The article is imprecise; the bill was to allow agricultural employees (not farmers) to unionize with collective-bargaining rights and protections against being fired by their employers for engaging in union activities (or other self-organized “protected concerted” activities, even without a union). Agricultural workers were specifically exempted from coverage by the 1935 federal National Labor Relations Act. Each state can determine whether there can be protections similar to the NLRA for agricultural workers; California is one of the few that has them.
Even without a state law for agricultural workers, they can of course form a union (under freedom of association) but an agricultural employer would not be required by law to bargain collectively with such a union, and the workers would not be protected against being fired for union activities. I practiced labor law for 35 years.
Thank you for that explanation.
I got suckered by the headline, although I violated Free Republic practices and read the entire article as well.
Most reporters don’t write their own headlines. It’s amusing to see how interest is ginned up to create discussion.
Using “farmers” instead of blueberry pickers or potato pickers achieved that goal.