Please join us to review, comment, and approve the six guide boxes of the 2014 American Pima Grade Standards.  Once approved, the guide boxes will be used as the reference to match all of the 2014 American Pima Grade Standards.  The guide box review and the standards matching will both take place the morning of July 16. Industry participation is key to this process and we hope you all can come and be a part of this important annual event.

For additional information please contact:

Greg Townsend, Area Director
E-mail: greg.townsend@ams.usda.gov
Visalia Classing Office
7100 West Sunnyview Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Phone: (559) 651-3015

OR

James Knowlton, Director
E-mail:  james.knowlton@ams.usda.gov
Standardization Division
3275 Appling Road
Memphis, TN 38133
Phone: (901) 384-3030

The preliminary acreages as determined by the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Pink Bollworm Program are in and slightly higher than predicted back in March.  The current estimate is now at a total of 210,000 acres statewide with 197,000 acres in the San Joaquin Valley, 10,255 acres in Southern California and an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 acres in the Sacramento Valley.  The breakdown in the San Joaquin Valley is as follows:

               Fresno County –                47,805
               Kern County –                   34,660
               Kings County –                  63.970
               Madera County –               745
               Merced County –               35,945
               Total =                                197,115

In Southern California, the breakdown is as follows:

               Imperial County –             2,695
               Riverside County –            7,445
               San Bernandino County  –  115
               Total =                                10,255

The Sacramento County acres are still being determined, but again estimated to be between 2,500 and 3,000 acres.  In terms of variety, the pima vs. upland/acala has yet to be determined.  We will notify everyone when that becomes available. 

Please be advised that the acres listed are based on Pink Bollworm Program field mapping tecniques are intended for use on PBW Program detection and control activities and are not assumed to represent exact cotton acreage planted in California.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:  Anita Brown (530) 792-5644
Sarah Marquat  (916) 798-9295

DAVIS, CA, June 10, 2014–The new 2014 Farm Bill brought changes in conservation, commodity programs, crop insurance, rural development programs, loans, disaster programs, energy opportunities and much more. Many of these changes will take full effect in fiscal year 2015, beginning October 1, 2014.  Interested farmers, ranchers, agencies and organizations are welcome to attend workshops to hear about these and other Farm Bill changes from four USDA agencies.  Most of the workshops will be devoted to answering questions and providing one-on-one assistance to attendees.

The June workshops will be held as follows: 

Yuba City on June 24^th, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. at the Farm Bureau 475 Palora Ave

Fresno on June 25^th, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. at Farm Bureau 1274 W Hedges Ave

The four USDA Agencies listed below will be available to discuss new, broadened and ongoing program opportunities and new eligibility requirements.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service: New streamlined program structure; a new Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), and new adjusted gross income (SGI) requirements.

The Farm Service Agency: Significant changes and more options available in commodity programs, disaster programs, and a new milk income loss program.

Risk Management Agency: Broadened federal crop options, especially for organic and specialty crop producers; new supplemental coverage options for cotton producers.

Rural Development: Simplified application for several programs. New home loan eligibility for rural areas with population up to 35,000.  New grant program for business development with priority for local food projects, new partnership with community colleges.

###

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in California will assist farmers to chip woody debris in fallowed orchards and vineyards impacted by California’s ongoing drought. The conservation benefits associated with this practice include controlling erosion and protecting air quality.   “NRCS is committed to helping farmers and ranchers manage the impacts of California’s drought,” said Carlos Suarez, NRCS California state conservationist. “This initiative builds upon the $25 million we have already invested this fiscal year to apply on-farm water conservation measures across the state.”  The California Air Quality Chipping Initiative, through NRCS’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), will assist agricultural producers in chipping woody debris from removed orchards or vineyards that are no longer being irrigated due to the extreme drought conditions. These crops are located in areas where surface water deliveries are severely curtailed or suspended and no other sources of water are available for continued irrigation.  Applying the chipped debris to the fallowed orchard or vineyard land stabilizes the surface area to limit fugitive dust emissions due to wind erosion and helps improve soil health by increasing soil carbon, organic matter and water retention. The wood chips may also be hauled away to a nearby composting facility or to a biomass-fueled power plant where the chips are consumed as renewable fuel for producing electricity. Farmers in Fresno, Kings, Kern, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare counties have until June 20, 2014, to apply.  For additional information, eligible farmers are encouraged to contact their local NRCS Service Center. Service center locations can be found at www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov.

The foreman starts his workday at least 1 hour before (5:30 a.m.) the general laborers (6:30 a.m.) because he has to transport people.
He then takes his lunch with the general laborers (11:00 a.m.) and is not allowed to leave. Is this legal?

No. Generally, California law provides that every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take a thirty (30)-minute meal period after no more than five (5) hours of work.

If the employee is not relieved of all duties during the thirty (30)-minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an “on duty” meal period and counted as time worked.

The “on-duty”meal period is permissible only when (1) the nature of the work prevents the employee from being relieved of all duty; (2) the employee and the employer agree in writing to an on-the-job meal period; (3) the written agreement states that the employee may revoke in writing at any time; and (4) the employee is paid for the meal period.

Moreover, the employee must still be provided with the opportunity to eat the meal. The parties may not agree to on-duty meal period because it is desired or helpful.

In the example above, the employer is in violation of the law for several reasons. First, if the foreman starts work at 5:30 a.m., he must be provided with a meal period no later than 10:30 a.m. Second, the foreman is not relieved of all his duties because he is not allowed to leave the employer’s premises. Therefore, his meal period is considered an “on-duty” meal period. The employer may lawfully provide an “on-duty” meal period if it can satisfy “the nature of the work” exception along with the other requirements.

California courts have not defined what constitutes “the nature of the work” exception. However, the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) issued several opinion letters addressing when the exception may apply. (Note: DLSE opinion letters are not binding on California courts, but may serve as persuasive material).

DLSE letters make clear that the showing necessary to establish “the nature of the work” exception is high. Whether the exception applies must be made on a case by case and day by day basis.DLSE provides a list of non-exhaustive factors that should be considered in deciding whether the exception applies:

1. The type of work;
2. The availability of other employees to provide relief during the meal period;
3. The potential consequences to the employer if the employee is relieved of all duty;
4. The ability of the employer to anticipate and mitigate these consequences such as by scheduling the work in a manner to allow the employee to take an off-duty meal period;
5. Whether the work product or process will be destroyed or damaged by relieving the employee of all duty.

According to DLSE, some examples that fit this exception are a sole worker in an all-night convenience store, a sole security guard stationed in a remote location or a position requiring continuous operation of machinery, which requires monitoring. However, DLSE declined to apply the “nature of work” exception to late-night shift managers at fast-food restaurants because other employees are on duty and could cover for the manager with no economic hardship for the employer.

In the above example, the foreman is not allowed to leave the employer’s premises presumably because he is needed to supervise or to address any issues. Nonetheless, the foreman will not meet the “nature of the work” exception because other crew members are present at the same time and can be trained to provide the necessary relief. It is also unlikely that the employer will suffer any economic harm if the foreman takes an off-duty meal period. Therefore, the employer above is in violation of the law because the foreman does not meet “the nature of the work” exception.

Counsel to Management: DLSE sets an impossible standard for “the nature of the work” exception. Most of the employees will be unable to meet the exception. Therefore, if possible, the employers should not provide “on-duty” meal periods. If you have any questions regarding on-duty meal periods, please contact The Saqui Law Group.