From 40 to 48: The Controversial Push to Expand Farmworker Hours

A proposal gaining traction in California agriculture circles aims to undo what many now view as a costly miscalculation: a 2016 labor law that slashed the standard workweek for farmworkers. The Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League is leading the charge to expand the regular workweek from 40 to 48 hours before overtime pay kicks in—a move they say would help both growers and workers rebound from years of unintended wage losses.

Their argument is simple: give farmworkers back their hours and let them earn a full paycheck.

The Cost of Good Intentions

The 2016 law, Assembly Bill 1066, was intended to bring equity to the ag labor force by extending overtime protections long afforded to workers in other industries. But when the 40-hour threshold became the new norm in 2019, many growers opted to cut hours entirely rather than pay premium rates. That meant fewer hours, less stability, and smaller paychecks for farmworkers across the state.

A Different Path Forward

Rather than sidestep the issue, the Nisei Farmers League is addressing it head-on. Their plan would reinstate a 48-hour threshold before overtime applies, effectively bringing back a sixth workday during the week—something they claim is overwhelmingly supported by farmworkers themselves.

“Nisei Farmers League believes that a 48-hour work week is the most valued to a worker,” the group said in a statement. “This will benefit both the employer and the employees.”

Sean Haynes, Chief Financial Officer at The Ag Center, agrees that the proposal could offer much-needed relief to both sides of the labor equation.

“This proposal could benefit workers by giving them the opportunity to earn more without pushing farms into unsustainable payroll costs,” said Haynes. “It gives flexibility back to the employer, while respecting the worker’s desire to earn a full week’s wages.”

Who Took the Biggest Hit?

Research from UC Davis’ Rural Migration News points to workers in dairy, irrigation, and equipment operation as the hardest hit under the current system. Instead of paying overtime, employers either limited hours or hired more entry-level workers, leaving seasoned employees underutilized and underpaid.

The Nisei Farmers League estimates some workers have lost over $16,000 a year since AB 1066 took full effect. Under their new plan, average annual wages could rebound to roughly $41,000, though that’s still shy of pre-2019 levels.

Harvest Crunch: Labor When You Need It

Haynes says the timing of labor needs—especially during harvest—doesn’t always align neatly with labor laws.

“Flexibility in labor hours during critical times is key for a farm’s bottom line,” he said. “When you need bodies in the field, you're either paying heavy overtime or hiring extra hands, which often disrupts productivity and consistency.”

Legislative Inertia

Efforts to soften the blow of AB 1066 haven’t gained much traction in Sacramento. A recent bill, SB 628, introduced by Senator Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), sought to offer payroll tax credits to offset overtime costs. It died in committee, despite support from ag groups.

Haynes warns that if reforms continue to stall, the result won’t be better pay—it will be fewer jobs altogether.

“Margins are already thin. If labor costs keep rising and commodity prices don’t follow suit, you’ll see more automation, more robotics, and a less labor-reliant ag economy,” he said. “That’s not a future that benefits rural communities or farm families.”

A Balancing Act

As farm labor policy becomes a flashpoint in the Capitol once again, the stakes are high. For California’s ag economy to thrive, it must strike a balance—one that honors fair labor practices without pushing farms and farmworkers out of the market altogether.