Order Code RL30395
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy
Updated September 6, 2001
Linda Levine
Specialist in Labor Economics
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy
Summary
The connection between farm labor and immigration policies has re-emerged as
an issue in the Congress and is under discussion by the Bush and Fox Administrations.
Questions have arisen about whether enough workers are available domestically to
meet the labor requirements of crop growers and how, if at all, the Congress should
change immigration policy, which has long been linked with the seasonal needs of
crop producers for direct-hire and contract farmworkers.
Slightly more than half of today’s farmworkers are not legally eligible to hold
U.S. jobs. Growers are concerned that if certain federal activities are effective, they
could lose a considerable portion of their labor force and hence of their livelihood.
These federal actions include increased border enforcement efforts, work eligibility
verification pilot programs and audits of employees’ work authorization documents
to determine their authenticity. In addition, the Social Security Administration has
more often been sending letters that notify employers of mismatches between their
employees’ names/social security numbers and those in SSA’s database in order to
properly credit earnings to employee records.
Growers contend that the sizeable presence of illegal aliens implies a shortage
of legal farmworkers. Their advocacy groups argue that growers would rather not
employ unauthorized workers because doing so puts them at risk of incurring
penalties. Farmworker advocates counter that crop producers prefer illegal to legal
employees because the former are in a weaker bargaining position with regard to
wages and working conditions. If the supply of illegal workers were curtailed, it is
claimed, growers could adjust to a smaller legal workforce by introducing labor-
efficient technologies and management practices, and by raising wages, which, in turn,
would entice more legal workers to become farmworkers. Grower advocates respond
that further mechanization would be difficult for some crops and that substantially
higher wages would make the U.S. industry uncompetitive in the world marketplace
without expanding the legal farm labor force. These remain untested arguments, as
perishable crop growers have rarely, if ever, operated without illegal aliens in their
workforces.
At the present time, trends in the farm labor market generally do not suggest the
existence of a nationwide shortage of domestically available farmworkers, in part
because the government’s databases cover legal and illegal employment. (This finding
does not preclude the possibility of spot labor shortages, however.) Hired and
contract farm employment generally has declined, in contrast to total U.S.
employment, since 1990. The length of time hired workers are employed on farms
has shown little change or decreased over the years, depending on the measure
examined. The unemployment rate of hired farmworkers has varied little and remains
much higher than the overall average. Underemployment among farmworkers
remains substantial. And, although two data series show different levels and trends
in the wages of field workers, the data do concur that these employees earn about 50
cents for every dollar paid to other private-sector employees.

---

Contents
Illegal Farmworkers and Activities of the SSA and INS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Composition of the Seasonal Farm Labor Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A Farm Labor Shortage? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Time Worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Seasonality of Demand: Hours Versus Employment . . . . . . . . . 11
The Number of Days Worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Hired Farm Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. The Rate and Level of Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 3. Hired Farmworkers by Expected Days of Employment . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 4. Average Hourly Earnings of Field Workers and Other Workers
in the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 5. Average Hourly Earnings of Crop Workers and Other Workers
in the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

---

Farm Labor Shortages
and Immigration Policy
Questions have arisen about (1) whether sufficient workers are available
domestically to meet the seasonal employment demand of perishable crop producers
in the U.S. agricultural industry1 and (2) how, if at all, the Congress should change
immigration policy with respect to farmworkers. Immigration policy has long been
intertwined with the labor needs of crop (e.g., fruit and vegetable) growers, who rely
more than most farmers on hand labor (e.g., for harvesting) and consequently “are the
largest users of hired and contract workers on a per-farm basis.”2 Since World War
I, the Congress has allowed the use of temporary foreign workers to perform
agricultural labor of a seasonal nature as a means of augmenting the supply of
domestic farmworkers.3 In addition, a sizeable fraction of immigrants historically
have found employment on the nation’s farms.4 The intersection between farm labor
and immigration has again emerged as a policy issue in the Congress,5 and it is one of
the topics under discussion by members of the Bush and Fox Administrations.
This report first explains why the nexus between farm labor shortages and
immigration policy has again arisen. It next examines the composition of the seasonal
agricultural labor force and presents the arguments of grower and farmworker
advocates concerning its adequacy relative to employer demand. The report closes
with an analysis of the trends in (un)employment, time worked and wages of legal and
illegal farmworkers to determine if they are consistent with the existence of a
nationwide shortage of domestically available farmworkers.
1In this report, the terms “agriculture” and “farming” will be used interchangeably as will the
terms “producer,” “grower,” and “farmer.”
2Oliveira, Victor J., with Anne B. W. Effland, Jack L. Runyan and Shannon Hamm. Hired
Farm Labor on Fruit, Vegetable, and Horticultural Specialty Farms. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Agricultural Economic Report Number 676,
December 1993, p. 2. (Hereafter cited as, Oliveira, Effland, Runyan and Hamm, Hired Farm
Labor on Fruit, Vegetable, and Horticultural Specialty Farms.)
3U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Temporary Worker Programs:
Background and Issues. Committee Print. 96th Cong., 2nd Sess. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1980.
4Martin, Philip L. Good Intentions Gone Awry: IRCA and U.S. Agriculture. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 1994.
5For information on legislation see: CRS Report RL30852, Immigration of Agricultural
Guest Workers: Policy, Trends, and Legislative Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem and Geoffrey
K. Collver.

---

CRS-2
Illegal Farmworkers and
Activities of the SSA and INS
For the past several years, attention has focused on the growing share of the
domestic supply of farmworkers that is composed of aliens who are not authorized
to work in the United States. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) estimated that
foreign-born persons in the country illegally accounted for 37% of the domestic crop
workforce in FY1994-1995. Shortly thereafter (FY1997-1998), unauthorized aliens’
share of the estimated 1.8 million workers employed on crop farms reached 51.5%.6
Although a number of studies have found that no nationwide shortage of
domestic farm labor exists,7 a case is being made that the considerable presence of
illegal aliens in the seasonal agricultural labor force implies a lack of legal
farmworkers relative to employer demand. Arguably, the purported imbalance
between authorized-to-work farm labor and employer demand would become more
apparent were the supply of illegal aliens curtailed sufficiently — a fear that has
plagued growers over the years.
Crop producers reportedly believe the latest risk of losing much of their labor
force comes from a number of activities being pursued, in some cases independently,
and in others jointly, by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS). These activities are described below:
(1) Since about 1997, the SSA has more often been sending employers
“educational correspondence” that includes a sample of mismatches between the
names/social security numbers (SSNs) that appear on the W-2 forms employers must
submit to the agency annually and those in the SSA’s database. The purpose of the
6According to U.S. Department of Labor Report to Congress: The Agricultural Labor
Market — Status and Recommendations, the 1.8 million figure was developed by dividing the
hourly earnings of field and livestock workers into farm labor expenditures to estimate the
number of work hours on crop and livestock farms. As it was calculated that 72% of the
hours were being worked on crop farms, the percentage was then applied to the Commission
on Agricultural Workers’ estimate for 1992 of 2.5 million persons employed for wages on
U.S. farms to yield a current estimate of the hired crop workforce. The Commission had
developed its earlier farm employment figure from a variety of data sources because there is
no actual head count of farmworkers. For other current estimates of hired farm and crop
workers see Table 1.
7Commission on Agricultural Workers. Report of the Commission on Agricultural Workers.
U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1992. (Hereafter cited as Commission on
Agricultural Workers, Report of the Commission on Agricultural Workers.); U.S. General
Accounting Office. H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program: Changes Could Improve
Services to Employers and Better Protect Workers. GAO/HEHES-98-20, December 1997.
(Hereafter cited as GAO, H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program); DOL. A Profile of U.S.
Farmworkers: Demographics, Household Composition, Income and Use of Services.
Research Report No. 6, April 1997. (Hereafter cited as DOL, A Profile of U.S.
Farmworkers.); and annual calculations in the early 1990s by the U.S. Departments of Labor
and Agriculture.

---

CRS-3
letter is to make wage reports more accurate so that the agency can properly credit
earnings to employees’ records for future benefit payments.8
As part of this effort, the SSA has been encouraging employers not to wait until
the annual submission of W-2 forms and instead, to use its Enumeration Verification
Service (EVS) to match the names/social security numbers of employees with those
in the agency’s database. Growers have told the SSA that their concern with using
the EVS is that when they then discuss any discrepancies with employees, the
employees do not return to work. Farmers are also fearful that if they do not act on
the SSA letters, they may be liable for penalties (commonly referred to as employer
sanctions) due to “constructive knowledge” of illegal workers on their payrolls.9 But,
the agency’s correspondence clearly states that there are many reasons why
discrepancies can occur10 and that the letter, by itself, should not form the basis for
taking any adverse actions against employees.
(2) The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(IIRIRA, P.L. 104-288) provided for increased border enforcement efforts and for
employment verification pilot programs.11 Although these programs are voluntary for
private employers in a limited number of test areas and are set to last no longer than
4 years, growers believe that their inclusion in P.L. 104-288 has merely delayed the
creation of a mandatory nationwide verification system.12
Currently, employers fulfill the legal requirement to not knowingly hire illegal
workers by viewing documents that show the new-hire’s identity and eligibility to
work in the United States, and by completing an I-9 (employment eligibility
verification) form. Under the Basic Pilot Program, for example, employers can access
the SSA or INS databases to validate a newly hired citizen’s or non-citizen’s eligibility
to work. If employers receive a final nonconfirmation of employment eligibility, they
must either fire the new-hire or be subject to financial penalties. The U.S. General
Accounting Office reported in 1997 that neither the INS pilot programs nor its border
8Conversations with SSA staff.
9Aleinikoff, T. Alexander. The Green Card Solution. The American Prospect, December
1999. Note: In addition to potential fines under immigration law, the Internal Revenue
Service may charge employers or employees $50 for providing incorrect information on W-2
forms. However, this does not often occur according to the SSA.
10The SSA provides the following examples in its letters of why mismatches might occur:
record transcription or typographical errors, incomplete or blank names or SSNs, or name
changes.
11Work eligibility verification demonstrations in addition to the IIRIRA pilots are authorized
under Section 274A(d)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Presidential Executive
Order 12781 of November 20, 1991. For more information see: Miksch, Karen I. INS Pilot
Programs for Employment Eligibility Confirmation. Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, International Migration Policy Program, November 1998.
12Vice, Bob L. Statement on behalf of the National Council of Agricultural Employers and
the American Farm Bureau Federation before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims. September 24, 1997.

---

CRS-4
enforcement initiative were likely to have an immediate, significant effect on the
supply to growers of fraudulently documented farmworkers.13
(3) The INS reportedly has increased its audits of I-9 forms, but “the incidence
... is still relatively low.” In the audits, the INS checks the authenticity of employees’
work authorization documents against government records. At the audits’
completion, the INS gives employers a list of employees whose documents were
deemed to be invalid. According to a representative of the growers, “Frequently, INS
audits of agricultural employers reveal that 60 to 70 percent of seasonal agricultural
workers have provided fraudulent documents. The employer is then required to
dismiss each employee on the list who cannot provide a valid employment
authorization document, something few workers can do.”14 This estimate of hired
farmworkers who have secured their jobs through presentation of fraudulent
documents is at the high end of figures reported elsewhere.15
Growers are concerned that these SSA and INS activities already have disrupted
their workforces by increasing employee turnover and therefore, decreasing the
stability of their labor supply. The perception that government actions might
negatively impact the agricultural workforce — allegedly to the extent that crops
would not be harvested, farmers would go bankrupt or produce costs to U.S.
consumers would rise — has prompted a legislative response in the past.
The Composition of the Seasonal Farm Labor Force
Immigration legislation sometimes has been crafted to take into account the
purported labor requirements of U.S. crop growers. In 1986, for example, Congress
passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA, P.L. 99-603) to curb the
presence of illegal aliens in the United States by imposing sanctions on employers who
knowingly hire individuals who lack permission to work in the country. In addition
to a general legalization program, P.L. 99-603 included two industry-specific
legalization programs — the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) program and the
Replenishment Agricultural Worker (RAW) program16 — that were intended to
compensate for the Act’s expected impact on the farm labor supply and encourage the
13GAO, H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program.
14Holt, James S. Statement on behalf of the National Council of Agricultural Employers
before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration. May 12, 1999.
15Perhaps one-fourth to three-fourths of the hired farm labor force may have relied on
fraudulent documents to gain employment. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Status Report:
Hired Farm Labor in U.S. Agriculture. Agricultural Outlook, October 1998.
16The INS approved over 1 million of the applications that individuals filed under the SAW
program to become legal permanent residents. Anticipating that SAWs would leave farming
because IRCA did not require them to remain in order to adjust their status, P.L. 99-603
included the RAW program as a back-up measure to ensure growers of an adequate labor
supply. The RAW program was never used because the annual calculations of farm labor
supply and demand that were made by the U.S. Departments of Labor and Agriculture during
the FY1990-1993 period found no national shortages of farmworkers.

---

CRS-5
development of a legal crop workforce. These provisions of the Act have not
operated in the offsetting manner that was intended, however, as substantial numbers
of illegal aliens have continued to join legal farmworkers in performing seasonal
agricultural services (SAS).17
On the basis of case studies that it sponsored, the Commission on Agricultural
Workers concluded in its 1992 report that individuals legalized under the SAW
program (i.e., SAWs) and other farmworkers planned to remain in the agricultural
labor force “indefinitely, or for as long as they are physically able.”18 According to
the DOL’s National Agricultural Workers Survey, two-thirds of SAWs stated that
they intended to engage in field work until the end of their working lives.19
For many SAWs, the end of their worklives — at least their worklives in farming
— may now be near at hand. The diminished physical ability generally associated with
aging in combination with the taxing nature of crop tasks could well be prompting
greater numbers of SAWs to leave the fields. Relatively few farmworkers are
involved in crop production beyond the age of 44 and even fewer beyond the age of
55 (9% and 6%, respectively, in FY1997-1998).20 The Commission on Agricultural
Workers noted that the typical SAW in 1990 was a 30-year-old male who “is likely
to remain in farm work well into the 21st century.”21 He is now closer to the age of
diminished participation in SAS labor: in FY1997-1998, the average age of SAWs
was 39, older than U.S.-born farmworkers (32) and unauthorized farmworkers (27).22
Thus, the 1986 legalization program has become less useful to fulfilling the labor
requirements of crop producers.
A combination of factors (e.g., aging and the availability of nonfarm jobs) likely
has contributed to the decrease in SAWs’ share of agricultural employment.23 The
17Seasonal agricultural services (SAS) were defined broadly in IRCA as field work related to
planting, cultivating, growing and harvesting of fruits and vegetables of every kind and other
perishable commodities. The terms “SAS,” “seasonal farm work,” “field work” and “crop
work” are used interchangeably in this report.
18Commission on Agricultural Workers, Report of the Commission on Agricultural Workers,
p. 75.
19DOL. U.S. Farmworkers in the Post-IRCA Period. Research Report No. 4, March 1993.
(Hereafter cited as DOL, U.S. Farmworkers in the Post-IRCA Period.)
20DOL. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998. Research
Report No. 8, March 2000. Available on the Internet at:
[http://www.dol.gov/dol/asp/public/programs/agworker/report_8.pdf.] (Hereafter cited as
DOL, Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998.)
21Commission on Agricultural Workers, Report of the Commission on Agricultural Workers,
p. 80.
22DOL, Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998.
23Alternatively, there are a number of reasons why SAWs would remain in farm employment
(e.g., limited English-language fluency and little formal education). In light of these
competing factors, the Commission on Agricultural Workers concluded that it would be
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
fraction of IRCA-legalized farmworkers fell from 33% in FY1989 to 16% in FY1997-
1998.24 Possibly the leading factor, however, is the substantial increase in the
presence of illegal aliens.25 In the first half of the 1990s, unauthorized workers rose
from 7% to 37% of the SAS labor force.26 And, their share now stands at 51.5%.27
Moreover, the number of SAS workdays performed by illegal aliens increased
dramatically from 57 in FY1989 to 154 in FY1991.28 In addition, of the many
newcomers to the sector in FY1994-1995, 70% were employed illegally.29
Illegal aliens, arguably, have been displacing legal workers from jobs in the
agricultural industry. Farmworker advocates assert that crop producers prefer illegal
employees because they have less bargaining power with regard to wages and
working conditions than legal employees. Growers counter that they would rather
not employ unauthorized workers because doing so puts them at risk of incurring
penalties. They argue that the considerable presence of illegal aliens in the U.S. farm
labor force implies a shortage of legal workers.
23(...continued)
difficult to estimate the attrition rate of SAWs from the fields. The existence of fraud in the
SAW program further complicates such a calculation because the stock of SAWs who
genuinely were farmworkers is unknown: when the Congress was debating immigration
proposals in the mid-1980s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that there were
300,000-500,000 unauthorized farmworkers, but more than twice the upper-end estimate were
legalized under the SAW program; this large discrepancy, as well as additional research, led
to the widely held conclusion that fraud was extensive.
24DOL, Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998. Note: In
addition to the more than 1 million workers legalized through the SAW program, about 7%
(119,000) of the 1.7 million aliens granted legal permanent resident status under IRCA’s
general amnesty program were employed in agriculture when they filed their applications.
Oliveira, Effland, Runyan and Hamm, Hired Farm Labor in Fruit, Vegetable, and
Horticultural Specialty Farms.
25The Commission on Agricultural Workers determined that the design of the SAW program
was, at least in part, responsible for the increase in illegal immigration because if dependents
of SAWs did not similarly have their status adjusted, they might have illegally entered the
United States to join family members. In addition, the network or kinship recruitment process
for SAS work continued to flourish and to facilitate not only job placement, but also migration
by assisting in border-crossing and in acquiring fraudulent work authorization documents.
These findings led the Commission to conclude that “the concept of a worker-specific and
industry-specific legalization program was fundamentally flawed. It invited fraud, posed
difficult definitional problems regarding who should or should not be eligible, and ignored the
longstanding priority of U.S. immigration policy favoring the unification of families.”
Commission on Agricultural Workers, Report of the Commission on Agricultural Workers,
p. 67.
26DOL, A Profile of U.S. Farmworkers.
27DOL, Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998.
28DOL, Farmworkers in the Post-IRCA Period.
29DOL, A Profile of U.S. Farmworkers.

---

CRS-7
Farmworker groups and some policy analysts contend that even if the previously
described SSA and INS activities were to deprive farmers of many of their illegal
workers, the industry could adjust to a smaller supply of legal workers by (1)
introducing labor-efficient technologies and management practices, and (2) raising
wages which, in turn, would entice more legal workers into the farm labor force.
Grower advocates respond that further mechanization would be difficult to develop
for many crops and that, even at higher wages, not many U.S. workers would want
to perform physically demanding, seasonal, migratory farm labor under variable
climactic conditions. Moreover, employer representatives and some policy analysts
maintain that growers cannot raise wages substantially without making the U.S.
industry uncompetitive in world markets which, in turn, would reduce farm
employment. In response, farmworker supporters note that wages are a small part of
the price consumers pay for fresh fruits and vegetables and accordingly, higher wages
would result in only a slight rise in retail prices. These remain untested arguments as
perishable crop growers have rarely, if ever, had to operate without illegal aliens in
their workforces.
A Farm Labor Shortage?
At the present time, trends in the farm labor market generally do not suggest the
existence of a nationwide shortage of domestically available farmworkers, in part
because the government’s statistical series cover legal and illegal workers. This
overall finding does not preclude the possibility of farm labor shortages in certain
areas of the country at various times of the year (i.e., spot labor shortages).
Caution should be exercised when reviewing the statistics on farmworkers’
employment, unemployment, time worked and wages that follow. The surveys from
which the data are derived cover somewhat different groups within the farm labor
force (e.g., all hired farmworkers as opposed to those engaged only in crop
production or workers employed directly by growers as opposed to those supplied to
growers by farm labor contractors), and they have different sample sizes. A
household survey such as the Current Population Survey (CPS) could well understate
the presence of farmworkers because they are more likely to live in less traditional
quarters (e.g., labor camps) and of illegal workers generally because they may be
reluctant to respond to government enumerators. And, some of the surveys have
individuals as respondents (e.g., the CPS and the DOL’s National Agricultural
Workers Survey) while others have employers as respondents (e.g., the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service Farm Labor
Survey). Surveys that query employers are more likely to pickup unauthorized
employment than are surveys that query individuals.
Employment
The demand for and supply of labor typically cannot be measured directly.
Instead, proxies are used such as the trend in employment. Decreases in an
occupation’s employment or small gains compared to those recorded for other
occupations might signal that labor demand is not approaching a supply constraint.

---

CRS-8
The employment of hired workers engaged in crop or livestock production
(including contract workers) has fluctuated erratically between 1990 and 2000.
However, the trend overall has been downward, ranging from -0.8% to -1.8% (see
columns 7 and 3, respectively, in Table 1). The employment pattern among crop
workers hired directly by growers (i.e., excluding those supplied by farm labor
contractors and crew leaders) has regularly risen and then fallen back, but to a higher
level. This ratcheting upward of employment produced a 12% gain over the 1990-
2000 period. In contrast, other wage and salary workers have experienced steady and
robust job growth since the 1990-1991 recession’s end. For the entire period (1990-
2000), wage and salary employment in nonfarm industries advanced by 14%. These
divergent employment patterns suggest that hired farmworkers have not shared
equally in the nation’s longest economic expansion and appear to be inconsistent with
the presence of a nationwide farm labor shortage.
Table 1. Hired Farm Employment
(numbers in thousands)
Total
Economic Research
National Agricultural Statistics
nonfarm
Service (ERS) b
Service (NASS) c
wage &
Year
salary
Hired
Hired
Hired
Agricultur-
employ-
farm
crop
farm
al service
Total
ment a
workers d
workers e
workers f
workers g
1990
115,570
886
419
892
250
1142
1991
114,449
884
449
910
259
1169
1992
115,245
848
409
866
252
1118
1993
117,144
803
436
857
256
1113
1994
119,651
793
411
840
250
1090
1995
121,460
849
433
869
251
1120
1996
123,264
906
451
832
236
1068
1997
126,159
889
434
876
240
1116
1998
128,085
875
458
880
246
1126
1999
130,207
841
440
929
233
1162
2000
131,903
870
468
890
243
1133
Source: Created by the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) from sources cited below.
Note: Numbers rounded to the nearest thousand.
a Data are from the monthly CPS, a survey of households, as reported by the DOL’s Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) for individuals age 16 or older. Because the CPS was substantially revised, data
from 1994 forward are not strictly comparable with data from earlier years.

---

CRS-9
b Data are from the monthly CPS as reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s ERS for
individuals age 15 or older.
c Data are from the Farm Labor Survey, a quarterly survey of farm operators, as reported by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s NASS. The statistics reflect individuals on employers’ payrolls during
the survey week in January, April, July, and October. Data for Alaska are not included. 1990-1994
annual averages for all hired farmworkers and 1990-1999 annual averages for agricultural service
workers were calculated by CRS.
d In the CPS, an individual’s occupation is based on the activity in which he spent the most hours
during the survey week. Hired farmworkers are those whose primary job is farmwork and for which
they receive wages, as opposed to unpaid family workers or self-employed farmers. Hired
farmworkers include individuals engaged in planting, cultivating, and harvesting crops or tending
livestock whom growers employ directly or through agricultural service providers (e.g., farm labor
contractors and crew leaders), as well as farm managers, supervisors of farmworkers, and nursery
and other workers.
e The ERS disaggregates hired farmworkers by the kind of establishment employing them (i.e.,
establishments primarily engaged in crop production, livestock production or other). As “other”
includes agricultural service providers, the figures for crop workers are limited to farmworkers whom
growers employ directly.
f The NASS counts as hired farmworkers only those persons paid directly by farmers. Hired
farmworkers include field workers (i.e., those who plant, cultivate and harvest crops), livestock
workers (i.e., those who tend livestock, milk cows or care for poultry) and supervisory workers (e.g.,
managers or range foremen) as well as other workers on farmers’ payrolls (e.g., bookkeepers,
secretaries or pilots).
g Includes contract, custom or other workers supplied to farmers but paid by agricultural service firms
(e.g., farm labor contractors or crew leaders).
Farm employment is subject to considerable seasonal variation during the course
of a year. Typically, demand for hired farm labor peaks in July when many crops are
ready to be harvested. The July employment data from the NASS Farm Labor
Survey, like the annualized data from the same survey (see columns 5-7 in Table 1),
was very unstable during the 1990-2000 period.30
Unemployment
Employment data sketch an incomplete picture of the state of the labor market.
At the same time that employment in a given occupation is decreasing or increasing
relatively slowly, unemployment in the occupation might be falling. Employers would
then be faced with a shrinking supply of untapped labor from which to draw. A falling
unemployment rate or level would offer some basis for this possibility.
As shown in Table 2, the unemployment rate of hired farmworkers engaged in
crop or livestock production (including contract labor) has been and remains quite
high. Between 10% and 13% of these workers were without jobs in the 1994-2000
period, or at least twice the average unemployment rate in the nation. There also
30According to the Farm Labor Survey, hired farmworker and agricultural services
employment was as follows in July of each year: 1990 — 1,462,000; 1991 — 1,486,000;
1992 — 1,417,000; 1993 — 1,420,000; 1994 — 1,381,000; 1995 — 1,414,000; 1996 —
1,346,000; 1997 — 1,409,000; 1998 — 1,450,000; 1999 — 1,474,000; 2000 — 1,377,000.

---

CRS-10
does not appear to have been an exodus of unemployed workers from farming since
the mid-1990s as the number of hired farmworkers who lack jobs has not clearly
trended downward.
Other observers have examined the unemployment rates in counties that are
heavily dependent on the crop farming industry. The GAO, for example, found that
many of these agricultural areas chronically experienced double-digit unemployment
rates that were well above those reported for much of the rest of the United States.
Even when looking at monthly unemployment rates for these areas in order to take
into account the seasonality of farm work, the agency found that the agricultural
counties exhibited comparatively high rates of joblessness.31 These kind of findings
imply a surplus rather than a shortage of farmworkers.32
Table 2. The Rate and Level of Unemployment
Unemployment rate
Number of unemployed
Year
hired farmworkers (in
All occupations
Hired farmworkers
thousands)
1994
6.1
12.1
109
1995
5.6
12.5
121
1996
5.4
11.5
118
1997
4.9
10.6
106
1998
4.5
11.8
117
1999
4.2
10.6
100
2000
4.0
10.6
104
Source: CPS data tabulated by the BLS (column 2) and the ERS (columns 3 and 4).
Note: In the CPS, an individual’s occupation is based on the activity in which they spent the most
hours during the survey week. The ERS defines hired farmworkers as individuals age 15 or older
whose primary job is farmwork and for which they receive wages. Hired farmworkers include
individuals engaged in crop or livestock production whom growers employ directly or through
agricultural service providers (e.g., farm labor contractors), as well as farm managers, supervisors
of farmworkers, and nursery and other workers.
Another perspective on the availability of untapped farm labor comes from the
DOL’s National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS).33 During FY1997-1998, the
typical crop worker spent just 47% of the year performing farm jobs. The remainder
of the year, these farmworkers either were engaged in nonfarm work (8% of the year)
31GAO, H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program.
32See also: Munoz, Cecilia. Statement on behalf of the National Council of La Raza before
the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration. May 12, 1999.
33See “Note” in Table 5 for information about the survey.

---

CRS-11
or not working (19%) while in the United States, or they were abroad (24%).34 This
pattern also suggests an excess supply of labor, assuming that the workers wanted
more farm employment. Grower advocates contend that the pattern is a manifestation
of working in a seasonal industry. But, during the peak month (June) in 1997, only
a small majority of farmworkers (58%) held farm jobs.35
Time Worked
Another indicator of supply-demand conditions is the amount of time worked
(e.g., hours or days). If employers are faced with a labor shortage, they might be
expected to increase the amount of time worked by their employees.
The Seasonality of Demand: Hours Versus Employment. Recent data
reveal no discernible year-to-year variation in the average number of weekly hours
that hired farmworkers are employed in crop or livestock production. According to
the NASS Farm Labor Survey (FLS), the average workweek of hired farmworkers
ranged narrowly (from 40.0- 40.3 hours) since the mid-1990s. Thus, neither the trend
in employment nor in work hours seem to imply the existence of a farm labor
shortage.
There also is not much variability in demand over the course of a year based on
hours worked. In 2000, for example, the average week of hired farmworkers was
38.4 hours in mid-January, 40.4 hours in mid-April, 40.0 hours in mid-July and 41.2
hours in mid-October.
The instability of the demand for farm labor within a year (i.e., seasonality) is
reflected in employment levels more than in work hours per week. The FLS data
show that in 2000, for example, farmers had 685,000 workers on their payrolls in
mid-January; 840,000 in mid-April; 1,084,000 in mid-July; and 952,000 in mid-
October.
The Number of Days Worked. Another measure of time worked available
from the FLS is “expected days of employment” (i.e., farm operators are asked the
number of days they intend to utilize their hired farmworkers over the course of a
year). As shown in Table 3, they anticipated a low of 593,000 farmworkers on their
payrolls for at least 150 days in 1996 and a high of 665,800 (un)authorized workers
in 1999. “Year-round” workers accounted for about 70% of hired farmworkers since
the mid-1990s.36
34DOL, Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998.
35DOL, Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998.
36These figures potentially are relevant to legislative proposals in the 107th Congress that
would link eligibility for legalization to time spent in farm work. H.R. 2736 and S. 1313
would require unauthorized workers who want to apply for legal temporary residence to prove
that they had performed at least 90 days or 540 hours of farm work, whichever is less, during
any 12 consecutive months of the 18-month period ending on June 30, 2001. To adjust status
to legal permanent residence, these individuals would have to have been employed on farms
(continued...)

---

CRS-12
Table 3. Hired Farmworkers by Expected Days of Employment
150 Days or more of expected employment
149 Days or less of
Year
expected
Number of hired
Percent of all hired
employment
workers
farmworkers
1994
597,000
71
243,000
1995
597,800
69
270,800
1996
593,000
71
239,000
1997
629,000
72
247,300
1998
638,500
73
241,000
1999
665,800
72
263,300
2000
639,800
72
250,500
Source: Annual averages calculated by CRS from quarterly releases of the Farm Labor Survey.
Note: The NASS Farm Labor Survey counts as hired farmworkers only those persons paid directly
by farmers (i.e., contract, custom or other workers paid directly by agricultural service providers are
excluded). Hired farmworkers include field workers (i.e., those who plant, cultivate and harvest
crops), livestock workers (i.e., those who tend livestock, milk cows or care for poultry) and
supervisory workers (e.g., crew leaders or range foremen) as well as other workers on farmers’
payrolls (e.g., bookkeepers, secretaries or pilots).
NAWS data show that the number of days crop workers actually were employed
on farms has diminished over time. In FY1990-1992, the typical foreign-born crop
worker was employed in farming for 196 days; in FY1993-1995, the number of farm
workdays fell to 186; and in FY1996-1998, the average number of days spent in crop
production dropped still further to 174.37 SAS workdays fell among native-born crop
36(...continued)
for 90 days or 540 hours in each of 3 years during the 4-year period beginning on the date the
alien first obtained employment authorization. In contrast, S. 1161 would require
unauthorized workers who want to apply for legal temporary residence to prove that they had
performed at least 150 days or 900 hours of farm work, whichever is less, during any 12
consecutive months of the 18-month period ending on July 4, 2001. To adjust status to legal
permanent residence, these individuals would have to have been employed on farms for 150
days or 900 hours in each of 4 years during the 6-year period ending in November 2001.
While some might wish to use the above-described data to roughly estimate the number
of unauthorized farmworkers who would be eligible to adjust status, they describe the
expectations of farmers and they do not distinguish between legal and illegal workers. In
addition, the data could produce an underestimate because they omit the more than 200,000
contract workers on the payrolls of agricultural service providers. Alternatively, the data
could produce an overestimate because they include employees not normally thought of as
farmworkers (e.g., bookkeepers, secretaries or pilots).
37Calculated by CRS from data reported in DOL, Findings from the National Agricultural
(continued...)

---

CRS-13
workers, as well, from 165 to158. Thus, the trend in days worked — in addition to
the previously discussed trends in employment and in hours worked — appear to
suggest that a nationwide farm labor shortage is not at hand.
Wages
Economic theory suggests that if the demand for labor is nearing or has
outstripped the supply of labor, firms will in the short-run bid up wages to compete
for workers. As a result, earnings in the short-supply field would be expected to
increase more rapidly than earnings across all industries or occupations. The ratio of,
in this instance, farm to nonfarm wages also would be expected to rise if the former’s
labor supply were especially constrained.
The average hourly earnings of field workers (excluding contract workers) rose
to a greater extent than those of other employees in the private sector between 1990
and 2000, at 43.4% and 37.4%, respectively (see Table 4). Nonetheless, field
workers’ pay hardly increased as a share of other workers’ pay: at $7.50 per hour in
2000, field workers still earned a little more than 50 cents for every dollar earned by
other private-sector workers.
NAWS data reveal a different trend in wages. The survey also produces lower
wage estimates than those from the FLS. (See Table 4 and Table 5.) These
disparities likely are related to differences between the two surveys. Although the
populations covered by the NAWS and the FLS are similar, the NAWS’ wage figures
include contract labor while those from the FLS do not. As workers supplied to
growers by farm labor contractors generally are paid less than direct-hires, this
difference could have contributed to the lower hourly earnings of the NAWS. In
addition, the NAWS questions workers; the FLS, employers. Figures supplied by
employers usually are thought to be more accurate than those recalled by workers.
And, while both surveys are designed to reflect seasonal variations during the course
of a year, they do not cover identical reference periods.
37(...continued)
Workers Survey: 1997-1998. Note: The dwindling number of farm workdays over time
suggests that illegal alien crop workers could find it increasingly difficult to meet the
requirement for adjustment to permanent resident status of performing farm work for 90 days
or 540 hours in each of 3 out of 4 years (H.R. 2736/S. 1313) or 150 days or 900 hours in
each of 4 out of 6 years.

---

CRS-14
Table 4. Average Hourly Earnings of Field Workers and Other
Workers in the Private Sector
(in nominal dollars)
Average hourly wages
Ratio of hourly
Average hourly
of production or
field worker
Year
wages of field
nonsupervisory
wages to private
workers
workers in the private
nonfarm worker
nonfarm sector
wages
1990
5.23
10.01
52.2
1991
5.49
10.32
53.2
1992
5.69
10.57
53.8
1993
5.90
10.83
54.5
1994
6.02
11.12
54.1
1995
6.13
11.43
53.6
1996
6.34
11.82
53.6
1997
6.66
12.28
54.2
1998
6.97
12.78
54.5
1999
7.19
13.24
54.3
2000
7.50
13.75
54.5
1990-2000
43.4
37.4
—
% change
Source: Created by CRS from FLS (column 2) and BLS (column 3) employer survey data.
Note: Field workers are a subset of hired farmworkers who engage in planting, tending and
harvesting crops. The data relate to all field workers regardless of method of payment (i.e., those
paid an hourly rate, by the piece or a combination of the two). Contract, custom or other workers
paid directly by agricultural service providers are excluded.
Between 1990 and 1998, the average hourly earnings of crop workers rose to
a lesser extent based on the NAWS (18.2%) than on the FLS (33.3%). Crop
workers’ wages, according to the NAWS, rose to a lesser extent in the 1990-1998
period than those of other workers in the private sector (18.2% and 27.7%,
respectively) — just the opposite of the relationship between the FLS and BLS data
(33.3% and 27.7%, respectively). As a result of the relatively lower wage estimates
and the relatively slow wage growth derived from the NAWS, the typical crop worker
was estimated to have dropped below 50 cents for every dollar paid to other private-
sector workers since the late 1990s.

---

CRS-15
Table 5. Average Hourly Earnings of Crop Workers and Other
Workers in the Private Sector
(in nominal dollars)
Average hourly wages
Ratio of hourly
Average hourly
of production or
crop worker
Year
wages of crop
nonsupervisory workers
wages to private
workers
in the private nonfarm
nonfarm worker
sector
wages
1990
5.23
10.01
52.2
1991
5.57
10.32
53.9
1992
5.33
10.57
50.4
1993
5.46
10.83
50.4
1994
5.54
11.12
49.8
1995
5.71
11.43
49.9
1996
5.67
11.82
47.9
1997
5.89
12.28
47.9
1998
6.18
12.78
48.4
% change
18.2
27.7
—
Source: Created by CRS from NAWS worker (column 2) and BLS employer survey data (column
3).
Note: Crop workers include field packers, supervisors and other field workers who engage in such
activities as planting, tending and harvesting crops. Initially, the survey included only field workers
on perishable crop farms to comply with IRCA: NAWS was developed to enable the DOL to
calculate changes in the supply of SAS labor, which was then used in the shortage calculation
conducted by the U.S. Departments of Labor and Agriculture for triggering the RAW program. In
the mid-1990s, the survey was expanded to include field workers in non-perishable crops (e.g., silage
or other crops intended solely for animal fodder). The data relate to the farm earnings of field
workers age 14 or older, regardless of method of payment (i.e., those paid an hourly rate, by the piece
or a combination of the two). The sample includes direct-hires and contract labor. The survey is
conducted at different times over the course of a year to capture seasonal variations.
Conclusion
In summary, indicators of supply-demand conditions generally are inconsistent
with the existence of a nationwide shortage of domestically available farmworkers in
part because the measures include both legal and illegal employment. This finding
does not preclude the possibility of farmworker shortages in certain parts of the
country at various times during the year. The analysis does not address the adequacy
of legal workers in the seasonal farm labor supply relative to grower demand.

---

CRS-16
Whether there would be an adequate supply of legal U.S. farmworkers if new
technologies were developed or different labor-management practices were
implemented continues to be an unanswered question. Whether more U.S. workers
would be willing to become farmworkers if wages were raised and whether the size
of the increase would make the industry uncompetitive in the world marketplace also
remain open issues. These matters remain unresolved because perishable crop
growers have rarely, if ever, had to operate without illegal aliens being present in the
domestic farm workforce.38
38In the conference report for the Labor Department’s FY2000 appropriation (H.Rept. 106-
479), the Congress charged the DOL with reporting on ways to promote a legal domestic
workforce in the agricultural sector and on options for such things as improving farmworker
compensation, developing a more stable farm workforce, and enhancing farmworkers’ living
conditions. The report (U.S. Department of Labor Report to Congress: The Agricultural
Labor Market — Status and Recommendations), issued in December 2000, recommends that
the federal minimum wage be raised, agency funding for labor law enforcement increased,
congressional appropriations for AgWork (i.e., an internet-based, on-line job matching system
specifically for agricultural employees and employers) continued, growers’ greater use of
automated employee verification systems encouraged, H-2A program streamlining further
pursued while maintaining protections for U.S. and foreign farmworkers and discussions held
with countries from which farmworkers come to “explore ways in which their legal rights can
be better protected.” The Department concluded that IRCA’s farm legalization program failed
to turn an illegal into a legal workforce. It asserted that congressional proposals to ease
growers’ access to temporary farmworkers outside the existing H-2A program “would not
create a legal domestic agricultural workforce” and instead “would lower wages and working
and living conditions in agricultural jobs resulting in fewer domestic workers continuing
employment in agriculture and perpetuating the industry’s dependence on a foreign labor
force.” The DOL pointed out that another approach to creating a legal supply of crop
workers has never been tried — increasing wages and improving working conditions “by
normalizing legal protections for farm workers and increasing mechanization,” which has the
potential to attract more U.S. workers to agriculture and raise the productivity of a possibly
smaller farm labor force. In recognition that there might be short-run increases in farm labor
costs were its recommendations implemented, the Department urged the Congress to consider
ways to temporarily assist crop growers.

---

---