NCFC Submits Comments to U.S. Department of Labor on Worker Protection Rule

Submitted electronically via https://www.regulations.gov

September 2, 2025

The Honorable Lori M. Chavez-DeRemer
Secretary
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210

Dear Secretary Chavez-DeRemer,

The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (“NCFC”) appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments on the U.S. Department of Labor’s Recission of Final Rule: Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States: ETA-2025-XXXX0007.

American agriculture is a modern-day success story. America’s farmers produce the world’s safest, most abundant food supply for consumers at prices far lower than the global average. Farmer cooperatives – businesses owned, governed, and controlled by farmers and ranchers – are an important part of the success of America’s agricultural supply chain. Today, farmer co-ops across the country have over $300 billion in annual sales. They represent 1.8 million farmer members and provide over 200,000 jobs with a payroll of over $8 billion.

Since 1929, NCFC has been the voice of America’s farmer-owned cooperatives. We have an extremely diverse membership, which we view as one of our sources of strength – our members span the country and handle, process, and market almost every type of agricultural commodity; furnish farm supplies; and provide credit and related financial services, including export financing. Earnings from these activities are returned to their farmer members on a patronage basis, helping improve their income from the marketplace.
NCFC members include:

• Marketing cooperatives – which handle, process, and market virtually every commodity grown and produced in the United States.
• Bargaining cooperatives – which bargain to help their farmer members obtain reasonable prices for the commodities they produce.
• Farm supply cooperatives – which are engaged in the manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of farm supplies and inputs, as well as energy-related products, including ethanol and biodiesel.
• Credit cooperatives – which include the banks and associations of the cooperative Farm Credit System, and which provide a competitive source of credit and other financial services, including export financing, to farmers and their cooperatives.

NCFC upholds four core values as it works to advance the business and policy interests of America’s cooperatives and other farmer-owned enterprises. These values are (1) farmer ownership and control in the production and distribution chain, (2) continued economic viability of America’s farmers, ranchers, and the businesses they own, (3) the stewardship of the natural resources entrusted to their care, and (4) vibrant rural communities.

General Comments

NCFC strongly supports the Department’s proposed rescission of the 2024 Final Rule, Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States, 89 Fed. Reg. 33898 (Apr. 29, 2024) (“2024 Rule”).

The 2024 Rule imposed sweeping, legally questionable mandates that disrupted agricultural operations, imposed excessive compliance costs, and created widespread confusion. Farmers and ranchers already comply with robust H-2A requirements. The 2024 Rule exceeded statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act and conflicted with constitutional precedent.

Key concerns include:

• Anti-Retaliation Provisions: The rule adopted NLRA-style protections despite Congress’s explicit exclusion of agricultural workers from the NLRA. Courts in the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Northern District of Georgia, and the Western District of Louisiana all enjoined enforcement of the rule, concluding that the Department had likely exceeded its statutory authority. See, e.g., Kentucky v. Su, No. 24-cv-00065 (E.D. Ky. 2025); Georgia Fruit & Vegetable Growers Ass’n v. Su, No. 24-cv-00128 (N.D. Ga. 2025); Louisiana Forestry Ass’n v. Su, No. 24-cv-00501 (W.D. La. 2025) (granting injunctions against enforcement). Rescission is necessary to eliminate this uncertainty.
• Mandatory Progressive Discipline: Imposing corporate-style HR systems on small, family-run farms is impractical. Documentation and representative-attendance requirements hindered timely supervision and created risk of technical violations without real worker benefit.
• Third-Party Access to Housing: Requiring employer-provided housing to be opened to outside representatives violated property rights and ignored Supreme Court precedent. These housing units are typically located on private property and are already subject to stringent DOL and OSHA inspection requirements. In many cases, this provision would have forced employers to grant access to legal advocates, organizers, or other non-residents. This is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Cedar Point Nursery, where the Court struck down a similar California access regulation as an unconstitutional taking of private property. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021). The Department’s attempt to mandate third-party access without regard for property rights ignored binding precedent and created serious safety, liability, and privacy concerns. Again, this section of the 2024 Rule was enjoined by several courts as a gross overstep of employer’s property rights.
• Transportation and Seat Belt Requirements: While clarifying exemptions for older vehicles, the rule introduced confusion and overlap with DOT and state law. Employers feared liability if workers removed seatbelts mid-transport, an impractical and unnecessary standard.
• Wage Disclosure and AEWR Implementation: The requirement for detailed individualized wage projections is unworkable in piece-rate and weather-dependent work. Moreover, rescission appropriately restores the longstanding 14-day grace period for AEWR adjustments, which provides needed flexibility during harvest.
• Expanded Definitions of Joint Employment: The rule’s broad changes threatened established cooperative employment structures, exposing associations and growers to unclear and duplicative liabilities.

Conclusion

The Department’s proposed rescission is grounded in sound legal reasoning, reflects real-world operational concerns, and aligns with multiple federal court rulings. It also restores balance by preserving meaningful worker protections while avoiding unlawful overreach. We urge the Department to finalize the rescission promptly, providing certainty and stability to the agricultural sector, which remains vital to the U.S. economy and national food security.

Sincerely,

Duane Simpson
President & CEO