Examining the association of labor laws on workplace safety and health indicators among Latinx agricultural workers

Abstract

There are roughly 2.6 million agricultural workers in the US that grow, tend, and harvest the food Americans in the US eat. Agricultural workers are an integral part of our food system, yet they experience health and social inequities rooted in structural racism. Agricultural exceptionalism excludes agricultural workers from national labor and social laws. They were excluded from federal minimum wage, overtime pay, the prohibition of child labor and collective bargaining rights established in the 1930s. Agricultural exceptionalism can be considered a form of structural racism as 78% of AW identify as Latinx, 70% are born outside the US, and 44% are undocumented. Additionally, agricultural workers are exposed to occupational risks, paid low wages, lack health insurance coverage, adequate housing, and sanitation. The purpose of this research was to investigate the association of labor and social laws with agricultural workers’ health by looking critically at laws that expand and/or exclude agricultural workers at the state-level. Our study incorporated mixed and community-based participatory research methods. For aim 1, we conducted qualitative interviews with agricultural workers. For aim 2, we used legal epidemiology methods to assess how inclusive three state-level protections- workers’ compensation, minimum wage, and overtime pay - were of agricultural workers to develop a labor law equity index (LLEI). Higher LLEI scores were indicative with more inclusive and beneficial protections for agricultural workers. For aim 3, we assessed the association of the LLEI with agricultural worker health indicators using the National Agricultural Workers Survey using regression models. In aim 1 we completed 32 agricultural workers interviews rom across five counties in Central and Eastern WA. We identified four main themes including: physically demanding work can lead to poor physical and mental health; agricultural workers face many barriers accessing health care and workers’ compensation; agricultural workers are vulnerable to marginalization and mistreatment at work due to their race/ethnicity and immigration status; and laws that are intended to protect agricultural workers may not be implemented as intended across employers. For aim 2 we found that most states extended workers' compensation (N=27) and minimum wage (N=24) to some or all AW. Most states did not extend the benefit of overtime pay to AW (N=35). The LLEI scores ranged from -2 to 5. Five states amended their laws to extend labor protections to AW between 2001 and 2017 (NE, NM, FL, ID, MO), all of which led to higher LLEI scores. Most states had positive scores (N = 23) indicating inclusive laws for AW, 7 states scored 0 or neutral laws for AW, and 9 states had negative scores. For aim 3 we found our NAWS analytic sample consisted of respondents who identified as Hispanic (n = 30,833). The mean age was 36.4 (standard deviation = 12.5), most were male (74%) and unauthorized for work (61%). There were significant associations between LLEI scores and employer provision of water (aOR = 1.18, p-value <0.05), toilet (aOR = 1.49, p-value <0.001), water for handwash station (aOR = 1.38, p-value <0.001), and pesticide training (aOR = 1.19, p-value <0.001) for both unadjusted and adjusted model. However, we did not find a statistically significant association between LLEI scores and reporting an injury or injury severity. This study highlights agricultural workers’ ongoing experiences with many work conditions and exposures that cause adverse health effects. These findings offer insight and opportunities to intervene and implement changes to improve occupational health and safety of an essential, yet often undervalued, group of workers. The LLEI can help examine how the legal environment shapes health, and similar methodologies can be applied for other occupations and industries.