges have been filed and Teig declined further comment.

[b]It was the third raid at DeCoster farms in Wright County since 2001 that has led to the detention and possible deportation of illegal immigrants[/b], Sheriff Paul Schultz said.

Schultz said the [b]people that help get fake identification and work visas for the illegal immigrants should be held accountable[/b].

“The people who bring them here and furnish false IDs are just as guilty,” he said.<
...
He said the employees who were detained were hired by KNA Co., which was under contract with DeCoster to provide legal workers.

“We’re distressed to find some of those people were not legal,” [DeCoster’s attourney William] Smith said.

So…. DeCoster’s operations have illegal workers, yet the sheriff makes a statement regarding the workers. Let’s do a little recap of big events in the history of DeCoster’s egg laying operations.

[Ed Note: apologies in advance for possible pay-only links to the NY Times.]

1997: Jack DeCoster settles with the Department of Labor for $2 million in fines, following charges made by then Secretary of Labor Robert Reich that the egg-laying operations were an “agricultural sweatshop”.

2000: Even under the rather lax Iowa environmental laws applied to confinement operations, Jack DeCoster is named as a “habitual violator” under DNR regulations.

Miller’s Office has filed a total of five lawsuits alleging environmental violations by DeCoster Farms, the most recent filed in Lucas County on April 24. Last July, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a Wright County court decision assessing a civil penalty against DeCoster in the first suit, constituting one “strike” toward habitual violator status. On March 22 the Supreme Court upheld a district court decision against DeCoster in the second and third suits concerning violations in Wright and Hamilton Counties. The Supreme Court action paved the way for classification of DeCoster as a habitual violator under Iowa law, which requires that violators must have been the subject of “three strikes” – three violations referred to the Attorney General for legal action and assessed a civil penalty by a court. Civil penalties ordered in the first three suits totaled $79,000.

2002:: DeCoster Farm settles for $1.5 million in a civil rape case brought by a domestic violence group.

DeCoster Farms will pay $1.53 million to a group of Hispanic women who claimed they were raped and abused by supervisors at the company’s egg plants in Wright County, the company and federal authorities announced Monday.

DeCoster did not admit liability.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission began its investigation of DeCoster in August 2001 after the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence filed a discrimination lawsuit.

The group alleged that DeCoster supervisors in four egg-production plants sexually assaulted female employees and threatened to kill those who complained.
...
“We see a lot of sexual harassment cases, and a lot are pretty awful,” Kamp said. “But this was forcible rape.”

The women reportedly were afraid to testify, and criminal charges were never filed.

[Ed: anyone want to guess why the victims did not want to file criminal charges…. anyone?]

2003: Jack DeCoster pleads guilty to a pattern of aiding and abetting the continued employment of illegal workers. The guilty plea gets him probation (which is still in effect, if this article is to be believed) – instead of prison.

.Even when employers are convicted, penalties are often minimal. Austin Jack DeCoster, 68, owner of several Iowa egg plants that had at least 121 unauthorized workers, was sentenced to five years probation after he pleaded guilty to engaging in a pattern and practice of aiding and abetting the continued employment of illegal workers. His general manager between 1998 and 2001, who transported illegal workers between plants, was sentenced to three months home confinement with electronic monitoring and ordered to pay a $9,000 fine; he will be on probation for three years.

Under an agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE agents can inspect DeCoster plants without warning. DeCoster owns several egg farms in Iowa and Maine, and a hog operation in Iowa. DeCoster agreed to pay a $1.25 million civil forfeiture and $ 875,000 in restitution for the ICE investigation.

Now, this is just the big stuff. The Register also ran an article a few years ago detailing Jack DeCoster’s attempt to “remake his image”. But, after all of this (and continued violations – this time, neatly “outsourced’), we’re right back to the basic problem: DeCoster Farms and the owners have repeatedly shown a disregard for the law in both letter and spirit, while running an operation that basically amounts to human trafficking.

So… on to today, when the first charges are filed in the case. Who is being charged with a crime? Why, the workers, of course. No mention of the county attourney or federal officals pursuing the repeated violation, or possible probation violations. What’s amazing: in the comments to that previously linked article, someone is willing to defend rampant abuse of the law because workers in egg factories are evidently not entitled to things like “basic human rights” because that might mean we need to pay more for a dozen eggs. (Unlikely – has the price of eggs ever gone down because we’re willing to tolerate de facto slavery?)

Go to Hampton. Get a job cleaning chicken cages and other dirty work associated with the Egg buisness. Organize. Demand $12-$15 per hour.Plus paid for medical and a 401k. Better yet why not a fully paid for by the company pension. Lets not forget 4 weeks vacation after 10 years. Plus all the paid holidays the government gets.Then when eggs go to $8 a dz. you’ll really have something to gripe about.

It’s a rather amazing thing to note that we’re willing to tolerate the operation of a business that seems to make enough profit to pay multi-million dollar fines and remain ever in operation, yet there are people out there willing to believe that a business cannot pay workers enough for them to make a decent living. This is, to say the least, one of the great moral failings of our society.

The best suggestion I’ve heard so far: when the DNR catches a poacher illegally fishing or hunting, the DNR has the ability to confiscate all assets related to the crime. I would imagine that if the same rules applied to immigration and labor law, this “crisis” of illegal immigration would be over tomorrow – and without the need to spend one dime of taxpayer money on fancy new computer systems or multi-billion dollar construction projects.

Thanks to a tip from Chris Woods – Des Moines Cityview has a great bit of reporting on the politics going on surrounding the eminent domain bill.

Cityview: Strange Bedfellows

A bit from the article:

“This does not make sense politically. I can’t figure this out,” says Rep. Jeff Kaufmann, a Republican who managed Iowa’s eminent domain bill in the House.

Kaufmann says he doesn’t understand certain Democrats’ reluctance to return for a special session. “There’s a hesitancy there. I can’t get to that hesitancy,” he says. “It’s almost like there’s something missing, but I don’t know what that is right now.”
...
“I smell Doug Gross in all of this,” Kaufmann says. “I’ve had some pretty solid Republicans tell me this, too.”

The reason? A number of proposed lake projects – particularly one in Madison County where Doug Gross stands to profit from land ownership around the proposed lake. Of course, many others have proposed economic development projects around said lakes, including a rather odd alliance:

Further muddying the waters is the fact that certain people – notably Congressman [Steve] King – are talking about creating private economic development around the publicly financed lakes.

In a 2004 letter to one of the Clarke County supervisors, King states, “[T]he ability for private development on and near the lake will be critical to the financial success of the project. A portion of lakefront property, possibly as much as one third of the total lake area, should be used for private development of homes and related businesses.”

If you read the whole article, you find what is probably behind all of this: campaign donations.

I was initially unsure of what all of this meant, but I think I am now (oddly) in agreement with Chris Rants: let’s get this eminent domain law (or, if that’s not legally possible – a new law) on the books – we can tweak definitions later.

Can we also discuss campaign finance reforms while we’re at it?

Smithfield Foods, known in Iowa for successfully fighting Iowa’s packer ban anti-trust laws and increasing their presence in Iowa’s meat packing industry is in the news for employing illegal tatics to fight unionization in Smithfield processing plants.

There is something that struck me as related to our recent illegal immigration debates – Smithfield hiring illegal workers, then threatening them if they dare to organize or protest working conditions:

“They would always tell us don’t get mixed up in this stuff about the union, if you talk about the union they will fire you, (and) having the Hispanics think they’ll bring in INS if they try to vote for a union,” he said.

This is something I’ve never heard in the midst of all of the rhetoric coming from Washington: while we focus on walls and technology and deportation – what is to be done to employers that break the law to employ a virtual slave labor force?

The answer is evidently “nothing”.

Links:
Confined Space: Treating Workers Like Hogs

SmithfieldJustice.com

• Sousy

We didn’t comment much about the Secretary of Agriculture races leading into the primary, but there is an interesting contrast in the approaches to developing a strong agricultural economy between Denise O’Brien (D) and Bill Northey®.

In particluar, Bill Northey during the primary discussed growing Iowa’s agricultural sector through greater exports:

World promoter of Iowa products

Realizing that Iowa’s future depends on its exports, Bill has traveled with the WTO and the U.S. Grains Council promoting corn & specialty soybeans. His travels have taken him to 16 countries including Japan five times, and the UK six times.

The idea that we’ll be able to export more and more is… well… a bit of orthodoxy that has been consistently overstated. Alan Guebert writes:

Former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman couldn’t stop for a cup of coffee in farm and ranch country without waxing romantically on how “1 in 4 acres of American farm production is exported.”

Her replacement, Secretary Mike Johanns, a trained technocrat, often makes the same point with more precision. “Twenty–seven percent of U.S. farm receipts come from trade,” Johanns told a May 8 Chicago luncheon crowd.

The trouble with Veneman’s oversimplified number and Johanns’ overcooked number is that both are wrong, wrote Ed Maixner in the April 28 issue of the Kiplinger Agricultural Letter.

The actual “value” of ag exports to farmers and ranchers, noted Maixner, Kiplinger’s editor, is neither 27 percent nor 25 percent. “Analysis shows the portion is 8 percent,” he explained, when “measured by value …”

The difference, he went on to explain in the Letter, is “the government doesn’t account for extra value that gets added to goods after they leave the farm … shipping, processing, packaging and more. Ignoring such markups greatly overstates the exported share.”

For example, Maixner told Keith Good in a May 13 interview (which can be heard at http://agpolicysoup.blogspot.com/), steaks exported to Japan might carry a $15 per lb. price tag at the export terminal, but the rancher gets less than a $1 per pound from the packer when the animal is sold.

Likewise, $3 North Dakota wheat may fetch $5.50 when it leaves Washington State for Shanghai, but the grower still only received $3 when he sold it in Jamestown.

As such, counting the steak’s $14 markup or the wheat’s $1.50 price boost as “farm value” is “logically ridiculous,” Maixner continued. What USDA actually is tabulating, he added, is “added export value, not farm value.”

Ed Maxiner sums up how 30-odd years of policy geared around ag exports should change:

“When developing farm policy,” Maixner told Good, “it’s probably good to start somewhere near the truth. We don’t export everything … Maybe the first thing we need to take care of is our domestic agriculture economy.”

• Sousy

Behold the visage of the man who’s complicit in handing the big telco and cable cartel the power to create a 2-tiered internet and hastening the onslaught of a have/have-not online experience.

The Congress voted 269-152 last Thursday against codifying the priciples of Net Neutrality into law – siding with the likes of Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, et al. – all while devoting a whopping 20 minutes to ‘debate’, thanks in no small part to the efforts of Tauke and his ilk.

Still screwing us after all these years, Tauke, former Republican Congressman from Iowa’s 2nd district, currently serves as Verizon’s Executive Vice President for Public Affairs, Policy and Communications. That’s Orwellian double-speak for propaganda minister, kids. Let’s watch him spin, shall we?

Via C|Net News: Newsmaker: Net neutrality: Meet the winner

Thomas Tauke must be one of the most ecstatic lobbyists in Washington right about now.

As Verizon Communications’ executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communications, Tauke has spent the last few months embroiled in a fiery debate over Net neutrality, the concept that broadband providers must be legally required to treat all content equally.

And now he’s won. Thursday evening, in a testament to Verizon’s lobbying prowess, the U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected extensive Net neutrality regulations in a 269-152 vote.

Now the telecommunications bill approved by the House heads to the Senate, where Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who heads a key committee, has been an ally so far. But in an apparent nod to companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that are pressing for Net neutrality rules, Stevens did say last week that he might be willing to bend and consider more regulations.

Tauke, a lawyer, is a former member of Congress from Iowa and former chairman of the United States Telecom Association, a telecommunications trade association.

CNET News.com spoke with Tauke about Net neutrality and Verizon’s view of what Washington, D.C., might do next.

You can read the Q/A with Tauke here – or bone up on the history of the net neutrality debate via Wikipedia here. Pay special attention to how Tauke disingenuously dangles ‘video content services’ as a primary reason for justifying increasing big carrier’s control over the internet. That’s a red herring. The fact of the matter is the telco’s simply want more control and the ability to charge you even more than you already pay, while squeezing smaller providers completely out of business. Period. Their goal is to exert the type of stranglehold and control upon the internet that Clear Channel has achieved over the radio spectrum.

On the Senate side, via TPM, I’m truly surprised to see DINO emeritus Joe Lieberman landing on the right side of the vote while Russ Feingold is still twisting in the wind a bit. The hell, Russ? Take a stand, willya? And what’s up with the 57! other Democrats selling out on this one?

Clicky clicky: Send a letter to Congress in support of Net Neutrality and the Markey ammendment to HR5252.

• pdx

From A.V. Krebs’ Agribusiness Examiner #435 comes a story that has a rather interesting choice of words:

SMITHFIELD’S PROFIT PLUNGES AS MEAT GLUT HURTS PRICES
By Associated Press
June 8, 2006

RICHMOND, Virginia—- Smithfield Foods Inc., the world’s largest pork processor, on Thursday reported its profit plunged 99% in its fourth quarter as bloated meat inventories in the U.S. hurt prices. Its shares were off nearly five percent in midday trading.

Industry observers have blamed the oversupply on bird-flu fears that have softened international demand for chicken and have hurt domestic prices of other meats. Evolving diet trends—- a move away from high-protein, low-carb meals—- may also be playing a role, though a smaller one.

“This past quarter was difficult for many in the protein industry, including ourselves,” said Joseph W. Luter III, Smithfield’s chief executive officer.

Smithfield, based in Smithfield, Virginia, said it earned $1.1 million, or one cent a share, in the quarter ended April 30. That is down from $85.4 million, or 76 cents a share, in the year-earlier period. Revenue decreased 8% to $2.68 billion from $2.90 billion.

The current quarter includes a pretax charge of $10 million, or five cents a share, tied to the restructuring of the company’s East Coast pork-processing operations. Income from continuing operations—- excluding its to-be-sold Gorges/Quik-to-Fix Foods unit—- was $4.7 million, or four cents a share.

The “Protein Industry?” I suppose there is a bit of truth in that statement: Smithfield is not in the animal business, nor the farming business – they’re in the “protein business”. An interesting worldview that probably makes the notion of driving small famers into the ground with gigantic CAFO operations an acceptable business endeavor. After all – the “protein” should be the same, right?

Krebs follows this up with an item from October 1985:

A “RAW MATERIALS PROCUREMENT AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM”
By Fred Stover U.S. Farm News
October, 1985

“The biggest problem farmers have is that they have to sell their products through a market place that is really a `raw materials procurement and distribution system;’ a system that is designed to buy raw materials as cheaply as possible and resell the products on the basis of all the traffic will bear—- regardless of cost, efficiency, supply, demand or fair market value.”

Fred Stover, was President of the U.S. Farmers Association

So… what do producers do when the owners (Smithfield) view the product as a ‘raw material’?

• Sousy

FYI: Smithfield was the company that fought Iowa’s packer ban

On the forums…

The Register reports.

Gov. Tom Vilsack will veto legislation today that restricts government from taking private property for economic development.

The veto raises the possibility of a special session, both Vilsack and a Republican legislative leader said.

In a statement released today, Vilsack said House File 2351 does not maintain a proper balance between protecting private property rights and encouraging economic development that is vital to the state’s growth.

“While I would support a law aimed at preventing any unintended expansion of eminent domain authority, the restrictions in HF 2351 go too far,” said Vilsack. “We must recognize that protecting private property can be achieved without sacrificing job growth.”
...
Vilsack had indicated Thursday he was wavering over whether to sign the bill. He said he was particularly troubled by a provision that allowed condemnation to proceed on a proposed ADM corn-milling plant expansion in Clinton but not on other proposed projects.
...
House Speaker Christopher Rants said he was disappointed and suggested lawmakers may not take the governor’s “no” for an answer.

“I think that this is one of those rare instances where a veto override is merited and I intend to speak with my members over the weekend and will have a decision on Monday,” Rants, of Sioux City, said.

The merits, and idea behind the bill were basically well-intentioned: provide protection for private property owners. What baffles me, however – why did the legislature (and that includes the House leader Chris Rants) add the exception for an ADM plant expansion? The bill would probably have been tied up in court until the next legislative session for that reason alone. I’m sure other developers would object to an ADM sweetheart deal – vetoing this bill may have been the right thing to do.

To be honest, I also don’t know much about any provisions relating to blighted areas – which is an issue that faces nearly every town in Iowa.