UCSC Ag Labor Study: Unsupported Conclusions

Recently, the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), released a report concerning the livelihoods of farm workers in Monterey County. While the report yielded some recommendations that the agricultural industry has been advancing through solution-based initiatives, the UCSC report relied on self-reported surveys and qualitative employee interviews. This limited sample size and potential selection bias in UCSC’s processes results in unsupported conclusions.

Among them are inaccurate claims regarding farm worker wages. Through their reliance on anecdotal information, UCSC’s report indicates that agricultural wages can fall below the state’s minimum wage of $16.90 per hour. Not only would that be illegal in California, but it is refuted by large and robust national wage surveys.

The United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service Farm Labor Survey (May 2025) shows California field workers averaged approximately $18.58–$18.70 per hour. Note that this is an average and many farm workers in Monterey County can earn above $30 per hour during peak harvest seasons.

While the UCSC report also calls for increased regulatory compliance for ag employers, it does not include information on the stringent worker safety regulations and wage and hour protection laws already in place. In fact, California has the most rigorous farm worker protection standards in the nation, which have become a model for other states.

Recently, analyses have shown the rising costs of farming in the Salinas Valley has increased by 44% to 64% over the last several years with regulatory and labor compliance costs increasing substantially. Because farmers are “price-takers” in a competitive global marketplace they cannot pass on higher production costs or they will risk losing customers and contracts.

It should be noted that most farmers prioritize a safe and equitable work environment for their employees and readily comply with or exceed California’s worker protection and wage and hour standards. Farmers greatly value and understand the importance of a healthy and satisfied workforce.

Agriculture shares the concerns of employers from our fellow industries on the Central Coast, including hotels, restaurants, health care, construction and numerous others, about the cost of living and limited affordable housing in our region. Like agriculture, many jobs in those sectors are also seasonal in nature. High interest rates, inflation, California tax rates, energy and gasoline costs affect all employees in our region, including non-agricultural workers.

Specific to affordable housing, the Grower Shipper Association of Central California (GSA) believes more emphasis must be placed on addressing the root causes, such as restrictive land-use policies, California Environmental Quality Act delays, water restrictions and underbuilding.

Solutions include accelerating housing production through zoning reform and streamlined permitting, reforming the California Environmental Quality Act process to reduce delays, supporting and improving water supply infrastructure so restrictions on new development are lessened, development of targeted workforce housing programs for seasonal agricultural workers and reducing excessive development fees and regulatory burdens on both housing and agriculture.

Regarding income, GSA supports adjusting overtime regulations to increase total take home pay for farm workers. A peer-reviewed analysis by University of California Berkeley’s Alexandra Hill, showed that when overtime hours were changed by California law in 2016, employers were forced to reduce hours so workers averaged three to five fewer hours per week with weekly earnings dropping $80–$120 ($1,600–$2,800 annually).

Our communities and economies are deeply intertwined therefore we must work together and cooperatively to find solutions. Agriculture welcomes and values information and scrutiny that advance dialogue and solutions, however, accuracy is imperative.

UCSC’s report casts blame on a single industry while ignoring regional realities and complexities. The inaccuracies and simplifications in this report cause it to fall well short of its stated goals of providing “practical, equity-based solutions for challenges” and “long-term regional prosperity.”

We can certainly all agree with those stated goals. However, they are unlikely to be advanced through a report based on bias and inaccuracies.