MOLINE, IL.&nbsp; (AP) —Deere executives said Wednesday that the company wouldn’t return to the bargaining table with striking workers because it wouldn’t offer a better contract than one they rejected that included immediate 10% raises.

Marc Howze, the chief administrative officer of Deere &amp; Co., said the deal the United Auto Workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-strikes-united-auto-workers-7124f0d5f729c0a722e62c87c94fc14a">union rejected</a>&nbsp;on Tuesday represented the most it could offer and still keep its costs competitive.

Howze declined to discuss how much the ongoing strike is costing Deere, which will release its next earnings report later this month. The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-illinois-moline-united-auto-workers-7e85b3d6aa34955f7c0be633e201c87f">disputed contract</a>&nbsp;would cover more than 10,000 Deere workers at 12 facilities in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas, who make the company’s iconic John Deere green tractors and other equipment.

The company plans to reach out to employees directly now to stress the virtues of its offer while it tries to keep its plants running with salaried employees and other workers to meet customer commitments. Other Deere plants globally are also working to pick up the slack.

“We want to make sure they understand the value of the agreement, to make sure they understand that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to hold out,” Howze said. “To some degree, because we were able to come to a resolution as quickly as we were, I think there’s some folks who believe there must be some more available.”

In addition to the initial raises, this week’s offer included 5% raises in the third and fifth years of the six-year deal, and it would have provided an $8,500 ratification bonus, preserved a pension option for new employees, made workers eligible for health insurance sooner and maintained their no-premium health insurance coverage.

UAW spokesman Brian Rothenberg said union leaders were meeting to discuss their next moves. With a majority of workers voting against the latest offer, union officials face demands to deliver more but that might be difficult given the Moline, Illinois-based company’s stance. And pressure to reach a settlement will mount the longer workers go without pay.

The vote Tuesday was much closer than when 90% of the workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">rejected the company’s first offer</a>&nbsp;last month, but 55% of the workers still rejected the latest offer. Workers have been encouraged to seek more now because of the current worker shortages and Deere’s strong profits.

“It seems general membership feels emboldened by this current political moment of labor power. They’re pushing things further than the union leadership apparently wants to go,” said Victor Chen, a sociologist at Virginia Commonwealth University who studies labor. “It’s a gamble, but the economic wind is against their backs, given widespread supply chain problems and the current worker shortage.”

Deere officials, who have predicted that the company will report record profits of between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion this fiscal year, don’t want to miss out on sales to farmers who are ready to buy thanks to strong crop prices. The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that farmers’ net income will increase by nearly 20% this year, to $113 billion.

Observers say the rejection of the deal shows pent-up anger among Deere workers over how much of its profits the company has been willing to share with workers.

“Although the proposed contract was a significant improvement over the previous offer, the Deere workers evidently felt that the company could afford more,” Fordham University sociologist Chris Rhomberg said. “For decades, wages across the economy have lagged behind productivity growth, and workers may be tired of seeing the gains from their efforts go predominantly to corporations making record-breaking earnings.”

Now the challenge for the UAW and Deere will be finding a way to resolve their differences in a way that workers will accept, said Todd Vachon, a former member of a carpenter’s union who now teaches about labor relations at Rutgers University.

“There is always the risk of overplaying one’s hand — on both sides, really,” Vachon said. “It appears the final mile will likely involve some changes to work rules and working conditions in addition to just wage increases.”

The longer the strike continues, the more painful it will become for everyone, Creighton University economist Ernie Goss said.

“During the dragging on, both sides lose,” Goss said. “Workers are looking at lost income. John Deere is looking at lost sales. So they both have sort of guns pointing at each other’s heads, economically speaking.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered only 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered only 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>MOLINE, IL.&nbsp; (AP) —Deere executives said Wednesday that the company wouldn’t return to the bargaining table with striking workers because it wouldn’t offer a better contract than one they rejected that included immediate 10% raises.Marc Howze, the chief administrative officer of Deere &amp; Co., said the deal the United Auto Workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-strikes-united-auto-workers-7124f0d5f729c0a722e62c87c94fc14a">union rejected</a>&nbsp;on Tuesday represented the most it could offer and still keep its costs competitive.Howze declined to discuss how much the ongoing strike is costing Deere, which will release its next earnings report later this month. The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-illinois-moline-united-auto-workers-7e85b3d6aa34955f7c0be633e201c87f">disputed contract</a>&nbsp;would cover more than 10,000 Deere workers at 12 facilities in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas, who make the company’s iconic John Deere green tractors and other equipment.The company plans to reach out to employees directly now to stress the virtues of its offer while it tries to keep its plants running with salaried employees and other workers to meet customer commitments. Other Deere plants globally are also working to pick up the slack.“We want to make sure they understand the value of the agreement, to make sure they understand that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to hold out,” Howze said. “To some degree, because we were able to come to a resolution as quickly as we were, I think there’s some folks who believe there must be some more available.”In addition to the initial raises, this week’s offer included 5% raises in the third and fifth years of the six-year deal, and it would have provided an $8,500 ratification bonus, preserved a pension option for new employees, made workers eligible for health insurance sooner and maintained their no-premium health insurance coverage.UAW spokesman Brian Rothenberg said union leaders were meeting to discuss their next moves. With a majority of workers voting against the latest offer, union officials face demands to deliver more but that might be difficult given the Moline, Illinois-based company’s stance. And pressure to reach a settlement will mount the longer workers go without pay.The vote Tuesday was much closer than when 90% of the workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">rejected the company’s first offer</a>&nbsp;last month, but 55% of the workers still rejected the latest offer. Workers have been encouraged to seek more now because of the current worker shortages and Deere’s strong profits.“It seems general membership feels emboldened by this current political moment of labor power. They’re pushing things further than the union leadership apparently wants to go,” said Victor Chen, a sociologist at Virginia Commonwealth University who studies labor. “It’s a gamble, but the economic wind is against their backs, given widespread supply chain problems and the current worker shortage.”ADVERTISEMENTDeere officials, who have predicted that the company will report record profits of between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion this fiscal year, don’t want to miss out on sales to farmers who are ready to buy thanks to strong crop prices. The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that farmers’ net income will increase by nearly 20% this year, to $113 billion.Observers say the rejection of the deal shows pent-up anger among Deere workers over how much of its profits the company has been willing to share with workers.“Although the proposed contract was a significant improvement over the previous offer, the Deere workers evidently felt that the company could afford more,” Fordham University sociologist Chris Rhomberg said. “For decades, wages across the economy have lagged behind productivity growth, and workers may be tired of seeing the gains from their efforts go predominantly to corporations making record-breaking earnings.”Now the challenge for the UAW and Deere will be finding a way to resolve their differences in a way that workers will accept, said Todd Vachon, a former member of a carpenter’s union who now teaches about labor relations at Rutgers University.“There is always the risk of overplaying one’s hand — on both sides, really,” Vachon said. “It appears the final mile will likely involve some changes to work rules and working conditions in addition to just wage increases.”The longer the strike continues, the more painful it will become for everyone, Creighton University economist Ernie Goss said.“During the dragging on, both sides lose,” Goss said. “Workers are looking at lost income. John Deere is looking at lost sales. So they both have sort of guns pointing at each other’s heads, economically speaking.”

Deere warns striking workers as walkout moves into 4th week

MOLINE, IL (AP) —Most workers at Deere &amp; Co. rejected a contract offer Tuesday that would have given them 10% raises and decided to remain on strike in the hopes of securing a better deal.

The raises in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-illinois-moline-united-auto-workers-7e85b3d6aa34955f7c0be633e201c87f">new agreement</a>&nbsp;reached over the weekend were twice as big as the ones in the original offer United Auto Workers union members rejected last month, but those raises and improved benefits weren’t enough to end the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">strike that began</a>&nbsp;on Oct. 14. The new agreement also would have provided an $8,500 ratification bonus, preserved a pension option for new employees, made workers eligible for health insurance sooner and maintained their no-premium health insurance coverage.

The disputed contract covers more than 10,000 Deere workers at 12 facilities in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas. A smaller group of about 100 workers at two Deere facilities in Colorado and Georgia voted to accept an identical deal.

The union said 55% of its members at the 12 main plants voted against this latest contract offer Tuesday.

Last month, 90% of union members also rejected a proposed contract that included immediate 5% raises for some workers and 6% for others, and 3% raises in 2023 and 2025.

Deere officials said they were disappointed the agreement was voted down.

“Through the agreements reached with the UAW, John Deere would have invested an additional $3.5 billion in our employees, and by extension, our communities, to significantly enhance wages and benefits that were already the best and most comprehensive in our industries,” said Marc A. Howze, Deere’s chief administrative officer. “This investment was the right one for Deere, our employees, and everyone we serve together.”

Tuesday’s vote means that the first major strike since 1986 will continue at the maker of agriculture and construction equipment. Currently, many companies are dealing with worker shortages, making workers feel&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-4895e84ab6ed4bb61e9cb8d6c0bcfad5">emboldened&nbsp;</a>to demand more.

Forklift operator Irving Griffin, who has been with Deere for 11 years, told&nbsp;<a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2021/11/02/john-deere-strikers-uaw-told-nation-watching-afl-cio-president-liz-shuler/6180383001/" target="_blank">the Des Moines Register</a>&nbsp;Monday that he planned to vote against the contract because he believed the company can offer even more.

Griffin said he thought workers should hold out for a better offer even though workers are receiving only $275 a week from the union while they’re on strike.

“Now is the best time to strike and take a stand for what we’re really worth,” he said to the newspaper.

Sales have been strong at the Moline, Illinois-based company this year as the economy continued to recover from the pandemic. Deere has predicted it will report record profits this year between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>MOLINE, IL (AP) —Most workers at Deere &amp; Co. rejected a contract offer Tuesday that would have given them 10% raises and decided to remain on strike in the hopes of securing a better deal.The raises in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-illinois-moline-united-auto-workers-7e85b3d6aa34955f7c0be633e201c87f">new agreement</a>&nbsp;reached over the weekend were twice as big as the ones in the original offer United Auto Workers union members rejected last month, but those raises and improved benefits weren’t enough to end the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">strike that began</a>&nbsp;on Oct. 14. The new agreement also would have provided an $8,500 ratification bonus, preserved a pension option for new employees, made workers eligible for health insurance sooner and maintained their no-premium health insurance coverage.The disputed contract covers more than 10,000 Deere workers at 12 facilities in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas. A smaller group of about 100 workers at two Deere facilities in Colorado and Georgia voted to accept an identical deal.The union said 55% of its members at the 12 main plants voted against this latest contract offer Tuesday.Last month, 90% of union members also rejected a proposed contract that included immediate 5% raises for some workers and 6% for others, and 3% raises in 2023 and 2025.Deere officials said they were disappointed the agreement was voted down.“Through the agreements reached with the UAW, John Deere would have invested an additional $3.5 billion in our employees, and by extension, our communities, to significantly enhance wages and benefits that were already the best and most comprehensive in our industries,” said Marc A. Howze, Deere’s chief administrative officer. “This investment was the right one for Deere, our employees, and everyone we serve together.”Tuesday’s vote means that the first major strike since 1986 will continue at the maker of agriculture and construction equipment. Currently, many companies are dealing with worker shortages, making workers feel&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-4895e84ab6ed4bb61e9cb8d6c0bcfad5">emboldened&nbsp;</a>to demand more.Forklift operator Irving Griffin, who has been with Deere for 11 years, told&nbsp;<a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2021/11/02/john-deere-strikers-uaw-told-nation-watching-afl-cio-president-liz-shuler/6180383001/" target="_blank">the Des Moines Register</a>&nbsp;Monday that he planned to vote against the contract because he believed the company can offer even more.Griffin said he thought workers should hold out for a better offer even though workers are receiving only $275 a week from the union while they’re on strike.“Now is the best time to strike and take a stand for what we’re really worth,” he said to the newspaper.Sales have been strong at the Moline, Illinois-based company this year as the economy continued to recover from the pandemic. Deere has predicted it will report record profits this year between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion.

Deere employees reject contract offer, will stay on strike

MOLINE, Ill. (AP) — Union workers at Deere &amp; Co. would get wage increases of 10% in the first year and 5% each in the third and fifth years under a tentative contract reached between the farm-equipment maker and the United Auto Workers union.

The workers would get 3% lump sums in the second, fourth and sixth years of the deal. They would also get a ratification bonus of $8,500 and no changes in the cost of their health insurance, according to a summary of the agreement posted Sunday on the union website.

The company and the UAW reached a tentative agreement Saturday that would cover more than 10,000 workers at 12 Deere locations in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/iowa">Iowa</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois">Illinois</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kansas">Kansas</a>. However, a strike that began Oct. 14 will continue while workers review the terms of the deal ahead of a ratification vote.

Union members previously rejected a proposed contract that included immediate 5% raises for some workers and 6% for others, and 3% raises in 2023 and 2025.

The Moline, Illinois-based company reported $4.7 billion in net income for the first nine months of its fiscal year, more than double the $2 billion of the same period a year earlier.

A labor shortage affecting many industries also gave workers more leverage to demand better pay and benefits.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>MOLINE, Ill. (AP) — Union workers at Deere &amp; Co. would get wage increases of 10% in the first year and 5% each in the third and fifth years under a tentative contract reached between the farm-equipment maker and the United Auto Workers union.The workers would get 3% lump sums in the second, fourth and sixth years of the deal. They would also get a ratification bonus of $8,500 and no changes in the cost of their health insurance, according to a summary of the agreement posted Sunday on the union website.The company and the UAW reached a tentative agreement Saturday that would cover more than 10,000 workers at 12 Deere locations in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/iowa">Iowa</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois">Illinois</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kansas">Kansas</a>. However, a strike that began Oct. 14 will continue while workers review the terms of the deal ahead of a ratification vote.Union members previously rejected a proposed contract that included immediate 5% raises for some workers and 6% for others, and 3% raises in 2023 and 2025.The Moline, Illinois-based company reported $4.7 billion in net income for the first nine months of its fiscal year, more than double the $2 billion of the same period a year earlier.A labor shortage affecting many industries also gave workers more leverage to demand better pay and benefits.

Deere workers would get immediate 10% raises under new offer

KANSAS CITY (AP) — A judge on Wednesday issued a temporary restraining order that details how picketing workers at the Deere &amp; Co. plant in Davenport must conduct themselves.

In seeking the injunction Wednesday, Deere officials alleged that striking workers had disrupted access to the Davenport Works plant and put others at risk.

District Court Judge Marlita Greve ordered the union to allow only four picketers at a time near the gates of the plant. The order also banned the use of chairs and barrel fires, and prohibited picketers from harassing or intimidating people entering and leaving the plant.

Deere spokeswoman Jen Hartmann said the company sought the injunction to provide a safe environment for contractors and employees, including those participating in the strike.

The injunction prohibits picketing or congregating “near the Contractor Gate entrance,” which is regarded a neutral gate that cannot be picketed, according to Deere.

The United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">went on strike&nbsp;</a>on Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract. Contract negotiations have resumed.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack met with striking workers Wednesday at Deere’s plant in Ankeny. Vilsack told the union workers that he stood with them, noting the UAW had long supported him in his political career, WHO-TV&nbsp;<a href="https://who13.com/news/tom-vilsack-repays-support-to-uaw-members-with-visit-to-john-deere-picket-line/" target="_blank">reported</a>.

A contract would cover 10,000 striking workers at 14 Deere plants, including seven in Iowa, four in Illinois and one each in Kansas, Colorado and Georgia.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY (AP) — A judge on Wednesday issued a temporary restraining order that details how picketing workers at the Deere &amp; Co. plant in Davenport must conduct themselves.In seeking the injunction Wednesday, Deere officials alleged that striking workers had disrupted access to the Davenport Works plant and put others at risk.District Court Judge Marlita Greve ordered the union to allow only four picketers at a time near the gates of the plant. The order also banned the use of chairs and barrel fires, and prohibited picketers from harassing or intimidating people entering and leaving the plant.Deere spokeswoman Jen Hartmann said the company sought the injunction to provide a safe environment for contractors and employees, including those participating in the strike.The injunction prohibits picketing or congregating “near the Contractor Gate entrance,” which is regarded a neutral gate that cannot be picketed, according to Deere.The United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">went on strike&nbsp;</a>on Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract. Contract negotiations have resumed.U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack met with striking workers Wednesday at Deere’s plant in Ankeny. Vilsack told the union workers that he stood with them, noting the UAW had long supported him in his political career, WHO-TV&nbsp;<a href="https://who13.com/news/tom-vilsack-repays-support-to-uaw-members-with-visit-to-john-deere-picket-line/" target="_blank">reported</a>.A contract would cover 10,000 striking workers at 14 Deere plants, including seven in Iowa, four in Illinois and one each in Kansas, Colorado and Georgia.

Restraining order: Strike at Deere plants moves into 2nd week

MOLINE, Ill. (AP) — Contract talks between Deere &amp; Co. and its 10,000 striking workers have resumed, but it wasn't immediately clear how far apart the two sides remained Monday.

Both the Moline,&nbsp;Illinois-based company and the United Auto Workers union confirmed that talks had resumed.

The strike began last Thursday after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.

Deere spokeswoman Jen Hartmann said the company remains “committed to the collective bargaining process and resolving the strike.”

The last major strike at the maker of agricultural and construction equipment came in 1986. This year's strike comes as companies are dealing with worker shortages. Deere had predicted it would report record profits this year between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion on strong sales.

The contracts under negotiation cover 14 Deere plants, including seven in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/iowa">Iowa</a>, four in Illinois and one each in&nbsp;Kansas,&nbsp;Colorado&nbsp;and&nbsp;Georgia.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began last Thursday after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began last Thursday after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>MOLINE, Ill. (AP) — Contract talks between Deere &amp; Co. and its 10,000 striking workers have resumed, but it wasn't immediately clear how far apart the two sides remained Monday.Both the Moline,&nbsp;Illinois-based company and the United Auto Workers union confirmed that talks had resumed.The strike began last Thursday after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.Deere spokeswoman Jen Hartmann said the company remains “committed to the collective bargaining process and resolving the strike.”The last major strike at the maker of agricultural and construction equipment came in 1986. This year's strike comes as companies are dealing with worker shortages. Deere had predicted it would report record profits this year between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion on strong sales.The contracts under negotiation cover 14 Deere plants, including seven in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/iowa">Iowa</a>, four in Illinois and one each in&nbsp;Kansas,&nbsp;Colorado&nbsp;and&nbsp;Georgia.

Contract talks resume between Deere and its striking workers

By DANIAL VOCK <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/09/19/struggle-over-tax-break-for-inherited-farmland-churns-below-surface-in-reconciliation-bill/">Kansas Reflector</a>

WASHINGTON — Agricultural groups and 
farm-state lawmakers notched a significant win when U.S. House Democrats
 chose not to touch a big tax break for inherited property, avoiding for
 now a confrontation.

But opponents remain wary
 that the idea could come back at any time as Democrats shape their 
massive $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package, and search for ways
 to help pay for the most significant expansion of the social safety net
 since the New Deal.

Farm lobbies and Republicans, along 
with influential Democrats like House Agriculture Chairman David Scott 
of Georgia, strongly objected to tax changes that President Joe Biden 
proposed in his “Build Back Better” plan for farmland and other assets 
handed from one generation to the next.&nbsp;

Biden, along with Agriculture 
Secretary Tom Vilsack, wanted to end the “stepped-up basis” for 
determining capital gains taxes on those assets. Vilsack, the former 
governor of Iowa, has taken to the pages of The Wall Street Journal and
 popped into a White House press briefing to make the case that closing 
loopholes like these is necessary to make sure the wealthy pay their 
fair share.

Over the next decade, the 
administration’s plan for taxing farmland inheritances could bring in as
 much as $322 billion in new federal tax revenues.

But U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra, an Iowa
 Republican, said farmers in his district have been complaining to him 
about the proposal ever since it was unveiled earlier this year. The 
farmers, he said, are worried that a new tax scheme would make it 
impossible to keep farms in the family.

“Let’s say a mom and dad bought their
 farm at $2,000 an acre, and now it’s worth $12,000 an acre. If they 
want to give it to their son or daughter or whoever, (the heir) would 
have to pay tax on the difference of that,” Feenstra said in an 
interview with States Newsroom.

“A son or a daughter wouldn’t have 
that money, so they’d have to sell the land to pay the tax,” he 
continued. The buyer would most likely be a large corporation, not a 
local farmer, he said. “That’s why so many people are worried that it 
will destroy the family farm, literally destroy the family farm.”

Proponents for the change say those 
concerns are overblown or easily addressed through policy tweaks. But 
the emotional pleas to save small-town America appear to have won this 
round.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means
 Committee, the group that handled the tax aspects of Biden’s economic 
revival plan, left out the president’s proposed changes to the 
stepped-up basis when they approved their piece of the reconciliation 
bill last week.

The idea could reemerge later, as the
 package continues its journey through the House and Senate. But the 
committee’s decision reflects how politically radioactive the idea has 
become.&nbsp;

Several <a target="_blank" href="https://axne.house.gov/sites/axne.house.gov/files/5.6.21%20Stepped%20Up%20Basis%20Final.pdf">Democrats balked</a> at Biden’s proposal, as well. Scott, the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, <a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/06022021letter.pdf?utm_campaign=1099-520">wrote the president</a>
 in June, arguing that the stepped-up basis was “a critical tool 
enabling family farming operations to continue from generation to 
generation.”

“I have been working tirelessly to 
ensure that stepped-up basis is protected,” Scott said in a statement 
last week, “and I am very pleased that the package released does not 
impact the benefit’s operation.”

But Vilsack, who owns 600 acres of 
farmland, argues that the stepped-up basis is really just a way for rich
 people to avoid paying taxes.

“This policy has allowed the wealthy to amass large fortunes,” Vilsack <a target="_blank" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/vilsack-biden-tax-changes-step-up-in-basis-estate-death-tax-family-farm-small-business-11631116907">wrote</a> earlier this month in The Wall Street Journal.&nbsp;

“Millionaires and billionaires borrow
 against their assets, usually stock or real estate, but also art and 
collectibles, really anything a bank will lend against. When those 
assets are transferred upon death, their heirs can sell the property 
without being taxed to pay off the debt. This is one of the most popular
 ways the rich avoid taxation, and it must end.”

The agriculture secretary said Biden’s proposal had special protections for family farms.&nbsp;

First, the administration wanted to 
impose the capital gains tax only when the heir sold the property. So in
 Feenstra’s example, the son or daughter wouldn’t have to pay taxes when
 they inherited the farm, only when they sold it.&nbsp;

Second, Vilsack said that the Biden 
plan would exempt all capital gains of up to $2.5 million. He claimed 
that 95 percent of family farms would not owe anything with that level 
of an exemption.

Marc Goldwein, a senior vice 
president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible
 Federal Budget, said the fact that House Democrats so far have not 
included changes to the stepped-up basis was a “discouraging starting 
point.”&nbsp;

Getting rid of the policy, he said, should be a “no-brainer.”

“You want tax policy that treats 
people in similar situations similarly, that doesn’t create bad 
incentives and that raises revenue in a progressive way,” he said. 
“Stepped-up basis fails all three of those.”

It makes no sense, he argued, that 
someone who sold their property the day before they died would have to 
pay capital gains on it, but that someone who inherited the same 
property and sold it a day later would have to pay none.&nbsp;

The policy encourages people to hold 
on to their assets longer than they otherwise would, just to avoid 
taxation. And it disproportionately benefits rich taxpayers, Goldwein 
said.&nbsp;&nbsp;

He also said the policy mostly affects people with assets other than farms.&nbsp;

A 2014 U.S. Treasury study, for 
example, found that farm assets made up only 2 percent of the fair 
market value of assets that are protected by the policy.&nbsp;

Stocks and bonds, on the other hand, made up more than half of the value of protected assets.

But Dustin Sherer, the director of 
congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said 
the administration is underplaying the potential consequences for 
farmers if stepped-up basis is removed.

While Vilsack touted the 
administration’s proposed exemption of the first $2.5 million of capital
 gains, Sherer noted, that would not be enough to shield farmers with a 
typical 500-acre farm in Vilsack’s home state of Iowa.&nbsp;

There are more than 18,000 farms in Iowa that are bigger than 500 acres, Sherer said.

“More to the point,” Sherer asked, “if you’re trying to go after billionaires, why is $2.5 million your exemption level?”

And the administration’s proposal to 
impose the capital gains tax when property is sold, rather than when it 
is inherited, still causes problems, Sherer said.&nbsp;

The lingering tax obligation would make it harder for the new property owner to take out a loan, for example.

“It completely changes the dynamics of the transfer,” he said.

Sherer said he was encouraged that 
the policy hasn’t gained traction in the House so far, but he worries 
that it could become part of the deal later.

“As long as politicians in D.C. are looking for money to offset their spending, it’s not over,” he said.

The reconciliation bill now goes to 
the House Budget Committee, which will consolidate input from other 
House committees. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants the full 
chamber to vote on the package before the end of the month, but that 
deadline could slip.&nbsp;

Daniel C. Vock is a correspondent for the States Newsroom Washington, D.C., bureau.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632147076214.jpeg" alt="Farm lobbies and Republicans object to changes in how taxes are applied to farmland and other assets as they are handed down from one generation to another. Pixabay photo" />
 <figcaption>Farm lobbies and Republicans object to changes in how taxes are applied to farmland and other assets as they are handed down from one generation to another. Pixabay photo</figcaption>
 </figure>By DANIAL VOCK <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/09/19/struggle-over-tax-break-for-inherited-farmland-churns-below-surface-in-reconciliation-bill/">Kansas Reflector</a>WASHINGTON — Agricultural groups and 
farm-state lawmakers notched a significant win when U.S. House Democrats
 chose not to touch a big tax break for inherited property, avoiding for
 now a confrontation.But opponents remain wary
 that the idea could come back at any time as Democrats shape their 
massive $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package, and search for ways
 to help pay for the most significant expansion of the social safety net
 since the New Deal.Farm lobbies and Republicans, along 
with influential Democrats like House Agriculture Chairman David Scott 
of Georgia, strongly objected to tax changes that President Joe Biden 
proposed in his “Build Back Better” plan for farmland and other assets 
handed from one generation to the next.&nbsp;Biden, along with Agriculture 
Secretary Tom Vilsack, wanted to end the “stepped-up basis” for 
determining capital gains taxes on those assets. Vilsack, the former 
governor of Iowa, has taken to the pages of The Wall Street Journal and
 popped into a White House press briefing to make the case that closing 
loopholes like these is necessary to make sure the wealthy pay their 
fair share.Over the next decade, the 
administration’s plan for taxing farmland inheritances could bring in as
 much as $322 billion in new federal tax revenues.But U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra, an Iowa
 Republican, said farmers in his district have been complaining to him 
about the proposal ever since it was unveiled earlier this year. The 
farmers, he said, are worried that a new tax scheme would make it 
impossible to keep farms in the family.“Let’s say a mom and dad bought their
 farm at $2,000 an acre, and now it’s worth $12,000 an acre. If they 
want to give it to their son or daughter or whoever, (the heir) would 
have to pay tax on the difference of that,” Feenstra said in an 
interview with States Newsroom.“A son or a daughter wouldn’t have 
that money, so they’d have to sell the land to pay the tax,” he 
continued. The buyer would most likely be a large corporation, not a 
local farmer, he said. “That’s why so many people are worried that it 
will destroy the family farm, literally destroy the family farm.”<h2>Emotional pleas</h2>Proponents for the change say those 
concerns are overblown or easily addressed through policy tweaks. But 
the emotional pleas to save small-town America appear to have won this 
round.Democrats on the House Ways and Means
 Committee, the group that handled the tax aspects of Biden’s economic 
revival plan, left out the president’s proposed changes to the 
stepped-up basis when they approved their piece of the reconciliation 
bill last week.The idea could reemerge later, as the
 package continues its journey through the House and Senate. But the 
committee’s decision reflects how politically radioactive the idea has 
become.&nbsp;Several <a target="_blank" href="https://axne.house.gov/sites/axne.house.gov/files/5.6.21%20Stepped%20Up%20Basis%20Final.pdf">Democrats balked</a> at Biden’s proposal, as well. Scott, the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, <a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/06022021letter.pdf?utm_campaign=1099-520">wrote the president</a>
 in June, arguing that the stepped-up basis was “a critical tool 
enabling family farming operations to continue from generation to 
generation.”“I have been working tirelessly to 
ensure that stepped-up basis is protected,” Scott said in a statement 
last week, “and I am very pleased that the package released does not 
impact the benefit’s operation.”But Vilsack, who owns 600 acres of 
farmland, argues that the stepped-up basis is really just a way for rich
 people to avoid paying taxes.“This policy has allowed the wealthy to amass large fortunes,” Vilsack <a target="_blank" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/vilsack-biden-tax-changes-step-up-in-basis-estate-death-tax-family-farm-small-business-11631116907">wrote</a> earlier this month in The Wall Street Journal.&nbsp;“Millionaires and billionaires borrow
 against their assets, usually stock or real estate, but also art and 
collectibles, really anything a bank will lend against. When those 
assets are transferred upon death, their heirs can sell the property 
without being taxed to pay off the debt. This is one of the most popular
 ways the rich avoid taxation, and it must end.”The agriculture secretary said Biden’s proposal had special protections for family farms.&nbsp;First, the administration wanted to 
impose the capital gains tax only when the heir sold the property. So in
 Feenstra’s example, the son or daughter wouldn’t have to pay taxes when
 they inherited the farm, only when they sold it.&nbsp;Second, Vilsack said that the Biden 
plan would exempt all capital gains of up to $2.5 million. He claimed 
that 95 percent of family farms would not owe anything with that level 
of an exemption.<h2>A no-brainer?</h2>Marc Goldwein, a senior vice 
president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible
 Federal Budget, said the fact that House Democrats so far have not 
included changes to the stepped-up basis was a “discouraging starting 
point.”&nbsp;Getting rid of the policy, he said, should be a “no-brainer.” 
“You want tax policy that treats 
people in similar situations similarly, that doesn’t create bad 
incentives and that raises revenue in a progressive way,” he said. 
“Stepped-up basis fails all three of those.”It makes no sense, he argued, that 
someone who sold their property the day before they died would have to 
pay capital gains on it, but that someone who inherited the same 
property and sold it a day later would have to pay none.&nbsp;The policy encourages people to hold 
on to their assets longer than they otherwise would, just to avoid 
taxation. And it disproportionately benefits rich taxpayers, Goldwein 
said.&nbsp;&nbsp;He also said the policy mostly affects people with assets other than farms.&nbsp;A 2014 U.S. Treasury study, for 
example, found that farm assets made up only 2 percent of the fair 
market value of assets that are protected by the policy.&nbsp;Stocks and bonds, on the other hand, made up more than half of the value of protected assets.<h2>Consequences for farmers</h2>But Dustin Sherer, the director of 
congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said 
the administration is underplaying the potential consequences for 
farmers if stepped-up basis is removed.While Vilsack touted the 
administration’s proposed exemption of the first $2.5 million of capital
 gains, Sherer noted, that would not be enough to shield farmers with a 
typical 500-acre farm in Vilsack’s home state of Iowa.&nbsp;There are more than 18,000 farms in Iowa that are bigger than 500 acres, Sherer said.“More to the point,” Sherer asked, “if you’re trying to go after billionaires, why is $2.5 million your exemption level?”And the administration’s proposal to 
impose the capital gains tax when property is sold, rather than when it 
is inherited, still causes problems, Sherer said.&nbsp;The lingering tax obligation would make it harder for the new property owner to take out a loan, for example.“It completely changes the dynamics of the transfer,” he said.Sherer said he was encouraged that 
the policy hasn’t gained traction in the House so far, but he worries 
that it could become part of the deal later.“As long as politicians in D.C. are looking for money to offset their spending, it’s not over,” he said.The reconciliation bill now goes to 
the House Budget Committee, which will consolidate input from other 
House committees. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants the full 
chamber to vote on the package before the end of the month, but that 
deadline could slip.&nbsp;Daniel C. Vock is a correspondent for the States Newsroom Washington, D.C., bureau.

Struggle over tax break for inherited farmland churns in budget bill

By ARIANA FIGUEROA <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/07/06/white-house-says-executive-order-coming-on-labeling-beef-as-a-product-of-usa/">Kansas Reflector</a>

WASHINGTON
 — The White House will unveil an executive order in the coming days 
that directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to clarify that meat can
 only receive a “Product of USA” label if that livestock is raised in 
the U.S. rather than abroad, press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters 
Tuesday.

“The
 EO directs USDA to develop a plan to increase opportunities for farmers
 to access markets and receive a fair return, including supporting 
alternative food distribution systems like farmers markets and 
developing standards and labels so that consumers can choose to buy 
products that treat farmers and agriculture workers fairly,” Psaki said.

Psaki
 said that the executive order will make it easier for farmers to 
economically compete against international meat industries.

Under
 current labeling rules, most grass fed beef labeled “Product of USA” is
 actually raised and slaughtered abroad, but imported to the United 
States for processing.

“The
 president and the USDA believe it is unfair for domestic farmers and 
ranchers to have to compete with foreign companies that are misleading 
consumers,” she said.

USDA
 Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement last week that the agency 
would initiate a “top-to-bottom” review of the “Product of USA” label 
that will help determine what the label means to consumers. The 
announcement followed <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/07/ftc-issues-rule-deter-rampant-made-usa-fraud">a Federal Trade Commission move </a>on strengthening the labeling.

“We
 have taken note of the many comments submitted to USDA and the FTC 
regarding meat labeling and understand that the current ‘Product of USA’
 label on meat products may no longer effectively serve either of those 
purposes, to the detriment of consumers, producers, and fair and 
competitive markets,” said Vilsack.

Psaki
 said the order also aims to make it easier for farmers to bring claims 
against corporate agriculture companies under the Packers and Stockyards
 Act to prevent chicken processors from underpaying farmers, and would 
protect from retaliation those farmers who report companies that are not
 following the rules.

Ariana Figueroa covers the nation's capital for States Newsroom, a network of state-based nonprofit news outlets that includes Kansas Reflector.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/7/1625690364448.png" alt="The White House plans to issue an executive order to clarify the labeling for beef produced in the United States, the president's press secretary said Tuesday. (May 10, 2021, photo by Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption>The White House plans to issue an executive order to clarify the labeling for beef produced in the United States, the president's press secretary said Tuesday. (May 10, 2021, photo by Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure>By ARIANA FIGUEROA <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/07/06/white-house-says-executive-order-coming-on-labeling-beef-as-a-product-of-usa/">Kansas Reflector</a>WASHINGTON
 — The White House will unveil an executive order in the coming days 
that directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to clarify that meat can
 only receive a “Product of USA” label if that livestock is raised in 
the U.S. rather than abroad, press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters 
Tuesday.“The
 EO directs USDA to develop a plan to increase opportunities for farmers
 to access markets and receive a fair return, including supporting 
alternative food distribution systems like farmers markets and 
developing standards and labels so that consumers can choose to buy 
products that treat farmers and agriculture workers fairly,” Psaki said.Psaki
 said that the executive order will make it easier for farmers to 
economically compete against international meat industries.Under
 current labeling rules, most grass fed beef labeled “Product of USA” is
 actually raised and slaughtered abroad, but imported to the United 
States for processing.“The
 president and the USDA believe it is unfair for domestic farmers and 
ranchers to have to compete with foreign companies that are misleading 
consumers,” she said.USDA
 Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement last week that the agency 
would initiate a “top-to-bottom” review of the “Product of USA” label 
that will help determine what the label means to consumers. The 
announcement followed <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/07/ftc-issues-rule-deter-rampant-made-usa-fraud">a Federal Trade Commission move </a>on strengthening the labeling.“We
 have taken note of the many comments submitted to USDA and the FTC 
regarding meat labeling and understand that the current ‘Product of USA’
 label on meat products may no longer effectively serve either of those 
purposes, to the detriment of consumers, producers, and fair and 
competitive markets,” said Vilsack.Psaki
 said the order also aims to make it easier for farmers to bring claims 
against corporate agriculture companies under the Packers and Stockyards
 Act to prevent chicken processors from underpaying farmers, and would 
protect from retaliation those farmers who report companies that are not
 following the rules.Ariana Figueroa covers the nation's capital for States Newsroom, a network of state-based nonprofit news outlets that includes Kansas Reflector.

White House: ‘Product of USA’ executive order coming for beef industry

MILWAUKEE (AP) — A federal judge has halted a loan forgiveness program for farmers of color in response to a lawsuit alleging the program discriminates against white farmers.

U.S. District Judge William Griesbach in Milwaukee issued a temporary restraining order Thursday suspending the program for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/06/10/judge-suspends-biden-debt-relief-program-farmers-color/7646187002/">Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</a>&nbsp;reported.

The program pays up to 120% of direct or guaranteed farm loan balances for Black, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian American or Pacific Islander farmers. President Joe Biden's administration created the loan forgiveness program as part of its COVID-19 pandemic relief plan.

Minority farmers have maintained for decades that they have been unfairly denied farm loans and other government assistance. Federal agriculture officials in 1999 and 2010 settled lawsuits from Black farmers accusing the agency of discriminating against them.

Conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-lawsuits-business-31e568255f85fb7655d20319d8dc271d">filed suit in April</a>&nbsp;arguing white farmers aren’t eligible, amounting to a violation of their constitutional rights. The firm sued on behalf of 12 farmers from Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, Oregon and Kentucky.

MILWAUKEE (AP) — A federal judge has halted a loan forgiveness program for farmers of color in response to a lawsuit alleging the program discriminates against white farmers.U.S. District Judge William Griesbach in Milwaukee issued a temporary restraining order Thursday suspending the program for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/06/10/judge-suspends-biden-debt-relief-program-farmers-color/7646187002/">Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</a>&nbsp;reported.The program pays up to 120% of direct or guaranteed farm loan balances for Black, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian American or Pacific Islander farmers. President Joe Biden's administration created the loan forgiveness program as part of its COVID-19 pandemic relief plan.Minority farmers have maintained for decades that they have been unfairly denied farm loans and other government assistance. Federal agriculture officials in 1999 and 2010 settled lawsuits from Black farmers accusing the agency of discriminating against them.Conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-lawsuits-business-31e568255f85fb7655d20319d8dc271d">filed suit in April</a>&nbsp;arguing white farmers aren’t eligible, amounting to a violation of their constitutional rights. The firm sued on behalf of 12 farmers from Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, Oregon and Kentucky.

Judge pauses loan forgiveness program for farmers of color

Minority farmers who for decades have faced systemic discrimination will begin to receive debt relief beginning in this month under what Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in decades.

In an op-ed piece published in USA Today, Vilsack also called the debt relief a “major civil rights victory,” saying it responds to systemic discrimination perpetrated against farmers and ranchers of color by the Agriculture Department.

“It is a historic move that will symbolize that USDA actually cares and that the Biden administration is doing whatever they can to mend fences and show the minority farmers that they do care about them during his administration,” said&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-race-and-ethnicity-tom-vilsack-agriculture-barack-obama-669c46ed87d24d3d14692c4b89eb04de">Abraham Carpenter</a>, a 59-year-old Black farmer whose family grows fruits and vegetables on about 1,500 acres near Grady, Arkansas.

Carpenter expects the debt relief will pay off about $200,000 in farm loans, freeing up money that can now be put toward farm operations like buying seed and equipment instead of making loan payments.

“I know they have said it about a thousand times that they wanted to bring everybody together to make sure everybody was treated fairly. You can say it a million times., but until you show it nobody really believes it,” he said. “But this action of paying off debts for the minority farmers shows they actually do care about treating everybody fairly.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency has published the first notice of funding availability under the American Rescue Plan Act for borrowers with qualifying direct farm loans. A subsequent notice for farmers with government-guaranteed agricultural loans held by private lenders will be published within 120 days.

A provision in the pandemic relief law directs USDA to pay off the farm loans of nearly 16,000 minority farmers and begin to address racial equity challenges. It authorizes the Agriculture Department to pay up to 120% of direct and guaranteed loan outstanding balances for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

“I’m feeling really good,” said&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-discrimination-kansas-cultures-agriculture-871f463bcf1e1e4fac8aa3492f7c8264">Rod Bradshaw</a>, a 68-year-old Black farmer who raises wheat, cattle and milo on 2,000 acres near Jetmore, Kansas. “We knew it was coming, we didn’t know when.”

Bradshaw, who has been farming since buying his first ground in 1976, has made several discrimination complaints with Agriculture Department over the years. He said he has four direct loans totaling more than $300,000 with USDA that he anticipates will be paid off under the debt relief plan.

“It’s going to free us up and let us halfway conduct business as usual,” Bradshaw said upon learning of Friday’s announcement. “This has been going on for so long, this is the first step of getting Black farmers and farmers of color back to where they need to be.”

The Agriculture Department said in its news release that for much of its history, socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers have faced discrimination, sometimes overt and sometimes through deeply embedded rules and policies.

“USDA is recommitting itself to gaining the trust and confidence of America’s farmers and ranchers using a new set of tools provided in the American Rescue Plan to increase opportunity, advance equity and address systemic discrimination in USDA programs,” Vilsack said.

By ROXANA HEGEMAN, Associated PressMinority farmers who for decades have faced systemic discrimination will begin to receive debt relief beginning in this month under what Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in decades.In an op-ed piece published in USA Today, Vilsack also called the debt relief a “major civil rights victory,” saying it responds to systemic discrimination perpetrated against farmers and ranchers of color by the Agriculture Department.“It is a historic move that will symbolize that USDA actually cares and that the Biden administration is doing whatever they can to mend fences and show the minority farmers that they do care about them during his administration,” said&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-race-and-ethnicity-tom-vilsack-agriculture-barack-obama-669c46ed87d24d3d14692c4b89eb04de">Abraham Carpenter</a>, a 59-year-old Black farmer whose family grows fruits and vegetables on about 1,500 acres near Grady, Arkansas.Carpenter expects the debt relief will pay off about $200,000 in farm loans, freeing up money that can now be put toward farm operations like buying seed and equipment instead of making loan payments.“I know they have said it about a thousand times that they wanted to bring everybody together to make sure everybody was treated fairly. You can say it a million times., but until you show it nobody really believes it,” he said. “But this action of paying off debts for the minority farmers shows they actually do care about treating everybody fairly.”The U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency has published the first notice of funding availability under the American Rescue Plan Act for borrowers with qualifying direct farm loans. A subsequent notice for farmers with government-guaranteed agricultural loans held by private lenders will be published within 120 days.A provision in the pandemic relief law directs USDA to pay off the farm loans of nearly 16,000 minority farmers and begin to address racial equity challenges. It authorizes the Agriculture Department to pay up to 120% of direct and guaranteed loan outstanding balances for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.“I’m feeling really good,” said&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-discrimination-kansas-cultures-agriculture-871f463bcf1e1e4fac8aa3492f7c8264">Rod Bradshaw</a>, a 68-year-old Black farmer who raises wheat, cattle and milo on 2,000 acres near Jetmore, Kansas. “We knew it was coming, we didn’t know when.”Bradshaw, who has been farming since buying his first ground in 1976, has made several discrimination complaints with Agriculture Department over the years. He said he has four direct loans totaling more than $300,000 with USDA that he anticipates will be paid off under the debt relief plan.“It’s going to free us up and let us halfway conduct business as usual,” Bradshaw said upon learning of Friday’s announcement. “This has been going on for so long, this is the first step of getting Black farmers and farmers of color back to where they need to be.”The Agriculture Department said in its news release that for much of its history, socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers have faced discrimination, sometimes overt and sometimes through deeply embedded rules and policies.“USDA is recommitting itself to gaining the trust and confidence of America’s farmers and ranchers using a new set of tools provided in the American Rescue Plan to increase opportunity, advance equity and address systemic discrimination in USDA programs,” Vilsack said.

USDA begins paying off loans of minority farmers 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to confirm Tom Vilsack as agriculture secretary, his second run at the Cabinet post.

The former Iowa governor spent eight years leading the same department for former President Barack Obama's entire administration. He was confirmed Tuesday on a 92-7 vote. Both Senators from Kansas and Missouri voted in favor.

In his testimony, Vilsack, 70, heavily endorsed boosting climate-friendly agricultural industries such as the creation of biofuels, saying, “Agriculture is one of our first and best ways to get some wins" on climate change.

He proposed “building a rural economy based on biomanufacturing” and “turning agricultural waste into a variety of products.” He pledged to work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to “spur the industry” on biofuels.

With systemic racial inequity now a nationwide talking point, Vilsack also envisioned creating an “equity task force” inside the department. Its job, he said, would be to identify what he called “intentional or unintentional barriers" that prevent or discourage farmers of color from properly accessing federal assistance programs.

Vilsack also heavily backed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — commonly known as food stamps, or SNAP — as a key instrument in helping the country's most vulnerable families survive and recover from the pandemic era. His Trump-era predecessor, Sonny Perdue, had sought to purge hundreds of thousands of people from the SNAP-recipient lists.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/2/1614117414218.png" alt="Tom Vilsack during his virtual confirmation hearing" />
 <figcaption>Tom Vilsack during his virtual confirmation hearing</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to confirm Tom Vilsack as agriculture secretary, his second run at the Cabinet post.The former Iowa governor spent eight years leading the same department for former President Barack Obama's entire administration. He was confirmed Tuesday on a 92-7 vote. Both Senators from Kansas and Missouri voted in favor.In his testimony, Vilsack, 70, heavily endorsed boosting climate-friendly agricultural industries such as the creation of biofuels, saying, “Agriculture is one of our first and best ways to get some wins" on climate change.He proposed “building a rural economy based on biomanufacturing” and “turning agricultural waste into a variety of products.” He pledged to work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to “spur the industry” on biofuels.With systemic racial inequity now a nationwide talking point, Vilsack also envisioned creating an “equity task force” inside the department. Its job, he said, would be to identify what he called “intentional or unintentional barriers" that prevent or discourage farmers of color from properly accessing federal assistance programs.Vilsack also heavily backed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — commonly known as food stamps, or SNAP — as a key instrument in helping the country's most vulnerable families survive and recover from the pandemic era. His Trump-era predecessor, Sonny Perdue, had sought to purge hundreds of thousands of people from the SNAP-recipient lists.

Vilsack confirmed for 2nd stint as US agriculture secretary

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Thanks to the government paying nearly 40% of their income, U.S. farmers were expected to end 2020 with higher profit than 2019 and the best net income in seven years, the Department of Agriculture said in its latest farm income forecast.

Farmers faced challenges throughout 2020 that included the impact of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bb54595393a14fcd867476996ef94129">trade dispute</a>&nbsp;s; low prices that drove down cash receipts for corn, cotton, wheat, chicken, cattle and hogs; and weather difficulties such as drought in some areas and an unusual August wind&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-iowa-chicago-storms-property-damage-e7bfc5351814eb111f90f540d605514a">storm</a>&nbsp;stretching from South Dakota to Ohio that centered on Iowa.

Farm cash receipts are forecast to decrease nearly 1% to $366.5 billion, the lowest in more than a decade, measured in real dollars. Direct federal government payments saved farmers’ bottom line: Farmers overall saw a 107% increase in direct payments from 2019, when a third of net income came directly from the government.

The impact of the money varies from one farm to another, depending on whether a farmer owns the land, has significant capital to draw from, has manageable debt and aggressively manages wide commodity price swings.

“The payment to one farm could be a matter of life and death of that farm and for another farm maybe just makes it not quite as bad of a year as it was going to be and everywhere in between,” said Mike Paustian, a farmer who raises hogs and grows soybeans and corn near Walcott in eastern Iowa. “I’ve described it as: If you’re drowning and somebody throws you a life preserver, you’re not going to argue too much about grabbing ahold of it.”

Excluding USDA loans and insurance indemnity payments made by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, farmers are expected to receive $46.5 billion from the government, the largest direct-to-farm payment ever. That includes $32.4 billion in assistance through coronavirus&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-financial-markets-iowa-archive-donald-trump-659457209d5ae93177ee529590f5a1b7">pandemic relief</a>&nbsp;food assistance and Paycheck Protection Program payments to farmers. Additional support comes from more traditional revenue loss programs due to low commodity prices, compensation for trade disruptions resulting from tariff battles and conservation programs assistance.

Federal court bankruptcy data indicates 433 U.S. farms filed for reorganization as of Sept. 30, down from 454 during the same period the previous year.

Overall, net farm income in the United States is expected to increase 43% from 2019 to $119.6 billion, the USDA estimated. Farmers will see the highest level of net farm income, a broad measure of profitability, since 2013, the agency said.

One northeast Iowa farmer said without the federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet this year but it began to feel like the government checks were motivated by politics from a president seeking support for reelection.

“At first it did help, but then we kept getting payments and I don’t know that those were warranted,” said Rick Juchems, 65, who grows corn and soybeans and custom raises hogs. “The markets had already recovered quite a bit and they’re recovering yet more, so it helps some but it’s one of those things that the second one was more than we needed.”

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Nebraska, President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

Bill Gordon, who with his father raises soybeans and corn in southwestern Minnesota, hopes for improved free trade agreements and a less confrontational approach under Biden in 2021.

“Volatility definitely causes volatility,” he said. “And so if we can get these free trade agreements set up, that are better, and not as confrontational but still benefit both sides, that just benefits agriculture and rural America.”

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Thanks to the government paying nearly 40% of their income, U.S. farmers were expected to end 2020 with higher profit than 2019 and the best net income in seven years, the Department of Agriculture said in its latest farm income forecast.Farmers faced challenges throughout 2020 that included the impact of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bb54595393a14fcd867476996ef94129">trade dispute</a>&nbsp;s; low prices that drove down cash receipts for corn, cotton, wheat, chicken, cattle and hogs; and weather difficulties such as drought in some areas and an unusual August wind&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-iowa-chicago-storms-property-damage-e7bfc5351814eb111f90f540d605514a">storm</a>&nbsp;stretching from South Dakota to Ohio that centered on Iowa.Farm cash receipts are forecast to decrease nearly 1% to $366.5 billion, the lowest in more than a decade, measured in real dollars. Direct federal government payments saved farmers’ bottom line: Farmers overall saw a 107% increase in direct payments from 2019, when a third of net income came directly from the government.The impact of the money varies from one farm to another, depending on whether a farmer owns the land, has significant capital to draw from, has manageable debt and aggressively manages wide commodity price swings.“The payment to one farm could be a matter of life and death of that farm and for another farm maybe just makes it not quite as bad of a year as it was going to be and everywhere in between,” said Mike Paustian, a farmer who raises hogs and grows soybeans and corn near Walcott in eastern Iowa. “I’ve described it as: If you’re drowning and somebody throws you a life preserver, you’re not going to argue too much about grabbing ahold of it.”Excluding USDA loans and insurance indemnity payments made by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, farmers are expected to receive $46.5 billion from the government, the largest direct-to-farm payment ever. That includes $32.4 billion in assistance through coronavirus&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-financial-markets-iowa-archive-donald-trump-659457209d5ae93177ee529590f5a1b7">pandemic relief</a>&nbsp;food assistance and Paycheck Protection Program payments to farmers. Additional support comes from more traditional revenue loss programs due to low commodity prices, compensation for trade disruptions resulting from tariff battles and conservation programs assistance.Federal court bankruptcy data indicates 433 U.S. farms filed for reorganization as of Sept. 30, down from 454 during the same period the previous year.Overall, net farm income in the United States is expected to increase 43% from 2019 to $119.6 billion, the USDA estimated. Farmers will see the highest level of net farm income, a broad measure of profitability, since 2013, the agency said.One northeast Iowa farmer said without the federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet this year but it began to feel like the government checks were motivated by politics from a president seeking support for reelection.“At first it did help, but then we kept getting payments and I don’t know that those were warranted,” said Rick Juchems, 65, who grows corn and soybeans and custom raises hogs. “The markets had already recovered quite a bit and they’re recovering yet more, so it helps some but it’s one of those things that the second one was more than we needed.”In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Nebraska, President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.Bill Gordon, who with his father raises soybeans and corn in southwestern Minnesota, hopes for improved free trade agreements and a less confrontational approach under Biden in 2021.“Volatility definitely causes volatility,” he said. “And so if we can get these free trade agreements set up, that are better, and not as confrontational but still benefit both sides, that just benefits agriculture and rural America.”

Federal checks salvage otherwise dreadful 2020 for US farms

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — Tyson Foods suspended top officials at its largest pork plant on Thursday and launched an investigation into allegations that they bet on how many workers would get infected during a widespread coronavirus outbreak.

The company’s president and CEO, Dean Banks, said he was “extremely upset” about the allegations against managers at its plant in Waterloo, Iowa, saying they do not represent the company’s values. He said the company has retained the law firm Covington &amp; Burling LLP to conduct an investigation, which will be led by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

“If these claims are confirmed, we’ll take all measures necessary to root out and remove this disturbing behavior from our company,” Banks said in a statement.

Banks said the accused have been suspended without pay. A spokesman for the Arkansas-based company said it would not release their names during the investigation by Holder, who served as attorney general for six years under President Barack Obama.

Tyson has faced a backlash over recently amended wrongful death lawsuits in which plaintiffs’ lawyers allege that Waterloo plant manager Tom Hart “organized a cash buy-in, winner-take-all betting pool for supervisors and managers to wager on how many employees would test positive for COVID-19.”

Hart allegedly organized the pool last spring as the virus spread through the Waterloo plant, ultimately infecting more than 1,000 of its 2,800 workers, killing at least six and sending many others to the hospital. The outbreak eventually&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/6de2477c31301e779ea13d43ef0f2262">tore through</a>&nbsp;the broader Waterloo community.

The lawyers represent the estates of Sedika Buljic, 58; Reberiano Garcia, 60; Jose Ayala Jr., 44; and Isidro Fernandez, age unknown. Buljic, Garcia and Fernandez died in April, and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/c15eb40611c58487eec10b5977db1861">Ayala died May 25&nbsp;</a>after a six-week hospitalization.

The allegation, first&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2020/11/18/lawsuit-tyson-managers-bet-money-on-how-many-workers-would-contract-covid-19/" target="_blank">reported&nbsp;</a>Wednesday by the Iowa Capital Dispatch news site, generated anger toward Tyson.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which represents workers at the plant, condemned what it called “stunning safety failures.”

“This shocking report of supervisors allegedly taking bets on how many workers would get infected, pressuring sick workers to stay on the job, and failing to enforce basic safety standards, should outrage every American,” union president Marc Perrone said.

Hart didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

Democratic State Rep. Ras Smith, whose district includes the plant, said Hart should be fired if the allegation is founded and that workplace safety officials should investigate.

“They were knowingly allowing this virus to spread rampantly in the plant and the community. The more we hear, the more we find out how insidious and intentional it was,” Smith said.

At the time of the alleged betting, Tyson was resisting pressure from local officials to shut down the plant as a safety precaution. The company argued the plant, which can process nearly 20,000 hogs per day, was a vital market for farmers and critical to the meat supply.

Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who allowed Tyson to keep the plant open and praised its executives for taking voluntary safety measures, did not answer directly Thursday when asked whether her trust in the company was misplaced. Reynolds, who signed a law in June shielding companies from liability for some COVID-19 related injuries, instead praised her administration for inspecting the plant and helping organize mass testing of workers.

A sheriff helping lead Black Hawk County’s pandemic response said that during an April tour of the plant, he was “shaken to the core” after seeing workers not social distancing or wearing adequate personal protective equipment.

Managers told workers they had a responsibility to stay on the job to ensure that Americans didn’t go hungry, even while they started avoiding the plant floor themselves because they were afraid of contracting the virus, the lawsuits allege. They increasingly delegated responsibilities to low-level supervisors with no management training or experience.

One upper-level manager, John Casey, ordered a sick supervisor who was leaving to get tested to get back to work, and told others they and their subordinates had to keep working even if they had symptoms, the lawsuits allege. Casey allegedly told workers the virus was the “glorified flu” and “not a big deal” because everyone would get it.

On a tour of the plant with Hart, Iowa Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors on April 20 saw four workers within six feet of each other in one part of the plant, records show. Tyson said it was still in the process of installing barriers at the time.

The plant soon suspended operations to allow for the mass-testing of employees and it reopened about two weeks later with new safety protocols. Iowa OSHA said in June that it&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/336ad340b0a01f9ab870aef1a32785f2">found no violations</a>&nbsp;of its standards during the April 20 inspection.

Tyson has asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries under Iowa law is through the workers’ compensation system. Its lawyers also argue that the plaintiffs have failed to show that the deceased workers contracted the virus at the plant and not elsewhere.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/6/1593167451853.png" alt="photo courtesy Tyson Foods" />
 <figcaption>photo courtesy Tyson Foods</figcaption>
 </figure>IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — Tyson Foods suspended top officials at its largest pork plant on Thursday and launched an investigation into allegations that they bet on how many workers would get infected during a widespread coronavirus outbreak.The company’s president and CEO, Dean Banks, said he was “extremely upset” about the allegations against managers at its plant in Waterloo, Iowa, saying they do not represent the company’s values. He said the company has retained the law firm Covington &amp; Burling LLP to conduct an investigation, which will be led by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.“If these claims are confirmed, we’ll take all measures necessary to root out and remove this disturbing behavior from our company,” Banks said in a statement.Banks said the accused have been suspended without pay. A spokesman for the Arkansas-based company said it would not release their names during the investigation by Holder, who served as attorney general for six years under President Barack Obama.Tyson has faced a backlash over recently amended wrongful death lawsuits in which plaintiffs’ lawyers allege that Waterloo plant manager Tom Hart “organized a cash buy-in, winner-take-all betting pool for supervisors and managers to wager on how many employees would test positive for COVID-19.”Hart allegedly organized the pool last spring as the virus spread through the Waterloo plant, ultimately infecting more than 1,000 of its 2,800 workers, killing at least six and sending many others to the hospital. The outbreak eventually&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/6de2477c31301e779ea13d43ef0f2262">tore through</a>&nbsp;the broader Waterloo community.The lawyers represent the estates of Sedika Buljic, 58; Reberiano Garcia, 60; Jose Ayala Jr., 44; and Isidro Fernandez, age unknown. Buljic, Garcia and Fernandez died in April, and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/c15eb40611c58487eec10b5977db1861">Ayala died May 25&nbsp;</a>after a six-week hospitalization.The allegation, first&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2020/11/18/lawsuit-tyson-managers-bet-money-on-how-many-workers-would-contract-covid-19/" target="_blank">reported&nbsp;</a>Wednesday by the Iowa Capital Dispatch news site, generated anger toward Tyson.The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which represents workers at the plant, condemned what it called “stunning safety failures.”“This shocking report of supervisors allegedly taking bets on how many workers would get infected, pressuring sick workers to stay on the job, and failing to enforce basic safety standards, should outrage every American,” union president Marc Perrone said.Hart didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.Democratic State Rep. Ras Smith, whose district includes the plant, said Hart should be fired if the allegation is founded and that workplace safety officials should investigate.“They were knowingly allowing this virus to spread rampantly in the plant and the community. The more we hear, the more we find out how insidious and intentional it was,” Smith said.At the time of the alleged betting, Tyson was resisting pressure from local officials to shut down the plant as a safety precaution. The company argued the plant, which can process nearly 20,000 hogs per day, was a vital market for farmers and critical to the meat supply.Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who allowed Tyson to keep the plant open and praised its executives for taking voluntary safety measures, did not answer directly Thursday when asked whether her trust in the company was misplaced. Reynolds, who signed a law in June shielding companies from liability for some COVID-19 related injuries, instead praised her administration for inspecting the plant and helping organize mass testing of workers.A sheriff helping lead Black Hawk County’s pandemic response said that during an April tour of the plant, he was “shaken to the core” after seeing workers not social distancing or wearing adequate personal protective equipment.Managers told workers they had a responsibility to stay on the job to ensure that Americans didn’t go hungry, even while they started avoiding the plant floor themselves because they were afraid of contracting the virus, the lawsuits allege. They increasingly delegated responsibilities to low-level supervisors with no management training or experience.One upper-level manager, John Casey, ordered a sick supervisor who was leaving to get tested to get back to work, and told others they and their subordinates had to keep working even if they had symptoms, the lawsuits allege. Casey allegedly told workers the virus was the “glorified flu” and “not a big deal” because everyone would get it.On a tour of the plant with Hart, Iowa Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors on April 20 saw four workers within six feet of each other in one part of the plant, records show. Tyson said it was still in the process of installing barriers at the time.The plant soon suspended operations to allow for the mass-testing of employees and it reopened about two weeks later with new safety protocols. Iowa OSHA said in June that it&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/336ad340b0a01f9ab870aef1a32785f2">found no violations</a>&nbsp;of its standards during the April 20 inspection.Tyson has asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries under Iowa law is through the workers’ compensation system. Its lawyers also argue that the plaintiffs have failed to show that the deceased workers contracted the virus at the plant and not elsewhere.___

Lawsuits: Tyson managers bet on virus cases at pork plant

MOLINE, Ill. (AP) — More than 10,000 striking Deere &amp; Co. workers were voting Wednesday on a new contract offer from the tractor maker, but this third deal is strikingly similar to a contract that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-strikes-united-auto-workers-7124f0d5f729c0a722e62c87c94fc14a">55% of workers rejected</a>&nbsp;two weeks ago.

The latest proposed contract maintains the 10% immediate raises that the last deal offered, and it makes what the United Auto Workers union called modest changes to the details of Deere’s internal incentive pay program for workers.

After the last vote on Nov. 2, Deere officials&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-strikes-united-auto-workers-4cb8e7fca37836ee7eb4482392615c35">told the union</a>&nbsp;not to expect the company to offer any more money, and Deere largely stuck to that promise in this latest offer.

In addition to the initial raises, this week’s offer&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-illinois-moline-united-auto-workers-7e85b3d6aa34955f7c0be633e201c87f">keeps the 5% raises</a>&nbsp;that were in the third and fifth years of the six-year deal and 3% lump sum payments in the second, fourth and sixth years of the deal. The offer would also provide an $8,500 ratification bonus, preserve a pension option for new employees, make workers eligible for health insurance sooner and maintain their no-premium health insurance coverage.

The contract covers 12 plants in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas where the company’s iconic green John Deere agricultural and construction equipment is made.

What Moline, Illinois-based Deere did in this latest offer, which it is calling its final one, was tweak the complicated formula it uses to determine which workers receive bonuses based on whether their team hits certain productivity goals. The changes in the formula could make it easier for workers to qualify for the incentive pay, but there are some Deere workers who aren’t eligible for the bonuses based on the job they do in the company’s factories and warehouses.

The workers who&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">went on strike&nbsp;</a>on Oct. 14 have been holding out for more from Deere, which has predicted it will report record annual profits between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion when it releases its earnings report later this month. Initially, more than 90% of the workers rejected Deere’s initial offer, but the second vote was much closer after the company essentially doubled the raises it was offering.

Deere workers have had to endure increasingly colder temperatures along the picket lines while trying to get by on the union’s $275 in weekly strike pay or by finding another job.

Company officials have said they are using salaried employees and other workers to try and keep their factories operating during the strike. Other Deere plants globally are also working to pick up work.

Still, Deere workers — and other unions — have been emboldened to ask for more this year because of the ongoing worker shortages and because workers didn’t always feel appreciated while working long hours during the pandemic.

Another group of UAW-represented workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-strikes-17c318d1250ebfca9f597c5601af820b">went on strike earlier this year</a>&nbsp;at a Volvo Trucks plant in Virginia and secured better pay and lower-cost health benefits after rejecting three tentative contract offers. Currently, about 1,400 Kellogg’s workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kelloggs-cereal-plants-strike-d9185eb8fa9054d34a078063c3db6c33">have been on strike since early last month</a>&nbsp;at the company’s four U.S. cereal plants.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began Oct. 14 -Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began Oct. 14 -Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>MOLINE, Ill. (AP) — More than 10,000 striking Deere &amp; Co. workers were voting Wednesday on a new contract offer from the tractor maker, but this third deal is strikingly similar to a contract that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-strikes-united-auto-workers-7124f0d5f729c0a722e62c87c94fc14a">55% of workers rejected</a>&nbsp;two weeks ago.The latest proposed contract maintains the 10% immediate raises that the last deal offered, and it makes what the United Auto Workers union called modest changes to the details of Deere’s internal incentive pay program for workers.After the last vote on Nov. 2, Deere officials&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-strikes-united-auto-workers-4cb8e7fca37836ee7eb4482392615c35">told the union</a>&nbsp;not to expect the company to offer any more money, and Deere largely stuck to that promise in this latest offer.In addition to the initial raises, this week’s offer&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-illinois-moline-united-auto-workers-7e85b3d6aa34955f7c0be633e201c87f">keeps the 5% raises</a>&nbsp;that were in the third and fifth years of the six-year deal and 3% lump sum payments in the second, fourth and sixth years of the deal. The offer would also provide an $8,500 ratification bonus, preserve a pension option for new employees, make workers eligible for health insurance sooner and maintain their no-premium health insurance coverage.The contract covers 12 plants in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas where the company’s iconic green John Deere agricultural and construction equipment is made.What Moline, Illinois-based Deere did in this latest offer, which it is calling its final one, was tweak the complicated formula it uses to determine which workers receive bonuses based on whether their team hits certain productivity goals. The changes in the formula could make it easier for workers to qualify for the incentive pay, but there are some Deere workers who aren’t eligible for the bonuses based on the job they do in the company’s factories and warehouses.The workers who&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">went on strike&nbsp;</a>on Oct. 14 have been holding out for more from Deere, which has predicted it will report record annual profits between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion when it releases its earnings report later this month. Initially, more than 90% of the workers rejected Deere’s initial offer, but the second vote was much closer after the company essentially doubled the raises it was offering.Deere workers have had to endure increasingly colder temperatures along the picket lines while trying to get by on the union’s $275 in weekly strike pay or by finding another job.Company officials have said they are using salaried employees and other workers to try and keep their factories operating during the strike. Other Deere plants globally are also working to pick up work.Still, Deere workers — and other unions — have been emboldened to ask for more this year because of the ongoing worker shortages and because workers didn’t always feel appreciated while working long hours during the pandemic.Another group of UAW-represented workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-strikes-17c318d1250ebfca9f597c5601af820b">went on strike earlier this year</a>&nbsp;at a Volvo Trucks plant in Virginia and secured better pay and lower-cost health benefits after rejecting three tentative contract offers. Currently, about 1,400 Kellogg’s workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kelloggs-cereal-plants-strike-d9185eb8fa9054d34a078063c3db6c33">have been on strike since early last month</a>&nbsp;at the company’s four U.S. cereal plants.

Striking John Deere workers vote on 3rd contract offer

WASHINGTON, D.C.– President Trump and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced details of the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP, which will provide up to $16 billion in direct payments to deliver relief to America’s farmers and ranchers impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. 

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?472280-1/president-trump-remarks-food-supply#">Click here to watch</a> the White House Press conference.

In addition to this direct support to farmers and ranchers, USDA’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food-to-usda/farmers-to-families-food-box" target="_blank">Farmers to Families Food Box</a>&nbsp;program is partnering with regional and local distributors, whose workforces have been significantly impacted by the closure of many restaurants, hotels, and other food service entities, to purchase $3 billion in fresh produce, dairy, and meat and deliver boxes to Americans in need.

Producers should&nbsp;<a href="https://www.farmers.gov/cfap">click here</a>&nbsp;to view details and to sign up for the program.

“I thank President Trump and Secretary Perdue for their efforts to help our farmers, ranchers, and growers manage their operations during these unprecedented times,” said Kansas Senator Pat Roberts.&nbsp;“I encourage producers to contact their local FSA office to enroll in the program.”

“I will visit with President Trump later today to continue delivering messages from farm country, and we will continue working to make sure our producers have the tools they need during the COVID-19 emergency and beyond.”

“America’s farming community is facing an unprecedented situation as our nation tackles the coronavirus. President Trump has authorized USDA to ensure our patriotic farmers, ranchers, and producers are supported and we are moving quickly to open applications to get payments out the door and into the pockets of farmers,” said Secretary Perdue. 

“These payments will help keep farmers afloat while market demand returns as our nation reopens and recovers. America’s farmers are resilient and will get through this challenge just like they always do with faith, hard work, and determination.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/5/1589910894677.png" alt="<a href="https://www.c-span.org/person/?ivankatrump">President Trump&nbsp;</a>met with ranchers and farmers in the Roosevelt Room of the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/organization/?929/White">White House</a>&nbsp;to talk about maintaining the nation’s food supply during the pandemic. Other participants included Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/organization/?929/White">White House</a>&nbsp;adviser Ivanka Trump-photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption><a href="https://www.c-span.org/person/?ivankatrump">President Trump&nbsp;</a>met with ranchers and farmers in the Roosevelt Room of the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/organization/?929/White">White House</a>&nbsp;to talk about maintaining the nation’s food supply during the pandemic. Other participants included Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/organization/?929/White">White House</a>&nbsp;adviser Ivanka Trump-photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON, D.C.– President Trump and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced details of the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP, which will provide up to $16 billion in direct payments to deliver relief to America’s farmers and ranchers impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?472280-1/president-trump-remarks-food-supply#">Click here to watch</a> the White House Press conference.In addition to this direct support to farmers and ranchers, USDA’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food-to-usda/farmers-to-families-food-box" target="_blank">Farmers to Families Food Box</a>&nbsp;program is partnering with regional and local distributors, whose workforces have been significantly impacted by the closure of many restaurants, hotels, and other food service entities, to purchase $3 billion in fresh produce, dairy, and meat and deliver boxes to Americans in need.Producers should&nbsp;<a href="https://www.farmers.gov/cfap">click here</a>&nbsp;to view details and to sign up for the program.“I thank President Trump and Secretary Perdue for their efforts to help our farmers, ranchers, and growers manage their operations during these unprecedented times,” said Kansas Senator Pat Roberts.&nbsp;“I encourage producers to contact their local FSA office to enroll in the program.”“I will visit with President Trump later today to continue delivering messages from farm country, and we will continue working to make sure our producers have the tools they need during the COVID-19 emergency and beyond.”“America’s farming community is facing an unprecedented situation as our nation tackles the coronavirus. President Trump has authorized USDA to ensure our patriotic farmers, ranchers, and producers are supported and we are moving quickly to open applications to get payments out the door and into the pockets of farmers,” said Secretary Perdue. “These payments will help keep farmers afloat while market demand returns as our nation reopens and recovers. America’s farmers are resilient and will get through this challenge just like they always do with faith, hard work, and determination.”USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) will accept CFAP applications May 26 – August 28, 2020. Producers should&nbsp;<a href="https://www.farmers.gov/cfap">click here</a>&nbsp;to view details and to sign up for the program.Congress authorized a portion of the funding for CFAP in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which was a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate. President Trump signed the CARES Act into law on March 27. The CARES Act included $9.5 billion in funds to assist agricultural producers, as well as additional resources to partially replenish the Commodity Credit Corporation. Additionally, Congress provided flexibility for the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase commodities for emergency distribution in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.