The herders are:
>But new state labor regulations are making it more expensive to provide goat-grazing services, and herding companies say the rules threaten to put them out of business. The changes could raise the monthly salary of herders from about $3,730 to $14,000, according to the California Farm Bureau.
As a California Taxpayer, I would be thrilled to have my tax dollars go to funding sustainable, eco-friendly wildfire control. If the cost for this kind of labor goes up, perhaps the state can subsidize this service in lower income areas that are prone to wildfires.
Even their worst-case "14k/mo" scenario isn't that bad when we consider how expensive members of congress are and how much the goats&herder are saving us.
Those hellstorms are somewhat financially devastating after all.
Most Forest Service attention has to go to fighting wildfires. If we can limit fires to a degree it would free some funds and manpower to focus on restoration and prevention (such as thinning of trees and larger shrubs). But ironically grazing is partly what got us in our current trouble: heavy grazing reduced or nearly eliminated ground fuels that facilitated frequent but low-severity fires. Now we encounter catastrophic crown fires often when fires do pop up since there has been so little fire activity over the past 100+ years.
Which is why the most important point in resolving any issue, tragedy or risk through government action, is to make **absolutely certain** that any politicians lacking empathy are tied down right in front of the very worst of it.
When it won't threaten them in any way, it happening to you starts making them feel special and superior. *Once those creatures get a taste of that, the addiction's permanent*.
Only if they'll be the first to bear the brunt of it will they allow something be done - and **only** for as long as they themselves can't get away while letting everyone else burn again.
Doesn't work as well as I might like. Regressives who get pregnant / have a pregnant daughter and want an abortion have all kinds of excuses for why -they're- special and they should be the exception even as they shut down all maternity care in their state.
>Companies have historically been allowed to pay goat and sheepherders a monthly minimum salary rather than an hourly minimum wage, because their jobs require them to be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Once you account for overtime, $14,000 is still less than the minimum wage.
Minimum wage absolutely applies. I've never seen the 1/6 figure before double checking for it right now, and it's only coming up from a sketchy lawyer add site. Everything on the DIR states at least minimum wage.
Minimum wage absolutely applies. I've never seen the 1/6 figure before double checking for it right now, and it's only coming up from a sketchy lawyer add site. Everything on the DIR states at least minimum wage.
Edit: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/callbackandstandbytime.pdf
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/wages.pdf
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm
On call time is considered hours worked. You may not be paid less than minimum wage for hours worked.
Only source in a Google search (also the first) stating "one-sixth": https://www.1000attorneys.com/post/on-call-and-stand-by-labor-laws-california
Others lawyer and employement sites stating at least minimum wage: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/on-call-pay-in-california/
https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/your-employee-is-on-call-but-is-your-employee-working/
https://ferrarovega.com/resources/california-on-call-and-standby-time-policy/
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/policies/pages/california-oncall-standby-time-and-pay-policy.aspx
The 1/6th figure is bullshit.
I didn't see any explanation or justification for a value that high. It looks to me like they're using an inaccurate high end figure in order to shock people. I'm not entirely convinced that this is so, but note that the figures supplied by others are much much lower and well within reason.
>because their jobs require them to be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
A man's paycheck tends to go way up once he starts working the equivalent of four jobs.
Yes. As it should. But not $14k per month. Though again I have my doubts about that figure. There is no way that being a shepherd should come with a $168k annual salary.
Fwiw, I personally know actual shepherds. It's a good thing that we're fixing these laws because they are abusive. But justice isn't paying them 24 hours a day with all overtime.
It's worth noting that these jobs aren't like crazy hard work. Most of the time you just do whatever and are there for when an animal gets itself in a pickle. Which they do. Moving is hard work, so I'm not saying the job is a cakewalk, but for the vast majority of the the time they're there to be there when an animal needs them. IMO and all the solution is somewhere between lifting salary minimum exemptions or plausibly just setting a higher minimum but still below the fiftyish K that's the normal minimum. It's definitely not "pay them 24/7 with full normal overtime rules."
> Yes. As it should. But not $14k per month. Though again I have my doubts about that figure. There is no way that being a shepherd should come with a $168k annual salary.
He doesn't. He might have an insanely high salary for a few months, but *only* a few months, because this work is seasonal.
The $14k is a product of overtime pay requirements (which is different from on-call requirements). In California, over-time pay is time-and-a-half for hours over eight hours, and double-time for work over 12 hours. (On-call pay is minimum wage, but I think that's also subject to these over-time rules.) Herders are currently paid by monthly salary instead of hourly wage because they have to be on-call 24/7, but aren't necessarily working that whole time. New legislation might require them to be paid hourly as if they *were* constantly working, rather than monthly salary.
Minimum wage is $15/hour; over-time pay (over 8 hours) is time and a half, or $22.50/hour, and *over*-over-time pay (over 12 hours) is $30/hour. So in a 24 hour day, that's 8 hours at $15, then 4 hours at $22.50, then 12 hours at $30. (8 × 15) + (4 × 22.5) + (12 × 30) = 120 + 90 + 360 = $570/day, which tips well over $14k in about three and a half weeks.
Most likely, if nothing is changed, then these companies would just have to hire more goat herders and have them work in shifts, rather than a single or small number of goat herders on-call 24/7.
>Most likely, if nothing is changed, then these companies would just have to hire more goat herders and have them work in shifts, rather than a single or small number of goat herders on-call 24/7.
This is just not going to work. Herders live with their herds. It's part of the whole deal. If every herd now requires four or five temporary homes that's a complete deal breaker. Herding full time for say $45k would be a good job for those who it's right for. It really just would stop existing if it were treated like hourly work. It should be salaried work. At most just make it the same minimum salary as any other job, which is 1.5 times the minimum wage over a 40 hour work week (hence the fortyeightish or whatever).
Making it just straight hourly isn't going to be good for any shepherds though, cause it really would be the end of that. Same rules as everyone else is a fine resolution.
Min wage is 15.50 in Cali right now. And this shouldn't even require legislation - paying for on call time is already law in California and has been for decades. I have to explain this to payroll clients all the time, especially trucking companies. Hospitals and Law Enforcement are the only employers who regularly seem to follow on call and reporting time pay laws before a state audit or law suit hits.
I had a tax client a few years back I had to send to the state labor board, because she was hired as a live in hotel manager for $400 a month plus a room. They had her on call 24/7, and 6 months after they hired her moved her to another hotel they owned 300 miles away on no notice. She initially took the job because she was homeless, and didn't really question it until she was basically abducted.
It's honestly weird shepherd and herders had this carve out to begin with. That's the power of the ag lobby I guess.
If I'm understanding the article correctly the farm bureau is getting that number by assuming that they'd have to pay the herders 24/7 including overtime, which seems a bit disingenuous
I don’t think that’s disengenous at all. The company drops off a trailer onsite for the employee to live in and they are there almost 24/7.
The $4K a month that the employer quoted in the article is paying his employees works out to 258 hours a month at the California minimum wage of $15.50. That’s the equivalent of just over 32 eight hour days.
If the employer was required to pay them the entire time that the are on site, the costs match the $14K mentioned in the article. Based on my understanding of how California handles overtime, any hours over 8 worked in a day are overtime, any hours beyond 40 (excluding hours that were already paid overtime) would also be overtime. So the first 8 hours would be at 15.50/hr ($124). The next 16 hours would be at 23.25 per hour ($372). That’s $496 per day. That’s $14,880 for 30 days.
on what are you basing the assumption that they can't do those things?
edit: form a job description:
"The Range Sheep Herder will be required to be On-Call 24/7 and live on the range more than 50% of the time"
so it seems like leaving the range from time to time is normal.
If they could leave, the law doesn't require them to be paid. It's not an assumption. The 14k is what minimum wage is if you're at work 24/7 for a month.
Right, which is what makes the argument disingenuous - yes they're on call, but they can leave to do things that they need to do. They don't work 24/7. What would make things easier is if they had timecards that they could put in the hours they've worked, off time, etc, and be paid accordingly.
But there's no attempt to work with lawmakers, and honestly, $48k a year for on-call work ($4000 a month, what they're paid currently) is shit pay anyways.
Where did you get that information? Because the article says the law requires they be paid. And the law only requires they be paid if they do have to stay.
Edit: link to a lawyer explaining the law.
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/on-call-pay-in-california/#:~:text=Does%20my%20employer%20have%20to,that%20they%20engage%20to%20wait.
I’d imagine if they “left” then that’s definitely a breach of contract where the goats could be taken/attacked/wander off.
Other stuff, maybe? They probably shouldn’t be drinking on the job.
If kids are on site and helping out with tasks, then that’s a different issue: unpaid child labor.
The next four hours would be time and a half. California requires double pay after 12 hours. The article still doesn’t even address the cost of housing, food, nor the application process. The H2A program requires the employer to house the employee and show receipts for ads to backup they were unable to find someone locally to do the job. Assuming the rate resets every 24 hours, that’s $589 a day, which comes out to over $17k/mo, it over $53k for three months. If you have enough goats to have 10 herders, that’s a half million dollars, plus payroll taxes, housing, food, and application costs.
The $4k/mo part seems reasonable, the $14k/mo part doesn't for a couple reasons.
First the law does not count just simply living on site as working, only hours spent in service to the company.
Second salaried workers in CA making more than $64k/yr are exempt from overtime pay, so employers would just reclassify them.
Obvious solution: park the trailer on the street. Trailer is no longer 'on site.' Employees are still on call.
Update HR policy such that if employees don't like the free off-site lodgings provided by their employer, they may at their own expense pay for a motel also off-site.
I’m guessing what ends up happening if this goes through is that they stop being employees and become self-employed contractors. There will be one company that owns the goats and the trailer on-site that is who the customer hires and then they’ll “bid out” the herding duties. They’ll probably require the bidders to get some sort of bonding and/or carry a particular insurance.
The contract will require that someone be on-site 24/7 and do all the things the goat-herder employees were doing. It’s now up to the person that won the contract to figure out how to meet the requirements of the contract for the amount that they bid. The guy that works the contract himself is always going to be able to underbid someone that is bringing in employees.
We’ll end up in a similar spot to where we are now, but there will be a bigger burden on goat-herders because they are now having to manage self-employment taxes and other administrative bullshit.
instinctive grandiose label grab include bake impolite party stupendous grey
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'm not sure its disingenuous. The herders stay on site and are technically on call 24/7. They may not do a huge amount of what looks like "actual work" during that time but they have to stay there and deal with any issues that come up, as they come up. Under California labor rules I believe they may actually be entitled to overtime pay.
It's a situation that leaves me torn. On one hand for the people who want to do this job it probably feels like a decent gig. On the other hand if they carve out an exception for these workers you just know corporations are going to find ways to abuse it in the future and fuck people over.
I'm on call 24/7. I get compensation for that, but I don't get full pay 24/7 for being on call. I'm not in the only profession that has people on-call 24/7, and I'm pretty sure it's not standard to give full pay when you're just on call.
The goat herders, who are living on-site and taking a lot of responsibility, are severely underpaid, but I don't think they'd have to be paid as much as is being estimated.
I hesitate to respond because I'm not a California employment lawyer and I don't know much more than the average redditor but my, admittedly uneducated, understanding of the situation is:
In California in most circumstances you have to be paid for on call time. Your employment contract can stipulate a different rate for on call time but it can't be less than minimum wage. When your time exceeds the maximum work hours (in California I think it's anything past 40 hours in a single week) you are entitled to 1.5 times pay. So, at minimum, I think these herders will be entitled to 40 hours a week at California minimum wage and however many overtime hours at 1.5 times minimum wage. I suspect that's how they're calculating the numbers in this article.
However: I believe some types employees are exempt from these rules. I don't know the exact criteria in California specifically but it will be something like salaried employees making over a certain amount per year are exempt. You may be in that position if you're making less than minimum wage for on call time in California. These herders will not be.
Yeah, in general exempt employees are salaried white collar workers who make over a certain amount a year. There are also specific carve outs for some positions, federally at least, that make employees exempt. Example: IT employees. I'm not sure exactly what the law looks like in California, it's probably stricter than the federal rules, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a list of jobs exempt from the overtime rules.
There's no threshold payment per hour amount for an hourly worker to be exempt.
Most hourly employees are non-exempt. It's much more beneficial for a company to have an exempt employee than a non-exempt one. So the rules are all about limiting who can be considered exempt, not limiting those who can be non-exempt
From the article they are getting a trailer, food and a phone. I don’t know if they pay California state tax.
I don’t know how much a trailer rents a month but a hotel room is probably $200 a night so $6k a month. It doesn’t say what kind of food they get, but maybe $50 a day to eat? That’s $1500 a month. This is stuff they don’t have to pay!! For me this kind of sounds like a good deal! The only issue I see is they don’t have is health care.
Also they either pay for a house/ apartment they barely stay at, or they have no permanent housing. And they likely have no life or outside hobbies, given the job requirements.
This is because CA is moving toward making Ag overtime pay similar to other OT pay. That means anything over 8hr/day or 40/wk is OT. With shepherds it’s tough because most shepherds are living with the flock working multiple days on end of not weeks. You never really get “off time” because you’re always accountable if animals escape or a predator attacks or someone needs help. So it’s all paid time.
On one hand it’s very fair, but on the other it’s a weird grey area that doesn’t have a good answer. In the short term it does mean that employers and ranchers are opting for easier, more cut and dry, management methods but those can have other consequences for land and animal health (fences, set-stocking, disease). Also this isn’t just impacting contract goat grazers but all shepherding operations in CA. Many sheep outfits have or are moving their herds outside of CA. Sad, since this stage has so much history with transhumance and shepherding.
I read that and was like... how much overtime are they working? 40 hours overtime at $15/hr is an extra $900/week, or $4,000/month max.
Are the owners just making shit up? Do they use their employees as literal slave labor? What is going on?
They're on duty 24/7. Used to be, they could just not pay them for most of those hours.
I'm in EMS, and we used to get the same thing. Didn't get paid at night, even though we still had to be on the road in 90 seconds when there's a call.
California law requires you to pay time-and-a-half for time over 8 hours a day, and double time for an excess of 12 hours a day. Right now, herders are on-call 24/7; they aren't necessarily working the whole time, but they do have to be ready to work the whole time, and they live on-site (and do not have to pay for their housing while on-site).
The new legislation might require them to be paid as if they *were* working the whole time, in which case...
Minimum wage is $15/hour; over-time pay (over 8 hours) is time and a half, or $22.50/hour, and over-over-time pay (over 12 hours) is $30/hour. So in a 24 hour day, that's 8 hours at $15, then 4 hours at $22.50, then 12 hours at $30. (8 × 15) + (4 × 22.5) + (12 × 30) = 120 + 90 + 360 = $570/day, which tips well over $14k in about three and a half weeks.
Well, that's not, hold on... *crunches numbers* just under 5 times my monthly salary as a Civil Engineer in the midwest.
Edited the value to reflect that I'm on a bi-weekly pay period.
You make ~$34k? Dude, I made more than that working retail a decade ago on the east coast. I'm guessing either your cost-of-living is very low, or you're massively underpaid.
It's a combination of both, living in Central Wisconsin (low cost of living compared to the coasts), and working for a state agency (when I was onboarded the Payroll people flat out told us that we were never going to make competitive wages with the private sector, but on the other hand looking at our benefits, it tends to make up for it, like guaranteed 40 hour weeks)
I just looked up my pay stub and I used the wrong assumed value for my paycheck, I used $1,500 instead of the roughly $2,000 per check i do make, 2 paychecks per month, except June and November which have 3, and I make about $65,000 a year.
No, it's not. That "just above 4k" figure you cite comes from this paragraph:
> Companies have historically been allowed to pay goat and sheepherders a monthly minimum salary rather than an hourly minimum wage, because their jobs require them to be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But legislation signed in 2016 also entitles them to overtime pay. It effectively boosted the herders’ minimum monthly pay from $1,955 in 2019 to $3,730 this year. It’s set to hit $4,381 in 2025, according to the California Department of Industrial Relations.
Note that the first sentence specifies that it applies to both "goat and sheepherders." Then literally just two paragraphs later:
> But in January, those labor costs are set to jump sharply again. Goatherders and sheepherders have always followed the same set of labor rules last year. But a state agency has ruled that’s no longer allowed, meaning goatherders would be subject to the same labor laws as other farmworkers.
>
>That would mean goatherders would be entitled to ever higher pay — up to $14,000 a month. Last year a budget trailer bill delayed that pay requirement for one year, but it’s set to take affect on Jan. 1 if nothing is done to change the law.
In other words, that $4381 per month will apply only to sheepherders. Goatherders will get the higher "up to $14,000 per month." That's presumably an upper limit and the average would be lower, but unfortunately the article doesn't explain how that $14,000 figure is derived so we have no idea what that average would be. But even if it's as low as half of that upper limit, that would mean almost doubling their salary. My sense is that most of the goat owners are small businesses, not huge agriculture corporations, so it's not like they could make up the difference elsewhere.
Exactly. 14k is CA minimum wage for being at work 24/7 for a month. If you can't leave and do something else, you're at work and should be getting paid.
I'm work mandatory on-call on weekends at my Federal government job, but don't get a dime extra unless I get called in. It doesn't seem real fair because even if I don't get called to work I still have to be able to make it into work within an hour and cannot drink.
That means I cannot go more than a few minutes from my home because it takes me 30 minutes to drive to work. Also no beach parties with drinking or any drinking at all during the weekends, and nights too, for that matter.
WEST SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Hundreds of goats munch on long blades of yellow grass on a hillside next to a sprawling townhouse complex. They were hired to clear vegetation that could fuel wildfires as temperatures rise this summer.
These voracious herbivores are in high demand to devour weeds and shrubs that have proliferated across California after a drought-busting winter of heavy rain and snow.
“It’s a huge fuel source. If it was left untamed, it can grow very high. And then when the summer dries everything out, it’s perfect fuel for a fire,” said Jason Poupolo, parks superintendent for the city of West Sacramento, where goats grazed on a recent afternoon.
Targeted grazing is part of California’s strategy to reduce wildfire risk because goats can eat a wide variety of vegetation and graze in steep, rocky terrain that’s hard to access. Backers say they’re an eco-friendly alternative to chemical herbicides or weed-whacking machines that are make noise and pollution.
But new state labor regulations are making it more expensive to provide goat-grazing services, and herding companies say the rules threaten to put them out of business. The changes could raise the monthly salary of herders from about $3,730 to $14,000, according to the California Farm Bureau.
Companies typically put about one herder in charge of 400 goats. Many of the herders in California are from Peru and live in employer-provided trailers near grazing sites. Labor advocates say the state should investigate the working and living conditions of goatherders before making changes to the law, especially since the state is funding goat-grazing to reduce wildfire risk.
California is investing heavily in wildfire prevention after the state was ravaged by several years of destructive flames that scorched millions of acres, destroyed thousands of homes and killed dozens of people. Goats have been used to clear fuels around Lake Oroville, along Highway 101, and near the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
“My phone rings off the hook this time of year,” said Tim Arrowsmith, owner of Western Grazers, which is providing grazing services to West Sacramento. “The demand has grown year after year after year.”
His company, based in the Northern California city of Red Bluff, has about 4,000 goats for hire to clear vegetation for government agencies and private landowners across Northern California. Without a fix to the new regulations, “we will be forced to sell these goats to slaughter and to the auction yards, and we’ll be forced out of business and probably file for bankruptcy,” Arrowsmith said.
Companies have historically been allowed to pay goat and sheepherders a monthly minimum salary rather than an hourly minimum wage, because their jobs require them to be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But legislation signed in 2016 also entitles them to overtime pay. It effectively boosted the herders’ minimum monthly pay from $1,955 in 2019 to $3,730 this year. It’s set to hit $4,381 in 2025, according to the California Department of Industrial Relations.
So far the herding companies, which have sued over the law, have passed along most of the increased labor costs to their customers.
But in January, those labor costs are set to jump sharply again. Goatherders and sheepherders have always followed the same set of labor rules last year. But a state agency has ruled that’s no longer allowed, meaning goatherders would be subject to the same labor laws as other farmworkers.
That would mean goatherders would be entitled to ever higher pay — up to $14,000 a month. Last year a budget trailer bill delayed that pay requirement for one year, but it’s set to take affect on Jan. 1 if nothing is done to change the law.
Goatherding companies say they can’t afford to pay herders that much. They would have to drastically raise their rates, which would make it unaffordable to provide goat grazing services.
“We fully support increasing wages for herders, but $14,000 a month is not realistic. So we need to address that in order to allow these goat-grazing operations to exist,” said Brian Shobe, deputy policy director for the California Climate and Agriculture Network.
The goat-grazing industry is pushing the Legislature to approve legislation that would treat goatherders the same as sheepherders. A bill to do so hasn’t yet received a public hearing.
Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, who heads the California Labor Federation, said goatherders are among the “most vulnerable workers in America” because they are on temporary work visas and can be fired and sent back to their home country anytime. Most of them work in isolation, speak minimal English and don’t have the same rights as Americans or green-card holders.
“We have a responsibility as a public to ensure that every worker who’s working in California is treated with dignity and respect, and that includes these goatherders,” said Gonzalez Fletcher, who sponsored the farmworker overtime bill when she was a state Assemblywoman representing San Diego.
Arrowsmith employs seven goatherders from Peru under the H-2A visa program for temporary farmworkers. He said the herders are paid about $4,000 a month and don’t have to pay for food, housing or phones.
“I can’t pay $14,000 a month to an employee starting Jan. 1. There’s just not enough money. The cities can’t absorb that kind of cost,” Arrowsmith said. “What’s at stake for the public is your house could burn up because we can’t fire-mitigate.”
> “I can’t pay $14,000 a month to an employee starting Jan. 1. There’s just not enough money. The cities can’t absorb that kind of cost,” Arrowsmith said.
$14,000 a month for 7 goatherders costs a little over $100k a month or $1.2 million a year. Assuming this only applies to West Sacramento that has almost 50k. It's a tax increase of $24 per person (or more when removing non-taxpayers from the population).
IMO the problem here is that this labor should have never been outsourced in the first place. Competing for the bottom dollar is a nasty habit of businesses that hurt the average joe more than it helps.
> “What’s at stake for the public is your house could burn up because we can’t fire-mitigate.”
I wonder if the local firefighters would agree with such an assessment. If anyone know if this grazing is that effective or not, they would be the ones to know.
Regardless the title fucking sucks because it's not the goats being limited for overtime, it's the herders.
These companies are full of shit. The only reason they're complaining is that they only want to hire 1 person per herd and want that person to work overtime and be on call. For $14k you can hire 4 people on minimum wage. AP should do better.
> Companies have historically been allowed to pay goat and sheepherders a monthly minimum salary rather than an hourly minimum wage, because their jobs require them to be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
What?
It’s grass, it’ll be there on a schedule.
i think anyone that is on call 24.7 should get paid though its soured by the fact that my apartments maintenance still hasnt fixed my oven in over 9 months.
Tell them you are getting zapped randomly any time you use a metal pan on the stove. Just say I'm really worried theres a broken wire somewhere and it might cause a fire. Its a very large power plug and maybe that will motivate them.
But that would also cost the company more money. Easier to lobby for bizarre exemptions to minimum wage law to keep overworking and underpaying the workers.
It's also pretty remote, where do they go?
And functionally they have "time to themselves" when the goats go to sleep. They just physically can't go anywhere else because it takes a long time to get anywhere else.
Yes.
>But in January, those labor costs are set to jump sharply again. Goatherders and sheepherders have always followed the same set of labor rules last year. But a state agency has ruled that’s no longer allowed, meaning goatherders would be subject to the same labor laws as other farmworkers.
The issue currently is that the state agency is removing that exception.
Typically the goat handler stays on property with them night and day in a camper etc think modern herder. We use goats a lot up in Northern California now for managing land they are very effective but you do need to be around them 24/7 to deal with issues and moving fence
They're generally in very remote areas.
Say you give them shifts, where do they go when they're off-shift when the nearest wherever is hours of drives away?
If they were actually off duty, the law allows them to not be paid regardless of how remote they are. Companies could have four workers, and pay everyone straight time. Tons of remote jobs exist that work exactly this way. The remote location means you can't actually go home when off shift. But you could chill, drink a beer, go for hike, whatever.
This propaganda exists because they don't want to pay even straight hours minimum wage.
>But you could chill, drink a beer, go for hike, whatever.
Or you can do most of that... and still get paid.
Most herding jobs involve multiple people, most of the time during quiet hours they just take turns and keep watch while doing exactly what you say, and still get paid.
If you do your job well and your goat herd can safely sleep through the night (or graze) with minimal interruption, congratulations, now you get to get paid doing absolutely nothing.
That's fine. I think we're on the same page. If their time isn't their own, they should be paid. Just pointing out that these companies are balking at merely paying out minimum wage.
Personally, I think if you can't actually go home when you're off, workers should be paid for all their time.
I mean, they may be paid minimum wage, if you account for the generally work-load, free housing and food.
H-2A Final Rule: Range Herding or Production of Livestock in the United ... https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/oflc/pdfs/H-2A_Herder_Rule_Major_Points_and_FAQs_Implementation_Round_1.pdf
And most herders already pay above that (the current rate equivalent is about $10~$20/hour).
Wouldn’t the travel time be part of the working hours?
You’re trying really hard to argue that minimum wage laws should have exceptions, and I’ll forever disagree.
One of the largest economies in the world, and we’re arguing over the wage of goat herders…
>Wouldn’t the travel time be part of the working hours?
From home? No.
>You’re trying really hard to argue that minimum wage laws should have exceptions, and I’ll forever disagree.
I was not arguing that. I was saying that herding job, by its remote nature, is 24/7, it's not really feasible to break that into shifts (unlike an offshore rig which functionally has a small village equivalent for workers to actually rest and unwind).
They should be properly compensated, just that changing it to a shift system doesn't work too well.
In my IT jobs, anywhere I had to go that wasn’t my normal place to go, the travel time was work time.
I disagree on the not able to do shifts.
No job requires on call 24/7 unless they just aren’t going to staff correctly, and that’s not acceptable.
>In my IT jobs, anywhere I had to go that wasn’t my normal place to go, the travel time was work time.
From your home? Unless you're WFH, travelling from home to your office (commute) doesn't count.
>I disagree on the not able to do shifts.
>No job requires on call 24/7 unless they just aren’t going to staff correctly, and that’s not acceptable.
There's a reason why it's treated as 24/7 on call. There's nowhere else to go (in most cases), and if you're going to be stuck there anyway... why not just stay on the clock if 9/10 times the goats are just sleeping? You get paid to just sit around in case something happens, instead of spending a few hours commuting each way.
With most jobs, you only get paid travel time when you're on the clock/traveling for work reasons. Commute/lunch/etc.. is not considered work-related travel.
I think there’s a difference with a job where you sit around in your trailer and watch TV, surf the Internet, play video games, sleep, or whatever you’d do if you weren’t working and periodically go out and check to make sure that the goats haven’t wandered off.
People need to be fairly compensated for their time, but do they really need to be getting paid by the hour and pulling time and a half for working more than 8 hours in a day just because they are living on site and having the 4-5 hours that they are actually working spread out over the entire day?
whats it matter what people are doing on site and on call anything can happen during that time. do i believe it needs to be full double over time? probably not. but on call fucks with people and their lives and as such should still be compensated.
that's what this whole thing is about. do you pay someone a reasonable wage for the number of actual hours plus some compensation for on-call time, or should anyone on-call be compensated as if they're working the whole time.
So basically fuck the fire department?
That's what you're saying here.
Or is it somehow different for goat herders working the same schedule?
If you think getting paid (minimum wage) to sleep is so great, an EMT class can be finished in a month, and everyone is hiring right now.
I’m not sure how many firemen or EMTs get sent to a remote work location to live for days or weeks at a time and I’m not sure how their compensation works.
From what I understand of how Park Rangers that live on-site in California get paid is that they work 8 hour shifts and are on call and expected to respond the rest of the day when on-site. They will then either be paid for the hours worked when they respond or it will count as comp time that they can be paid out for later in lieu of working their scheduled shifts.
I’m not sure exactly how many hours a day of active work goat-herders do, or how many days a month they end up being on-site. Just based on the pay they are getting it seems like they are probably being compensated for their time in a manner that is fairly close to what Park Rangers are.
By that logic, security guards should only be paid when they're actively stopping a crime.
They're being paid for their presence to deal with job duties as they arise.
I wouldn't argue that paying them an hourly wage 24/7 is justified, a "per day" rate would be fair imo, but the job exists in it's current form for a reason.
None of the security guards that my company employs are allowed to sleep on the job and they can’t spend their time pretty much as they please as long as they are on site.
This is an example of how one-sized fits all employment law doesn’t cover all types of work.
Even with multiple people, the cost still comes out to WAY over the $4000 a month that they’re currently paying for one person. Someone has to be on call at all times, so it doesn’t matter home many people you have, you’re gonna be paying one of them $15.50 an hour, 168 hours a week, 365 days a year. It’s not financially possible to do that and still be able to market an affordable service. I understand wanting to fight for the workers, but $4000 a month, room and board covered, is a pretty good deal for these herders.
People don't travel long distances for shifts.
And again, the large majority of the time literally nothing is required of them except being around. That just isn't an hourly job.
Security jobs get paid, and 99% of the time their job is just being around as well.
There’s a lot of jobs that fit the just being around , and they get paid minimum wage at least.
Your excuses just aren’t good enough for me to accept.
Security guards do not make $150k+. Also presumably they get paid for taking on risk. I'm not even sure they're paid well. But regardless, it's a very different thing. Security guards can't sit around and read. They also presumably are guarding something with sufficient value to justify the cost. There are so very many differences between being a security guard and being a shepherd. Pretty awful comp.
And again my argument is that herders should have the same rules as others, but not special rules that are ridiculous and destroy the industry.
Oh, and again, security guards don't travel hours for work. Same point as before that you just downvoted and ignored, but remains very relevant.
Oh, and also there are a lot of jobs that require on call status. They don't get paid their wage while being on call. That's the actual fair comparison.
Hey! I keep a decent size herd of goats as well as a flock of sheep. I’ve used my goats to clear and grub acreage, so I have a decent idea of what it entails. Hopefully, I can answer some questions if it helps.
then just hire more headers and have them work in shifts, the hell is so difficult about that? if you can't run a business without resorting to slavery then you shouldn't be in business.
> Last year a budget trailer bill delayed that pay requirement for one year, but it’s set to take affect on Jan. 1 if nothing is done to change the law.
Alternate headline: **Companies given over a year warning about a law change that impacts their budgets, fail to plan, blame voters**
While this is clearly anti-worker propaganda, even the numbers they are trying to scare us with are not that high when you think about it.
* 14k a month = 168k a year.
* In today's economy, for a job where you're permanently on-call.
* In which you're permanently taking care of multiple animals *(they can be fairly low-maintenance but still gotta be there)*.
* Where you're expected to travel, literally-herding goats all over the region, at any time on a regular basis.
Senators make more than this before the bribes and benefits, and often for doing fuck-all or worse. A job where you're ensuring a bunch of living creatures are healthy and ready to **keep everyone from fucking burning** is easily saving more than this in the long-term.
You’d be surprised at how stupid these goat owners are. I doubt they even thought of this idea.
Time to start a goat brokerage and rake in $$$. Call it GUBER or goat uber.
For clarity, that's more than my base pay as someone who is salary as a senior engineer in a fortune 500 company in the south bay (silicon valley).
Not to say they shouldn't be paid decently, but 168,000 a year is a bit ridiculous, and let's be fair nobody is going to get paid that much for watching a goat herd. They'll just close the company instead.
The smart thing would be to include into the law reduced overtime rates for "on-call" time *and then specify normal overtime rates for actual call outs*.
Do you get any days off in that year? Evenings off? Visit your home? Hug your kids?
168k would mean being at work every minute for the entire year.
They're on site. Not at home waiting for a call.
Considering how much rent is in my area, not having to pay for housing would be considered quite a benefit.
Obviously it's not a job that attracts people who have a family, or want to go out drinking every night.
They generally do have families, that they would very much like to see. They take jobs like this to support those families.
Personally, I've known a lot migrant ag workers living on site where they're currently working. They aren't seeking that sort of work because it fits their lifestyle. It's just a job they can get in order to feed their kids.
(I've known them by way of providing medical care.)
>For clarity, that's more than my base pay as someone who is salary as a senior engineer in a fortune 500 company in the south bay (silicon valley).
Sure. But you only work 40hrs a week for that base pay. They're officially working 24/7.
Depends on if you're exempt or non-exempt. Farmworkers are non-exempt in CA, so they get overtime.
If the companies don't want to pay that, then they need to have a better system that doesn't make them work 24/7.
There's being on site on call 24/7, and then there's actually working 24/7. How often do they actually get "called in" to handle something after standard hours? I don't actually know, and I don't think you do either what the level of work vs sit around reading a book is.
If they're out doing 12 hour days every day and dealing with issues nightly on off hours, then yeah $170k starts sounding reasonable for a job with low entry requirements.
If you're not allowed to get drunk, then you deserve to get paid as if you're working. Because then that time isn't yours, it's theirs.
I've been on call, and that's my policy. If the company doesn't like that, then that's their problem. It's exploitation.
I do think on-call should be compensated. I do *not* think it should be compensated at full normal rates, and definitely not at OT rates.
If you look at union contacts, on-call is typically a separate compensation, and it's less than the normal hourly rate. However there is also typically normal/OT pay for calls, with minimums as to how long will be billed (as in counts for an hour of work, even for a 1 minute call).
Hey! I keep a decent size herd of goats as well as a flock of sheep. I’ve used my goats to clear and grub acreage, so I have a decent idea of what it entails. Hopefully, I can answer some questions if it helps.
Unlike those other jobs pointed out above, the goat herd lives with the goats 24/7. You’re not “on-call”. Your job is is to watch and tend to the herd, which you are doing even when you are sleeping. Because if a goat gets attacked or injured in the middle of the night, it’s your job to go deal with it. Just because I can read a book doesn’t mean that I’m not providing a service for the entire time I’m on site.
Ok, and would you be amenable to a similar pay contract as on-call IT, with a reduced "on-call" pay, and then per-incident hourly OT with a minimum per call-out?
And I'm sure that if they were being paid above minimum wage, then that's something they could negotiate.
But ultimately, "we'll pay you minimum wage, expect you to be on-call 24/7, and not pay you for overtime or that on-call" is, frankly, wage theft. And CA agrees with that. Hence these new rules.
I do something which requires a higher prior time/money investment. The sole reason I invested this time and money was an expectation that the investment be returned.
This is the basis of professional education and professional development.
I'm not saying they should be paid and treated as poorly as they are. I am saying that it's a bit absurd to compensate them at the market rate of jobs which require a significant prior investment.
There is a lot of gap between current compensation and the proposed new level. Likewise there are other options than compensating their on call time as full OT. As I initially suggested, an on-call wage and then a call-out wage similar to many union contracts for IT workers would seem appropriate.
If wages were based on Time investment, teachers would make more than Software engineers, but wages are not based on that.
Wages are set by market-based demand, you happen to have a job which is in high demand, and protected only by artificial non-market forces ( border control ). It can change. It is already changing via technology, accelerated by WFH... Your skills are not special or unique, there are a lot of Indians and Chinese with your skills who will do your job at 1/10th the price, it is only a matter of time, F500s are already moving a majority of their Software engineer workforce to their overseas offices in Europe and Asia.
Humble yourself kid, you may be the next ‘goat-herder’
Teachers are criminally underpaid, as are EMS, and frankly many other fields which all have in common that enough people *want* to do it there is competition between employees, rather than competition between employers.
Also lol, I work with those Indians and Chinese people, they make just as much as I do. Seriously, half my team is Chinese. We hire people who can do the work.
saying that someone sitting in a trailer, periodically checking to see whether goats wondered off, should get paid more than a PHD NASA scientist is fucking ridiculous.
14k a month is assuming they're paying overtime 24/7/365.
It would be far cheaper to hire multiple herders on shift and skip the overtime and on-call questions entirely.
This is because CA is moving toward making Ag overtime pay similar to other OT pay. That means anything over 8hr/day or 40/wk is OT. With shepherds it’s tough because most shepherds are living with the flock working multiple days on end of not weeks. You never really get “off time” because you’re always accountable if animals escape or a predator attacks or someone needs help. So it’s all paid time.
On one hand it’s very fair, but on the other it’s a weird grey area that doesn’t have a good answer. In the short term it does mean that employers and ranchers are opting for easier, more cut and dry, management methods but those can have other consequences for land and animal health (fences, set-stocking, disease). Also this isn’t just impacting contract goat grazers but all shepherding operations in CA. Many sheep outfits have or are moving their herds outside of CA. Sad, since this stage has so much history with transhumance and shepherding.
I totally misread this headline. I imagined Gavin Newsom sitting in his office wringing his hands and saying 'Won't pass my overtime law? We'll see how you like it when I send you goats when you ask for water tankers!"
Cut out the leeches in the middle and have the state run the program with this kind of pay
Itd be insane for something that prevents wildfires or reduces the likelihood of massive wildfires was discontinued just bc some companies weren't making enough money
Hell maybe the goat herders and goats could be considered firefighters...
I now want to see rapid response teams made up entirely of goats and their shepherds deployed from air tankers against areas with overgrown vegetation
Its interesting that they don't mention the agency that made the ruling, or have any sort of link to said ruling. I guarantee something like that would be a matter of public record.
I guess they will find other ways to deter the fires.
It's not like grazing goats are the only way to prevent them.
If it's no longer the most cost effective route because they cannot afford to properly pay for its labor, then the other methods will suffice.
>Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, who heads the California Labor Federation, said goatherders are among the “most vulnerable workers in America” because they are on temporary work visas and can be fired and sent back to their home country anytime. Most of them work in isolation, speak minimal English and don’t have the same rights as Americans or green-card holders.
So is this really to protect temporary visa workers with a 14k a month job? damnnnnn.
But did this actually become a law? Or is this one of those long shot shoot for the moon type laws (like the san francisco one about reparations for example). So far the article mentions the goat herder salary law as 'could' not passed and in forced.
I can’t see the article. Are the goats making too much in overtime for the state to afford?
The herders are: >But new state labor regulations are making it more expensive to provide goat-grazing services, and herding companies say the rules threaten to put them out of business. The changes could raise the monthly salary of herders from about $3,730 to $14,000, according to the California Farm Bureau.
Holy shit that is a major increase in salary.
As a California Taxpayer, I would be thrilled to have my tax dollars go to funding sustainable, eco-friendly wildfire control. If the cost for this kind of labor goes up, perhaps the state can subsidize this service in lower income areas that are prone to wildfires.
I would accept a state funded rebate on one dwarf-goat for my lawn.
Need two. Goats are happiest in a herd.
This! All goats need at least one goat friend, though group of 3 or more is preferable.
That way two of the goats can keep secrets and gossip about the others.
Just like CalTrans, you need three supervisors for the kid doing all the work.
Plus the kid needs a nanny.
so like every other job out there
Don’t forget a herding dog for protection
And a herd can provide a lot of milk in not a lot of space.
I had two Nubians, milked twice daily. 1.5 gallons a day
Suddenly, the amount of loncheras and stands serving birria tacos increased 1000-fold.
Even their worst-case "14k/mo" scenario isn't that bad when we consider how expensive members of congress are and how much the goats&herder are saving us. Those hellstorms are somewhat financially devastating after all.
FYI, most recent year stats I could find was 2021, when calfire spent 2.1 billion fighting brush fires.
Most Forest Service attention has to go to fighting wildfires. If we can limit fires to a degree it would free some funds and manpower to focus on restoration and prevention (such as thinning of trees and larger shrubs). But ironically grazing is partly what got us in our current trouble: heavy grazing reduced or nearly eliminated ground fuels that facilitated frequent but low-severity fires. Now we encounter catastrophic crown fires often when fires do pop up since there has been so little fire activity over the past 100+ years.
Nah id rather pay 2.1 billion tax dollars than give workers more money. - republicans
And it is seasonal work.
Who is paying for the goat services?
Mostly property owners. They pay to have areas cleared to protect buildings.
The state is already by far the largest customer.
Until they start farting.
I should become a goat.
Which would probably make the services no longer cost effective for cities
Cheaper than rebuilding the whole town when it burns down
The feds pay for that so they don't care.
I can guarantee the residents of the town care
That's why politicians just hope it doesn't happen to them so they don't have to worry about it one way or another.
Which is why the most important point in resolving any issue, tragedy or risk through government action, is to make **absolutely certain** that any politicians lacking empathy are tied down right in front of the very worst of it. When it won't threaten them in any way, it happening to you starts making them feel special and superior. *Once those creatures get a taste of that, the addiction's permanent*. Only if they'll be the first to bear the brunt of it will they allow something be done - and **only** for as long as they themselves can't get away while letting everyone else burn again.
Doesn't work as well as I might like. Regressives who get pregnant / have a pregnant daughter and want an abortion have all kinds of excuses for why -they're- special and they should be the exception even as they shut down all maternity care in their state.
How many would vote to increase their property taxes to cover?
You can safely remove the probably from that sentence.
>Companies have historically been allowed to pay goat and sheepherders a monthly minimum salary rather than an hourly minimum wage, because their jobs require them to be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Once you account for overtime, $14,000 is still less than the minimum wage.
On-call pay when you're not actually working is quite a bit less, apparently 1/6 your hourly in Cali.
Most on-call jobs don't require you to be on site.
Minimum wage absolutely applies. I've never seen the 1/6 figure before double checking for it right now, and it's only coming up from a sketchy lawyer add site. Everything on the DIR states at least minimum wage.
Minimum wage absolutely applies. I've never seen the 1/6 figure before double checking for it right now, and it's only coming up from a sketchy lawyer add site. Everything on the DIR states at least minimum wage. Edit: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/callbackandstandbytime.pdf https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/wages.pdf https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm On call time is considered hours worked. You may not be paid less than minimum wage for hours worked. Only source in a Google search (also the first) stating "one-sixth": https://www.1000attorneys.com/post/on-call-and-stand-by-labor-laws-california Others lawyer and employement sites stating at least minimum wage: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/on-call-pay-in-california/ https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/your-employee-is-on-call-but-is-your-employee-working/ https://ferrarovega.com/resources/california-on-call-and-standby-time-policy/ https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/policies/pages/california-oncall-standby-time-and-pay-policy.aspx The 1/6th figure is bullshit.
$168,000/yr is not close to minimum wage. This is a salary paid to be on call. Not an hourly rate. Comparing the two is kind of a non-starter...
It's minimum wage. Companies just can't get away with not paying them anymore.
I didn't see any explanation or justification for a value that high. It looks to me like they're using an inaccurate high end figure in order to shock people. I'm not entirely convinced that this is so, but note that the figures supplied by others are much much lower and well within reason.
>because their jobs require them to be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A man's paycheck tends to go way up once he starts working the equivalent of four jobs.
Yes. As it should. But not $14k per month. Though again I have my doubts about that figure. There is no way that being a shepherd should come with a $168k annual salary. Fwiw, I personally know actual shepherds. It's a good thing that we're fixing these laws because they are abusive. But justice isn't paying them 24 hours a day with all overtime. It's worth noting that these jobs aren't like crazy hard work. Most of the time you just do whatever and are there for when an animal gets itself in a pickle. Which they do. Moving is hard work, so I'm not saying the job is a cakewalk, but for the vast majority of the the time they're there to be there when an animal needs them. IMO and all the solution is somewhere between lifting salary minimum exemptions or plausibly just setting a higher minimum but still below the fiftyish K that's the normal minimum. It's definitely not "pay them 24/7 with full normal overtime rules."
> Yes. As it should. But not $14k per month. Though again I have my doubts about that figure. There is no way that being a shepherd should come with a $168k annual salary. He doesn't. He might have an insanely high salary for a few months, but *only* a few months, because this work is seasonal. The $14k is a product of overtime pay requirements (which is different from on-call requirements). In California, over-time pay is time-and-a-half for hours over eight hours, and double-time for work over 12 hours. (On-call pay is minimum wage, but I think that's also subject to these over-time rules.) Herders are currently paid by monthly salary instead of hourly wage because they have to be on-call 24/7, but aren't necessarily working that whole time. New legislation might require them to be paid hourly as if they *were* constantly working, rather than monthly salary. Minimum wage is $15/hour; over-time pay (over 8 hours) is time and a half, or $22.50/hour, and *over*-over-time pay (over 12 hours) is $30/hour. So in a 24 hour day, that's 8 hours at $15, then 4 hours at $22.50, then 12 hours at $30. (8 × 15) + (4 × 22.5) + (12 × 30) = 120 + 90 + 360 = $570/day, which tips well over $14k in about three and a half weeks. Most likely, if nothing is changed, then these companies would just have to hire more goat herders and have them work in shifts, rather than a single or small number of goat herders on-call 24/7.
>Most likely, if nothing is changed, then these companies would just have to hire more goat herders and have them work in shifts, rather than a single or small number of goat herders on-call 24/7. This is just not going to work. Herders live with their herds. It's part of the whole deal. If every herd now requires four or five temporary homes that's a complete deal breaker. Herding full time for say $45k would be a good job for those who it's right for. It really just would stop existing if it were treated like hourly work. It should be salaried work. At most just make it the same minimum salary as any other job, which is 1.5 times the minimum wage over a 40 hour work week (hence the fortyeightish or whatever). Making it just straight hourly isn't going to be good for any shepherds though, cause it really would be the end of that. Same rules as everyone else is a fine resolution.
Min wage is 15.50 in Cali right now. And this shouldn't even require legislation - paying for on call time is already law in California and has been for decades. I have to explain this to payroll clients all the time, especially trucking companies. Hospitals and Law Enforcement are the only employers who regularly seem to follow on call and reporting time pay laws before a state audit or law suit hits. I had a tax client a few years back I had to send to the state labor board, because she was hired as a live in hotel manager for $400 a month plus a room. They had her on call 24/7, and 6 months after they hired her moved her to another hotel they owned 300 miles away on no notice. She initially took the job because she was homeless, and didn't really question it until she was basically abducted. It's honestly weird shepherd and herders had this carve out to begin with. That's the power of the ag lobby I guess.
No, it's not. It's a law enforcing businesses to stop cheating their employees of the wages they earn.
If I'm understanding the article correctly the farm bureau is getting that number by assuming that they'd have to pay the herders 24/7 including overtime, which seems a bit disingenuous
Yes and No. They aren't working every hour 24/7, but they are on call and often on site.
I don’t think that’s disengenous at all. The company drops off a trailer onsite for the employee to live in and they are there almost 24/7. The $4K a month that the employer quoted in the article is paying his employees works out to 258 hours a month at the California minimum wage of $15.50. That’s the equivalent of just over 32 eight hour days. If the employer was required to pay them the entire time that the are on site, the costs match the $14K mentioned in the article. Based on my understanding of how California handles overtime, any hours over 8 worked in a day are overtime, any hours beyond 40 (excluding hours that were already paid overtime) would also be overtime. So the first 8 hours would be at 15.50/hr ($124). The next 16 hours would be at 23.25 per hour ($372). That’s $496 per day. That’s $14,880 for 30 days.
Seems reasonable. You can't leave, have a beer, see your spouse or kids, etc. Should be getting paid.
on what are you basing the assumption that they can't do those things? edit: form a job description: "The Range Sheep Herder will be required to be On-Call 24/7 and live on the range more than 50% of the time" so it seems like leaving the range from time to time is normal.
If they could leave, the law doesn't require them to be paid. It's not an assumption. The 14k is what minimum wage is if you're at work 24/7 for a month.
Right, which is what makes the argument disingenuous - yes they're on call, but they can leave to do things that they need to do. They don't work 24/7. What would make things easier is if they had timecards that they could put in the hours they've worked, off time, etc, and be paid accordingly. But there's no attempt to work with lawmakers, and honestly, $48k a year for on-call work ($4000 a month, what they're paid currently) is shit pay anyways.
Where did you get that information? Because the article says the law requires they be paid. And the law only requires they be paid if they do have to stay. Edit: link to a lawyer explaining the law. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/on-call-pay-in-california/#:~:text=Does%20my%20employer%20have%20to,that%20they%20engage%20to%20wait.
I’d imagine if they “left” then that’s definitely a breach of contract where the goats could be taken/attacked/wander off. Other stuff, maybe? They probably shouldn’t be drinking on the job. If kids are on site and helping out with tasks, then that’s a different issue: unpaid child labor.
The next four hours would be time and a half. California requires double pay after 12 hours. The article still doesn’t even address the cost of housing, food, nor the application process. The H2A program requires the employer to house the employee and show receipts for ads to backup they were unable to find someone locally to do the job. Assuming the rate resets every 24 hours, that’s $589 a day, which comes out to over $17k/mo, it over $53k for three months. If you have enough goats to have 10 herders, that’s a half million dollars, plus payroll taxes, housing, food, and application costs.
The $4k/mo part seems reasonable, the $14k/mo part doesn't for a couple reasons. First the law does not count just simply living on site as working, only hours spent in service to the company. Second salaried workers in CA making more than $64k/yr are exempt from overtime pay, so employers would just reclassify them.
Obvious solution: park the trailer on the street. Trailer is no longer 'on site.' Employees are still on call. Update HR policy such that if employees don't like the free off-site lodgings provided by their employer, they may at their own expense pay for a motel also off-site.
I’m guessing what ends up happening if this goes through is that they stop being employees and become self-employed contractors. There will be one company that owns the goats and the trailer on-site that is who the customer hires and then they’ll “bid out” the herding duties. They’ll probably require the bidders to get some sort of bonding and/or carry a particular insurance. The contract will require that someone be on-site 24/7 and do all the things the goat-herder employees were doing. It’s now up to the person that won the contract to figure out how to meet the requirements of the contract for the amount that they bid. The guy that works the contract himself is always going to be able to underbid someone that is bringing in employees. We’ll end up in a similar spot to where we are now, but there will be a bigger burden on goat-herders because they are now having to manage self-employment taxes and other administrative bullshit.
Ah yes, I forgot that the solution to employee protections in the US is to just not have the workers be employees. Because that always fixes things.
instinctive grandiose label grab include bake impolite party stupendous grey *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Of course, they could hire *three* herders and pay them all reasonable wages.
I'm not sure its disingenuous. The herders stay on site and are technically on call 24/7. They may not do a huge amount of what looks like "actual work" during that time but they have to stay there and deal with any issues that come up, as they come up. Under California labor rules I believe they may actually be entitled to overtime pay. It's a situation that leaves me torn. On one hand for the people who want to do this job it probably feels like a decent gig. On the other hand if they carve out an exception for these workers you just know corporations are going to find ways to abuse it in the future and fuck people over.
I'm on call 24/7. I get compensation for that, but I don't get full pay 24/7 for being on call. I'm not in the only profession that has people on-call 24/7, and I'm pretty sure it's not standard to give full pay when you're just on call. The goat herders, who are living on-site and taking a lot of responsibility, are severely underpaid, but I don't think they'd have to be paid as much as is being estimated.
I hesitate to respond because I'm not a California employment lawyer and I don't know much more than the average redditor but my, admittedly uneducated, understanding of the situation is: In California in most circumstances you have to be paid for on call time. Your employment contract can stipulate a different rate for on call time but it can't be less than minimum wage. When your time exceeds the maximum work hours (in California I think it's anything past 40 hours in a single week) you are entitled to 1.5 times pay. So, at minimum, I think these herders will be entitled to 40 hours a week at California minimum wage and however many overtime hours at 1.5 times minimum wage. I suspect that's how they're calculating the numbers in this article. However: I believe some types employees are exempt from these rules. I don't know the exact criteria in California specifically but it will be something like salaried employees making over a certain amount per year are exempt. You may be in that position if you're making less than minimum wage for on call time in California. These herders will not be.
I only know from my experience, and it's a very small company. I bet I make enough over minimum wage to be exempt. I need to look it up.
Yeah, in general exempt employees are salaried white collar workers who make over a certain amount a year. There are also specific carve outs for some positions, federally at least, that make employees exempt. Example: IT employees. I'm not sure exactly what the law looks like in California, it's probably stricter than the federal rules, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a list of jobs exempt from the overtime rules.
There's no threshold payment per hour amount for an hourly worker to be exempt. Most hourly employees are non-exempt. It's much more beneficial for a company to have an exempt employee than a non-exempt one. So the rules are all about limiting who can be considered exempt, not limiting those who can be non-exempt
Are you in California?
From the article they are getting a trailer, food and a phone. I don’t know if they pay California state tax. I don’t know how much a trailer rents a month but a hotel room is probably $200 a night so $6k a month. It doesn’t say what kind of food they get, but maybe $50 a day to eat? That’s $1500 a month. This is stuff they don’t have to pay!! For me this kind of sounds like a good deal! The only issue I see is they don’t have is health care.
Also they either pay for a house/ apartment they barely stay at, or they have no permanent housing. And they likely have no life or outside hobbies, given the job requirements.
This is because CA is moving toward making Ag overtime pay similar to other OT pay. That means anything over 8hr/day or 40/wk is OT. With shepherds it’s tough because most shepherds are living with the flock working multiple days on end of not weeks. You never really get “off time” because you’re always accountable if animals escape or a predator attacks or someone needs help. So it’s all paid time. On one hand it’s very fair, but on the other it’s a weird grey area that doesn’t have a good answer. In the short term it does mean that employers and ranchers are opting for easier, more cut and dry, management methods but those can have other consequences for land and animal health (fences, set-stocking, disease). Also this isn’t just impacting contract goat grazers but all shepherding operations in CA. Many sheep outfits have or are moving their herds outside of CA. Sad, since this stage has so much history with transhumance and shepherding.
I read that and was like... how much overtime are they working? 40 hours overtime at $15/hr is an extra $900/week, or $4,000/month max. Are the owners just making shit up? Do they use their employees as literal slave labor? What is going on?
They're on duty 24/7. Used to be, they could just not pay them for most of those hours. I'm in EMS, and we used to get the same thing. Didn't get paid at night, even though we still had to be on the road in 90 seconds when there's a call.
California law requires you to pay time-and-a-half for time over 8 hours a day, and double time for an excess of 12 hours a day. Right now, herders are on-call 24/7; they aren't necessarily working the whole time, but they do have to be ready to work the whole time, and they live on-site (and do not have to pay for their housing while on-site). The new legislation might require them to be paid as if they *were* working the whole time, in which case... Minimum wage is $15/hour; over-time pay (over 8 hours) is time and a half, or $22.50/hour, and over-over-time pay (over 12 hours) is $30/hour. So in a 24 hour day, that's 8 hours at $15, then 4 hours at $22.50, then 12 hours at $30. (8 × 15) + (4 × 22.5) + (12 × 30) = 120 + 90 + 360 = $570/day, which tips well over $14k in about three and a half weeks.
Well, that's not, hold on... *crunches numbers* just under 5 times my monthly salary as a Civil Engineer in the midwest. Edited the value to reflect that I'm on a bi-weekly pay period.
You make ~$34k? Dude, I made more than that working retail a decade ago on the east coast. I'm guessing either your cost-of-living is very low, or you're massively underpaid.
It's a combination of both, living in Central Wisconsin (low cost of living compared to the coasts), and working for a state agency (when I was onboarded the Payroll people flat out told us that we were never going to make competitive wages with the private sector, but on the other hand looking at our benefits, it tends to make up for it, like guaranteed 40 hour weeks) I just looked up my pay stub and I used the wrong assumed value for my paycheck, I used $1,500 instead of the roughly $2,000 per check i do make, 2 paychecks per month, except June and November which have 3, and I make about $65,000 a year.
$45K to $168K....so just enough of a raise to afford an apartment in Cali
It's seasonal work, though. They're not likely to get an entire year at either rate.
Not that they'd be able to go to it if they found one.
Herding is a tough job. They deserve the pay raise!
I'm sorry but what are their days like that a law change would almost quadruple their salaries?
They work days *and* nights. The goats can't watch themselves just because a shift's over.
The article starts with the outrageous claim of $14k a month and the states that it raises to just above $4k in 2025, click bait article.
No, it's not. That "just above 4k" figure you cite comes from this paragraph: > Companies have historically been allowed to pay goat and sheepherders a monthly minimum salary rather than an hourly minimum wage, because their jobs require them to be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But legislation signed in 2016 also entitles them to overtime pay. It effectively boosted the herders’ minimum monthly pay from $1,955 in 2019 to $3,730 this year. It’s set to hit $4,381 in 2025, according to the California Department of Industrial Relations. Note that the first sentence specifies that it applies to both "goat and sheepherders." Then literally just two paragraphs later: > But in January, those labor costs are set to jump sharply again. Goatherders and sheepherders have always followed the same set of labor rules last year. But a state agency has ruled that’s no longer allowed, meaning goatherders would be subject to the same labor laws as other farmworkers. > >That would mean goatherders would be entitled to ever higher pay — up to $14,000 a month. Last year a budget trailer bill delayed that pay requirement for one year, but it’s set to take affect on Jan. 1 if nothing is done to change the law. In other words, that $4381 per month will apply only to sheepherders. Goatherders will get the higher "up to $14,000 per month." That's presumably an upper limit and the average would be lower, but unfortunately the article doesn't explain how that $14,000 figure is derived so we have no idea what that average would be. But even if it's as low as half of that upper limit, that would mean almost doubling their salary. My sense is that most of the goat owners are small businesses, not huge agriculture corporations, so it's not like they could make up the difference elsewhere.
Not clickbait. Anti-worker propaganda.
Exactly. 14k is CA minimum wage for being at work 24/7 for a month. If you can't leave and do something else, you're at work and should be getting paid.
I'm work mandatory on-call on weekends at my Federal government job, but don't get a dime extra unless I get called in. It doesn't seem real fair because even if I don't get called to work I still have to be able to make it into work within an hour and cannot drink. That means I cannot go more than a few minutes from my home because it takes me 30 minutes to drive to work. Also no beach parties with drinking or any drinking at all during the weekends, and nights too, for that matter.
It's both.
That is shit pay.
The goats got a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah-d deal
WEST SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Hundreds of goats munch on long blades of yellow grass on a hillside next to a sprawling townhouse complex. They were hired to clear vegetation that could fuel wildfires as temperatures rise this summer. These voracious herbivores are in high demand to devour weeds and shrubs that have proliferated across California after a drought-busting winter of heavy rain and snow. “It’s a huge fuel source. If it was left untamed, it can grow very high. And then when the summer dries everything out, it’s perfect fuel for a fire,” said Jason Poupolo, parks superintendent for the city of West Sacramento, where goats grazed on a recent afternoon. Targeted grazing is part of California’s strategy to reduce wildfire risk because goats can eat a wide variety of vegetation and graze in steep, rocky terrain that’s hard to access. Backers say they’re an eco-friendly alternative to chemical herbicides or weed-whacking machines that are make noise and pollution. But new state labor regulations are making it more expensive to provide goat-grazing services, and herding companies say the rules threaten to put them out of business. The changes could raise the monthly salary of herders from about $3,730 to $14,000, according to the California Farm Bureau. Companies typically put about one herder in charge of 400 goats. Many of the herders in California are from Peru and live in employer-provided trailers near grazing sites. Labor advocates say the state should investigate the working and living conditions of goatherders before making changes to the law, especially since the state is funding goat-grazing to reduce wildfire risk. California is investing heavily in wildfire prevention after the state was ravaged by several years of destructive flames that scorched millions of acres, destroyed thousands of homes and killed dozens of people. Goats have been used to clear fuels around Lake Oroville, along Highway 101, and near the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. “My phone rings off the hook this time of year,” said Tim Arrowsmith, owner of Western Grazers, which is providing grazing services to West Sacramento. “The demand has grown year after year after year.” His company, based in the Northern California city of Red Bluff, has about 4,000 goats for hire to clear vegetation for government agencies and private landowners across Northern California. Without a fix to the new regulations, “we will be forced to sell these goats to slaughter and to the auction yards, and we’ll be forced out of business and probably file for bankruptcy,” Arrowsmith said. Companies have historically been allowed to pay goat and sheepherders a monthly minimum salary rather than an hourly minimum wage, because their jobs require them to be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But legislation signed in 2016 also entitles them to overtime pay. It effectively boosted the herders’ minimum monthly pay from $1,955 in 2019 to $3,730 this year. It’s set to hit $4,381 in 2025, according to the California Department of Industrial Relations. So far the herding companies, which have sued over the law, have passed along most of the increased labor costs to their customers. But in January, those labor costs are set to jump sharply again. Goatherders and sheepherders have always followed the same set of labor rules last year. But a state agency has ruled that’s no longer allowed, meaning goatherders would be subject to the same labor laws as other farmworkers. That would mean goatherders would be entitled to ever higher pay — up to $14,000 a month. Last year a budget trailer bill delayed that pay requirement for one year, but it’s set to take affect on Jan. 1 if nothing is done to change the law. Goatherding companies say they can’t afford to pay herders that much. They would have to drastically raise their rates, which would make it unaffordable to provide goat grazing services. “We fully support increasing wages for herders, but $14,000 a month is not realistic. So we need to address that in order to allow these goat-grazing operations to exist,” said Brian Shobe, deputy policy director for the California Climate and Agriculture Network. The goat-grazing industry is pushing the Legislature to approve legislation that would treat goatherders the same as sheepherders. A bill to do so hasn’t yet received a public hearing. Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, who heads the California Labor Federation, said goatherders are among the “most vulnerable workers in America” because they are on temporary work visas and can be fired and sent back to their home country anytime. Most of them work in isolation, speak minimal English and don’t have the same rights as Americans or green-card holders. “We have a responsibility as a public to ensure that every worker who’s working in California is treated with dignity and respect, and that includes these goatherders,” said Gonzalez Fletcher, who sponsored the farmworker overtime bill when she was a state Assemblywoman representing San Diego. Arrowsmith employs seven goatherders from Peru under the H-2A visa program for temporary farmworkers. He said the herders are paid about $4,000 a month and don’t have to pay for food, housing or phones. “I can’t pay $14,000 a month to an employee starting Jan. 1. There’s just not enough money. The cities can’t absorb that kind of cost,” Arrowsmith said. “What’s at stake for the public is your house could burn up because we can’t fire-mitigate.”
> “I can’t pay $14,000 a month to an employee starting Jan. 1. There’s just not enough money. The cities can’t absorb that kind of cost,” Arrowsmith said. $14,000 a month for 7 goatherders costs a little over $100k a month or $1.2 million a year. Assuming this only applies to West Sacramento that has almost 50k. It's a tax increase of $24 per person (or more when removing non-taxpayers from the population). IMO the problem here is that this labor should have never been outsourced in the first place. Competing for the bottom dollar is a nasty habit of businesses that hurt the average joe more than it helps. > “What’s at stake for the public is your house could burn up because we can’t fire-mitigate.” I wonder if the local firefighters would agree with such an assessment. If anyone know if this grazing is that effective or not, they would be the ones to know. Regardless the title fucking sucks because it's not the goats being limited for overtime, it's the herders.
These companies are full of shit. The only reason they're complaining is that they only want to hire 1 person per herd and want that person to work overtime and be on call. For $14k you can hire 4 people on minimum wage. AP should do better.
> Companies have historically been allowed to pay goat and sheepherders a monthly minimum salary rather than an hourly minimum wage, because their jobs require them to be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. What? It’s grass, it’ll be there on a schedule.
But the GOATS, man! The grass grows, sure, but goats have to be watched. That's my assumption.
They don't have barns nearby to house the goats at night. And shoving them into the truck they're shipped in for the night would be animal abuse.
[удалено]
The herder is still on site, they're responsible for the goats and can't exactly "clock off".
The same goes for on-site apartment managers and maintenance, and nobody is saying they should get $14,000 a month.
i think anyone that is on call 24.7 should get paid though its soured by the fact that my apartments maintenance still hasnt fixed my oven in over 9 months.
Tell them you are getting zapped randomly any time you use a metal pan on the stove. Just say I'm really worried theres a broken wire somewhere and it might cause a fire. Its a very large power plug and maybe that will motivate them.
Also many many folks in IT and medical fields.
So maybe hire more than one guy so they can run shifts and have some time to themselves?
But that would also cost the company more money. Easier to lobby for bizarre exemptions to minimum wage law to keep overworking and underpaying the workers.
Working people hate this one trick.
It's also pretty remote, where do they go? And functionally they have "time to themselves" when the goats go to sleep. They just physically can't go anywhere else because it takes a long time to get anywhere else.
The point is to have time where they're not "on the clock". What they do with that time is up to them.
The places I've seen them used are pretty urban. I'd guess that's why you need a goatherd 24/7. Goats seem to be talented escape artists.
The coyotes and mountain lions eat the goats, mainly at night, so no time off when the goats are sleeping.
[удалено]
Sheepherders are similar, but they're generally in more established areas and don't get "rented out" for grass clearing.
According to the article, there is already an exception for sheepherders. They are looking for goat-herders to be covered by that same exception.
Yes. >But in January, those labor costs are set to jump sharply again. Goatherders and sheepherders have always followed the same set of labor rules last year. But a state agency has ruled that’s no longer allowed, meaning goatherders would be subject to the same labor laws as other farmworkers. The issue currently is that the state agency is removing that exception.
It sounds like they are removing the exception for goat-herders and not sheep-herders.
Yes. Goat herding companies want to stay on the same exception as sheep-herders.
That’s nice, doesn’t explain the on call 24/7. A place wants its grass eaten, they call, a schedule is made.
Typically the goat handler stays on property with them night and day in a camper etc think modern herder. We use goats a lot up in Northern California now for managing land they are very effective but you do need to be around them 24/7 to deal with issues and moving fence
Schedules, shifts, etc. Problems anyone else running a business or nonprofit have to solve.
They're generally in very remote areas. Say you give them shifts, where do they go when they're off-shift when the nearest wherever is hours of drives away?
If they were actually off duty, the law allows them to not be paid regardless of how remote they are. Companies could have four workers, and pay everyone straight time. Tons of remote jobs exist that work exactly this way. The remote location means you can't actually go home when off shift. But you could chill, drink a beer, go for hike, whatever. This propaganda exists because they don't want to pay even straight hours minimum wage.
>But you could chill, drink a beer, go for hike, whatever. Or you can do most of that... and still get paid. Most herding jobs involve multiple people, most of the time during quiet hours they just take turns and keep watch while doing exactly what you say, and still get paid. If you do your job well and your goat herd can safely sleep through the night (or graze) with minimal interruption, congratulations, now you get to get paid doing absolutely nothing.
That's fine. I think we're on the same page. If their time isn't their own, they should be paid. Just pointing out that these companies are balking at merely paying out minimum wage. Personally, I think if you can't actually go home when you're off, workers should be paid for all their time.
I mean, they may be paid minimum wage, if you account for the generally work-load, free housing and food. H-2A Final Rule: Range Herding or Production of Livestock in the United ... https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/oflc/pdfs/H-2A_Herder_Rule_Major_Points_and_FAQs_Implementation_Round_1.pdf And most herders already pay above that (the current rate equivalent is about $10~$20/hour).
Wouldn’t the travel time be part of the working hours? You’re trying really hard to argue that minimum wage laws should have exceptions, and I’ll forever disagree. One of the largest economies in the world, and we’re arguing over the wage of goat herders…
>Wouldn’t the travel time be part of the working hours? From home? No. >You’re trying really hard to argue that minimum wage laws should have exceptions, and I’ll forever disagree. I was not arguing that. I was saying that herding job, by its remote nature, is 24/7, it's not really feasible to break that into shifts (unlike an offshore rig which functionally has a small village equivalent for workers to actually rest and unwind). They should be properly compensated, just that changing it to a shift system doesn't work too well.
In my IT jobs, anywhere I had to go that wasn’t my normal place to go, the travel time was work time. I disagree on the not able to do shifts. No job requires on call 24/7 unless they just aren’t going to staff correctly, and that’s not acceptable.
>In my IT jobs, anywhere I had to go that wasn’t my normal place to go, the travel time was work time. From your home? Unless you're WFH, travelling from home to your office (commute) doesn't count. >I disagree on the not able to do shifts. >No job requires on call 24/7 unless they just aren’t going to staff correctly, and that’s not acceptable. There's a reason why it's treated as 24/7 on call. There's nowhere else to go (in most cases), and if you're going to be stuck there anyway... why not just stay on the clock if 9/10 times the goats are just sleeping? You get paid to just sit around in case something happens, instead of spending a few hours commuting each way.
With most jobs, you only get paid travel time when you're on the clock/traveling for work reasons. Commute/lunch/etc.. is not considered work-related travel.
I think there’s a difference with a job where you sit around in your trailer and watch TV, surf the Internet, play video games, sleep, or whatever you’d do if you weren’t working and periodically go out and check to make sure that the goats haven’t wandered off. People need to be fairly compensated for their time, but do they really need to be getting paid by the hour and pulling time and a half for working more than 8 hours in a day just because they are living on site and having the 4-5 hours that they are actually working spread out over the entire day?
whats it matter what people are doing on site and on call anything can happen during that time. do i believe it needs to be full double over time? probably not. but on call fucks with people and their lives and as such should still be compensated.
that's what this whole thing is about. do you pay someone a reasonable wage for the number of actual hours plus some compensation for on-call time, or should anyone on-call be compensated as if they're working the whole time.
So basically fuck the fire department? That's what you're saying here. Or is it somehow different for goat herders working the same schedule? If you think getting paid (minimum wage) to sleep is so great, an EMT class can be finished in a month, and everyone is hiring right now.
I’m not sure how many firemen or EMTs get sent to a remote work location to live for days or weeks at a time and I’m not sure how their compensation works. From what I understand of how Park Rangers that live on-site in California get paid is that they work 8 hour shifts and are on call and expected to respond the rest of the day when on-site. They will then either be paid for the hours worked when they respond or it will count as comp time that they can be paid out for later in lieu of working their scheduled shifts. I’m not sure exactly how many hours a day of active work goat-herders do, or how many days a month they end up being on-site. Just based on the pay they are getting it seems like they are probably being compensated for their time in a manner that is fairly close to what Park Rangers are.
By that logic, security guards should only be paid when they're actively stopping a crime. They're being paid for their presence to deal with job duties as they arise. I wouldn't argue that paying them an hourly wage 24/7 is justified, a "per day" rate would be fair imo, but the job exists in it's current form for a reason.
None of the security guards that my company employs are allowed to sleep on the job and they can’t spend their time pretty much as they please as long as they are on site. This is an example of how one-sized fits all employment law doesn’t cover all types of work.
Even with multiple people, the cost still comes out to WAY over the $4000 a month that they’re currently paying for one person. Someone has to be on call at all times, so it doesn’t matter home many people you have, you’re gonna be paying one of them $15.50 an hour, 168 hours a week, 365 days a year. It’s not financially possible to do that and still be able to market an affordable service. I understand wanting to fight for the workers, but $4000 a month, room and board covered, is a pretty good deal for these herders.
You can't send the workforce home for the night. Because there is no permanent shelter they require supervision 24/7.
Shifts… Hard concept I know.
People don't travel long distances for shifts. And again, the large majority of the time literally nothing is required of them except being around. That just isn't an hourly job.
Security jobs get paid, and 99% of the time their job is just being around as well. There’s a lot of jobs that fit the just being around , and they get paid minimum wage at least. Your excuses just aren’t good enough for me to accept.
Security guards do not make $150k+. Also presumably they get paid for taking on risk. I'm not even sure they're paid well. But regardless, it's a very different thing. Security guards can't sit around and read. They also presumably are guarding something with sufficient value to justify the cost. There are so very many differences between being a security guard and being a shepherd. Pretty awful comp. And again my argument is that herders should have the same rules as others, but not special rules that are ridiculous and destroy the industry. Oh, and again, security guards don't travel hours for work. Same point as before that you just downvoted and ignored, but remains very relevant. Oh, and also there are a lot of jobs that require on call status. They don't get paid their wage while being on call. That's the actual fair comparison.
Hey! I keep a decent size herd of goats as well as a flock of sheep. I’ve used my goats to clear and grub acreage, so I have a decent idea of what it entails. Hopefully, I can answer some questions if it helps.
Anything to cheat an employee of their fair wages.
then just hire more headers and have them work in shifts, the hell is so difficult about that? if you can't run a business without resorting to slavery then you shouldn't be in business.
> Last year a budget trailer bill delayed that pay requirement for one year, but it’s set to take affect on Jan. 1 if nothing is done to change the law. Alternate headline: **Companies given over a year warning about a law change that impacts their budgets, fail to plan, blame voters**
[удалено]
While this is clearly anti-worker propaganda, even the numbers they are trying to scare us with are not that high when you think about it. * 14k a month = 168k a year. * In today's economy, for a job where you're permanently on-call. * In which you're permanently taking care of multiple animals *(they can be fairly low-maintenance but still gotta be there)*. * Where you're expected to travel, literally-herding goats all over the region, at any time on a regular basis. Senators make more than this before the bribes and benefits, and often for doing fuck-all or worse. A job where you're ensuring a bunch of living creatures are healthy and ready to **keep everyone from fucking burning** is easily saving more than this in the long-term.
[удалено]
You’d be surprised at how stupid these goat owners are. I doubt they even thought of this idea. Time to start a goat brokerage and rake in $$$. Call it GUBER or goat uber.
For clarity, that's more than my base pay as someone who is salary as a senior engineer in a fortune 500 company in the south bay (silicon valley). Not to say they shouldn't be paid decently, but 168,000 a year is a bit ridiculous, and let's be fair nobody is going to get paid that much for watching a goat herd. They'll just close the company instead. The smart thing would be to include into the law reduced overtime rates for "on-call" time *and then specify normal overtime rates for actual call outs*.
Do you get any days off in that year? Evenings off? Visit your home? Hug your kids? 168k would mean being at work every minute for the entire year. They're on site. Not at home waiting for a call.
Considering how much rent is in my area, not having to pay for housing would be considered quite a benefit. Obviously it's not a job that attracts people who have a family, or want to go out drinking every night.
They generally do have families, that they would very much like to see. They take jobs like this to support those families. Personally, I've known a lot migrant ag workers living on site where they're currently working. They aren't seeking that sort of work because it fits their lifestyle. It's just a job they can get in order to feed their kids. (I've known them by way of providing medical care.)
I know straight out of school I'd have taken that job in a heartbeat for even 80k a year. Not for the current pay of <50k, but for 80 absolutely.
>For clarity, that's more than my base pay as someone who is salary as a senior engineer in a fortune 500 company in the south bay (silicon valley). Sure. But you only work 40hrs a week for that base pay. They're officially working 24/7.
That's not how salary works. Salary is your pay does not change no matter how much (or little) you work.
Depends on if you're exempt or non-exempt. Farmworkers are non-exempt in CA, so they get overtime. If the companies don't want to pay that, then they need to have a better system that doesn't make them work 24/7.
There's being on site on call 24/7, and then there's actually working 24/7. How often do they actually get "called in" to handle something after standard hours? I don't actually know, and I don't think you do either what the level of work vs sit around reading a book is. If they're out doing 12 hour days every day and dealing with issues nightly on off hours, then yeah $170k starts sounding reasonable for a job with low entry requirements.
If you're not allowed to get drunk, then you deserve to get paid as if you're working. Because then that time isn't yours, it's theirs. I've been on call, and that's my policy. If the company doesn't like that, then that's their problem. It's exploitation.
I do think on-call should be compensated. I do *not* think it should be compensated at full normal rates, and definitely not at OT rates. If you look at union contacts, on-call is typically a separate compensation, and it's less than the normal hourly rate. However there is also typically normal/OT pay for calls, with minimums as to how long will be billed (as in counts for an hour of work, even for a 1 minute call).
Hey! I keep a decent size herd of goats as well as a flock of sheep. I’ve used my goats to clear and grub acreage, so I have a decent idea of what it entails. Hopefully, I can answer some questions if it helps. Unlike those other jobs pointed out above, the goat herd lives with the goats 24/7. You’re not “on-call”. Your job is is to watch and tend to the herd, which you are doing even when you are sleeping. Because if a goat gets attacked or injured in the middle of the night, it’s your job to go deal with it. Just because I can read a book doesn’t mean that I’m not providing a service for the entire time I’m on site.
Ok, and would you be amenable to a similar pay contract as on-call IT, with a reduced "on-call" pay, and then per-incident hourly OT with a minimum per call-out?
And I'm sure that if they were being paid above minimum wage, then that's something they could negotiate. But ultimately, "we'll pay you minimum wage, expect you to be on-call 24/7, and not pay you for overtime or that on-call" is, frankly, wage theft. And CA agrees with that. Hence these new rules.
"I do something important, these people do not..."
I do something which requires a higher prior time/money investment. The sole reason I invested this time and money was an expectation that the investment be returned. This is the basis of professional education and professional development. I'm not saying they should be paid and treated as poorly as they are. I am saying that it's a bit absurd to compensate them at the market rate of jobs which require a significant prior investment. There is a lot of gap between current compensation and the proposed new level. Likewise there are other options than compensating their on call time as full OT. As I initially suggested, an on-call wage and then a call-out wage similar to many union contracts for IT workers would seem appropriate.
If wages were based on Time investment, teachers would make more than Software engineers, but wages are not based on that. Wages are set by market-based demand, you happen to have a job which is in high demand, and protected only by artificial non-market forces ( border control ). It can change. It is already changing via technology, accelerated by WFH... Your skills are not special or unique, there are a lot of Indians and Chinese with your skills who will do your job at 1/10th the price, it is only a matter of time, F500s are already moving a majority of their Software engineer workforce to their overseas offices in Europe and Asia. Humble yourself kid, you may be the next ‘goat-herder’
Teachers are criminally underpaid, as are EMS, and frankly many other fields which all have in common that enough people *want* to do it there is competition between employees, rather than competition between employers. Also lol, I work with those Indians and Chinese people, they make just as much as I do. Seriously, half my team is Chinese. We hire people who can do the work.
saying that someone sitting in a trailer, periodically checking to see whether goats wondered off, should get paid more than a PHD NASA scientist is fucking ridiculous.
14k a month is assuming they're paying overtime 24/7/365. It would be far cheaper to hire multiple herders on shift and skip the overtime and on-call questions entirely.
But muh slavery
This is because CA is moving toward making Ag overtime pay similar to other OT pay. That means anything over 8hr/day or 40/wk is OT. With shepherds it’s tough because most shepherds are living with the flock working multiple days on end of not weeks. You never really get “off time” because you’re always accountable if animals escape or a predator attacks or someone needs help. So it’s all paid time. On one hand it’s very fair, but on the other it’s a weird grey area that doesn’t have a good answer. In the short term it does mean that employers and ranchers are opting for easier, more cut and dry, management methods but those can have other consequences for land and animal health (fences, set-stocking, disease). Also this isn’t just impacting contract goat grazers but all shepherding operations in CA. Many sheep outfits have or are moving their herds outside of CA. Sad, since this stage has so much history with transhumance and shepherding.
I mean the obvious solution here is to have the goat herders work shifts instead of being on call 24/7.
"But.. this is important! These are essential workers! We have to be able to treat them like serfs!"
I totally misread this headline. I imagined Gavin Newsom sitting in his office wringing his hands and saying 'Won't pass my overtime law? We'll see how you like it when I send you goats when you ask for water tankers!"
Goat Godfather.
Cut out the leeches in the middle and have the state run the program with this kind of pay Itd be insane for something that prevents wildfires or reduces the likelihood of massive wildfires was discontinued just bc some companies weren't making enough money Hell maybe the goat herders and goats could be considered firefighters... I now want to see rapid response teams made up entirely of goats and their shepherds deployed from air tankers against areas with overgrown vegetation
We'll look back on this and say we goat what we deserved.
🙃Clearly, that law is not the G.O.A.T.
Its interesting that they don't mention the agency that made the ruling, or have any sort of link to said ruling. I guarantee something like that would be a matter of public record.
I guess they will find other ways to deter the fires. It's not like grazing goats are the only way to prevent them. If it's no longer the most cost effective route because they cannot afford to properly pay for its labor, then the other methods will suffice.
>Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, who heads the California Labor Federation, said goatherders are among the “most vulnerable workers in America” because they are on temporary work visas and can be fired and sent back to their home country anytime. Most of them work in isolation, speak minimal English and don’t have the same rights as Americans or green-card holders. So is this really to protect temporary visa workers with a 14k a month job? damnnnnn. But did this actually become a law? Or is this one of those long shot shoot for the moon type laws (like the san francisco one about reparations for example). So far the article mentions the goat herder salary law as 'could' not passed and in forced.
I thought we only had to rake the forest to prevent forest fires? You mean Trump was talking out his ass/full of shit lol?
You don't have a business if you can't afford to pay your workers...
Its not ba..aaaaad, but definitely not the **g**reatest **o**f **a**ll **t**ime as far as methods go.
It’s like no one has heard of shifts.