The Complexities of State Surveys in Determining Prevailing Wages for Agricultural Workers

The determination of prevailing wages for agricultural workers in the United States is a multifaceted process that relies heavily on state surveys. These surveys, conducted by State Workforce Agencies (SWAs), are crucial for setting wage rates that ensure fair compensation for workers while also considering the economic viability for farmers. However, the current system, adjusted by the Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division in 2022, has several limitations that can impact the accuracy and reliability of these wage determinations.

The Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) now accepts prevailing wage survey determinations if they meet nine specific criteria. These criteria include the submission of a wage survey for the agricultural job and the distinct work tasks performed, the survey being independently conducted by state agencies or universities, and the survey covering work for a single agricultural activity with distinct work tasks. Additionally, the survey must provide the mean wage of U.S. workers in the job or performing the distinct work tasks and specify the geographic area using that unit of pay to compensate the most U.S. workers whose wages are reported. The survey must also cover an appropriate geographic area based on available resources, the size of the agricultural population, and different wage structures for that job within the state. Wages from at least 30 workers are reported in the unit of pay most used to compensate U.S. workers, and at least five employers are represented. If less than five employers exist in the population, wages from all employers must be included. Wages paid by a single employer represent no more than 25% of sampled wages, unless there are fewer than four employers in the population.

However, these requirements fall short of typical federal statistics standards. The OFLC can accept survey results based on responses from as few as 30 workers across five employers, meaning data from an extremely small sample size can artificially influence the prevailing wage outcome for an entire area. Depending on the survey sample, the resulting wage rate may apply to just a few counties or, in some cases, impact the entire state. This small sample size can lead to distortions in wage determinations, as the resulting wage rate may not accurately reflect the true market conditions.

States also have discretion over what time period to survey, with it being commonplace to survey the “peak week” of activity, when the highest wages are paid for a particular crop activity. For example, a state surveying strawberry harvesters may ask respondents for their wages during the busiest week of picking season, when piece-rate earnings spike, rather than capturing wages averaged across the growing season. This can be especially distorting in cases where agricultural workers receive incentive pay or overtime, leading to the following year’s minimum wage being set by the highest wages paid during the prior year.

Additionally, state prevailing wages may be reported in any common form of pay including hourly, monthly or piece rate. Hourly rates are generally easier to compare to the FLS AEWR, which is also expressed hourly. Kansas had a history of setting monthly prevailing wages that included room and board, going a step further than H-2A regulations that only require housing. And piece rate pay – where workers are paid based on the quantity harvested or tasks completed – is especially common in both crop and livestock production. While piece rates are designed to reward high-performing employees who exceed minimum work requirements, setting a prevailing wage rate for piece rate work can limit an employer’s ability to offer additional incentives over the minimum wage requirement, hurting both farmer profits and reducing earning potential for ambitious workers.

The economic implications for farmers and agricultural workers when prevailing wages are set based on peak earnings during the busiest week of the season are significant. This approach can artificially inflate the prevailing wage rate, which in turn affects long-term labor costs for farmers. Farmers are required to pay at least the highest of the state or federal minimum wage, the collective bargaining wage, the AEWR, or the prevailing wage rate. For instance, domestic lettuce harvesters in Arizona were found to receive $16.32 per hour in 2024, and the results were posted in May 2025. However, the fieldworker AEWR is $17.04 for H-2A workers in Arizona. This means H-2A employers who are unable to find domestic workers to apply for their jobs must pay foreign workers, who also receive housing and transportation, over 70 cents more per hour than the small subset of similarly employed Americans. This increased labor cost can significantly impact farmer profits, especially for those who rely on seasonal labor.

Additionally, setting a prevailing wage rate for piece rate work can limit an employer’s ability to offer additional incentives over the minimum wage requirement. Piece rate pay, where workers are paid based on the quantity harvested or tasks completed, is especially common in both crop and livestock production. While piece rates are designed to reward high-performing employees who exceed minimum work requirements, setting a prevailing wage rate for piece rate work can hurt both farmer profits and reduce earning potential for ambitious workers. This is because farmers may be unable to offer additional incentives over the prevailing wage, which can demotivate workers who are used to earning more through piece rate work.

In summary, setting prevailing wages based on peak earnings during the busiest week of the season can lead to artificially inflated wage rates, increased long-term labor costs for farmers, and reduced incentives for workers. This approach can have a significant impact on the economic viability of farming operations and the earning potential of agricultural workers.

To address these limitations, several potential solutions could be considered. Increasing the sample size requirements, standardizing survey periods, enhancing survey methodology, and conducting more frequent updates and reviews of prevailing wage determinations could significantly improve the accuracy and reliability of wage determinations for agricultural workers. By implementing these solutions, the prevailing wage determinations could better reflect the true market conditions and provide fair compensation for workers while also considering the economic viability for farmers.