Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Farmworker Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee divided on PSU-led farmworker study; growers warn study design could skew results
Summary
House Rules heard competing views on a dash-7 amendment to House Bill 25,48 that would fund a Portland State University study of farmworker wages, safety and access to benefits. Supporters said qualitative engagement is needed to fill data gaps; growers and some farm groups argued the design omits robust economic analysis and could be biased.
The House Rules Committee took testimony May 29 on House Bill 25,48 with the dash‑7 amendment, which would direct the Portland State University Center for Public Service to conduct a statewide study of farmworkers’ working conditions and protections and to report interim findings to legislative committees with a final report due Dec. 1, 2026.
Ira Cuyo Martinez, testifying for PCUN (Oregon’s farmworker union), said the study is intended to document worker experiences and inform lawmakers about enforcement and policy gaps. "We are not here to punish employers, but to go after bad actors who take advantage of farm workers and exploit them," Martinez said.
Proponents — including the Oregon Center for Public Policy and the Northwest Workers' Justice Project — told the committee that existing federal and state data on farm labor are limited, sometimes inconsistent and do not capture day‑to‑day barriers to enforcement, language access and retaliation concerns. The PSU fiscal estimate attached to the amendment sets initial costs for the study at roughly $600,000 and proposes interim reports on May 1 and Sept. 1, and a final report by Dec. 1, 2026.
Growers and agriculture associations opposed the dash‑7 amendment or urged changes. The Oregon Farm Bureau and Columbia Gorge Fruit Growers Association described the proposed qualitative study as insufficient to measure cause‑and‑effect outcomes for employers and workers and said it could be used to justify new regulation. "A qualitative report doesn't help anybody understand the cause and effect of proposed policies," Jenny Dressler of the Farm Bureau said.
Several growers, farm labor contractors and nursery owners urged the committee to use Oregon State University and the Department of Agriculture because those institutions have agricultural expertise and long ties to rural communities. Portland State representatives said the Center for Public Service has prior experience engaging with marginalized communities and would contract with community‑based organizations to reach workers; PSU staff said they would allocate roughly 600 survey interviews across regions and would budget for partner organizations and participant incentives.
Committee members asked about study design, confidentiality for employers, how PSU would select community partners, and whether the amendment would examine wrongful termination and retaliation. Proponents said the amendment can be refined to include those topics and that the study aims to combine qualitative interviews with available administrative data to produce actionable findings.
No committee vote on the dash‑7 amendment was taken in the meeting; members on both sides asked for further detail on sampling, contractor selection, and a quantitative component to accompany the qualitative outreach.
