Maddie Oatman

Maddie Oatman

Research Editor

Maddie worked as a travel guide in Argentina and a teacher at several educational nonprofits in San Francisco before joining Mother Jones. She’s also written for Outside, the Bay Citizen, and the Rumpus. A proud Boulder native, she makes time for mountain climbing, stargazing, and telemark skiing.

Get my RSS |

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Only 13.5 Percent of Food Workers Earn a Living Wage

| Wed Jun. 6, 2012 6:00 AM EDT

Americans love to talk about food—how asparagus is best prepared, which preservatives to avoid, which types of fish are in peril, where to find the best tacos or most delectable peach pies. Most of us spend far less time contemplating the people that pick, slaughter, sort, process, and deliver the products of this 1.8 trillion dollar industry—a group of workers that makes up one-sixth of the country's workforce.

Unfortunately, the majority of these workers take home crummy wages and few benefits, according to a new report from the Food Chain Workers Alliance. Perhaps most strikingly, among workers surveyed by the FCWA, only 13.5 percent made a liveable wage (an amount FCWA defines as higher than 150 percent of the regional poverty level). And not a single agricultural worker of around the 90 surveyed said they earned enough to live on.

The Food Chain Workers Alliance survey results echo sobering realities about jobs across what the FCWA calls "the food chain": a vast network of laborers in the production, processing, and distribution of food. In 2011, the lowest-paying jobs nationwide, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, were combined food preparers and servers and fast food cooks; restaurant servers and hosts, farmworkers, baristas, and food preparers didn't trail far behind (and all made it in the bottom twenty).

"Jobs in the food system aren't seen as high skilled," says Joann Lo, Executive Director of the Food Chain Workers Alliance. "It's hard work; you need to know the right way to cut a chicken in a poultry plant. But the general perception is that they are low skilled and don't deserve good wages." Overall, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, food workers earn less than workers in other industries:

Courtesy Food Chain Workers AllianceSource: "The Hands That Feed Us," Food Chain Workers Alliance

As the report points out, fair market Rent (PDF) for a two bedroom place (think: small family) is $949 a month. An employee would need to make $18.25 an hour to afford it; instead, the median wage in the industry is $9.28 for high school grads, and only slightly more for those with some college under their belts. 

Sometimes these low wages had to do with employees being paid piece rate rather than hourly, making earnings more dependent on a worker's physical health and on supply fluctuations. In her intimate account of the working conditions of some food workers across the food chain, The American Way of Eating, journalist Tracie McMillan went undercover at a garlic farm to do piece-rate work. She writes of her coworker:

Even though Rosalinda's tarjeta will show that she came in at 5:30 a.m. and left at 2:30 p.m., a nine-hour day, her check will say she was there for two hours—exactly the number of hours she would have had to work at minimum wage ($8) to earn what she made via piece rate ($16). Later, I ask advocates if this is unusual, and everyone shrugs: Not every contractor does it, but they see it regularly. Earning minimum wage at our piece rate would require a speed that seems impossible: five buckets an hour. (In my month in garlic, I do not meet anyone who can average that for an entire day.)

Aside from crappy pay, most food workers surveyed by the Alliance have few or any benefits such as health care and paid sick days. More than three quarters reported having no access to health coverage through work, and over half had no health care at all. A glaring 79 percent either had no paid sick time at their jobs or did not know if they had this benefit.

Quick Reads: "Full Body Burden" by Kristen Iversen

| Sun Jun. 3, 2012 6:00 AM EDT

Courtesy of Crown Publishing Group

Full Body Burden: Growing Up in the Nuclear Shadow of Rocky Flats

By Kristen Iversen

CROWN PUBLISHERS

Kristen Iversen was raised near the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado, at a time when few workers at the plutonium trigger plant knew exactly what it produced. Eventually, reports of groundwater contamination, missing plutonium (3,000 pounds!), radioactive rabbits, and cancer fears drew protesters—including Allen Ginsberg—to the gates. But it wasn't until Iversen, by then a broke mom, took a job at the plant that she learned what was up. Her memoir is a deft rebellion against the silences, public and intimate, that have proven disastrous for her community.

This review originally appeared in our July/August issue of Mother Jones. 

Which Kids' Sunscreens Should You Avoid?

| Tue May 15, 2012 4:45 PM EDT

Ahhh, May. Time to don your sunnies, dig out the sandals, and head for the nearest beach or park for about the next four months. By now, you've probably been lectured enough about the perils of sunburn and skin cancer to bring a tube of sunscreen along, too. But while the stuff is important for staying safe from harmful UV rays, there are still enough confusing labels, dangerous ingredients, and misleading SPF designations in so many common products that you may want to opt for a day under the nearest tree instead. Or pay very close attention to exactly what's in your sunscreen, and how often you'll want to reapply. So says the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which today released its 2012 Sunscreen Guide.

The guide comes less than a week after the FDA pushed back the compliancy requirement for a news set of guidelines (33 years in the making) meant to urge manufacturers to more clearly label their products and toss out misleading terms like "sweatproof" and "sunblock." But even the now-delayed FDA guidelines, says EWG, fall short in some important ways.

For starters, the FDA's new guidelines fail to address the risk of trusting a sunscreen with an SPF higher than 50. For sunscreens that boast SPF 100, for instance, "there's no evidence they provide additional health benefits," says David Andrews, a spokesperson for EWG. The higher value "lends to a sense of invincibility, so that people spend more time in the sun longer," Andrews argues.

Wed Mar. 19, 2014 6:00 AM EDT
Sat Oct. 12, 2013 6:00 AM EDT
Thu Sep. 19, 2013 2:27 PM EDT
Mon Jul. 1, 2013 5:46 AM EDT
Fri Jun. 14, 2013 3:39 PM EDT
Mon Apr. 22, 2013 5:30 AM EDT
Mon Feb. 18, 2013 7:11 AM EST
Fri Feb. 8, 2013 7:42 PM EST
Sun Dec. 23, 2012 7:11 AM EST
Fri Nov. 9, 2012 10:18 PM EST
Wed Nov. 7, 2012 4:10 PM EST
Tue Nov. 6, 2012 7:52 PM EST
Mon Oct. 29, 2012 6:03 AM EDT
Wed Oct. 17, 2012 6:03 AM EDT
Wed Sep. 26, 2012 6:00 AM EDT
Mon Sep. 3, 2012 6:00 AM EDT
Tue Jun. 26, 2012 5:48 PM EDT
Tue May. 15, 2012 4:45 PM EDT
Tue Mar. 20, 2012 6:00 AM EDT
Mon Feb. 20, 2012 7:00 AM EST
Thu Feb. 2, 2012 6:10 AM EST
Mon Dec. 19, 2011 6:30 AM EST
Mon Dec. 5, 2011 7:00 AM EST
Wed Nov. 23, 2011 5:33 PM EST
Fri Oct. 28, 2011 6:48 PM EDT
Tue Jun. 28, 2011 8:49 PM EDT
Mon Jun. 20, 2011 6:20 AM EDT
Tue May. 24, 2011 1:00 PM EDT
Thu May. 19, 2011 7:00 PM EDT
Mon May. 9, 2011 6:30 AM EDT
Thu Apr. 14, 2011 11:00 AM EDT
Mon Mar. 21, 2011 6:30 AM EDT