Mandatory mediation did not usher in a new era for farm labor relations because unions requested and won few elections, the first step to invoke the procedure. Unions do not request secret-ballot elections until they feel confident they will win, and they gauge their support by persuading workers to sign union authorization cards that express worker support for the union. ALRB regulations require at least 50% of currently employed workers to sign authorization cards before a union can request an election. The UFW had signed authorization cards from 70% of the workers employed at the Giumarra table grape farm, but received only 48% of the votes cast when workers voted on September 1, 2005. The UFW’s election loss at Giumarra prompted a union push for another amendment to the ALRA, card check.Card check would enable unions to be certified to represent farm workers without secret ballot elections. For example, if card check had been in effect in the Giumarra case,10 liter drainage pot the UFW could have presented the signed authorization cards to the ALRB and been certified without an election. Non-farm unions have been urging Congressional approval of the Employee Free Choice Act for almost a decade to allow card check, but there is strong resistance to ending secret-ballot elections.
Cesar Chavez insisted in 1975 that the ALRA include secret-ballot elections to avoid having employers recognize a union as a bargaining agent for their farm workers without elections. The UFW argues that times have changed. The Teamsters are no longer competing to organize farm workers, and employers have become more sophisticated to encourage workers to vote against union representation. The California Legislature approved some version of card check for four consecutive years between 2008 and 2011, but each of these bills was vetoed by the governor. The 2011 bill, SB 104, the Fair Treatment for Farm Workers Act, would have amended the ALRA to provide a “majority sign-up” alternative to secret-ballot elections. Under SB 104, the ALRB could have certified a union as a bargaining agent for workers if the union submitted signed authorization cards from a majority of current employees on a farm. The ALRB would have had five days to investigate the petition, and then could have certified the union. Farm employers and major media urged Governor Jerry Brown, who signed the ALRA into law in 1975, to veto SB 104, which he did. Brown said he “appreciated the frustrations” of the UFW in trying to organize farm workers, but was unwilling to “alter in a significant way the guiding assumptions of the ALRA.”The compromise signed into law was SB 126. It allows the ALRB to certify a union as the bargaining representative for farm workers, beginning in 2012, if it finds that unlawful employer preelection conduct prevented a fair election and concludes that the employer’s conduct “render slight the chances of a new election reflecting the free and fair choice of employees.” SB 126 also lowers the legal threshold for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief from the California courts to reinstate employees fired during organizing campaigns.
Consumers vary in their per ception and attitude towards genetically modified foods . While a majority have strong preferences for conventional food over GMFs, about one-third of consum ers support biotechnology and some are willing to pay more for GMFs. The aversion to GMFs is reflected by significant discounts that were revealed by stud ies on willingness to accept replacing regular food with GMFs and by their willingness to pay a premium price for food labeled “GMfree” or “organic.” However, the method that is used to elicit affects the amount demanded by consumers. Consumers demand a higher discount for GMFs when researchers employed the contingent valuation method relative to the WTA elicited in experiments and experimental surveys. Moreover, some consumers with the highest WTP for pesticide-free food will not vote to ban GMFs while consumers with low WTP for pesticide free food will vote to ban it. The heterogeneity in WTA between those who oppose GMFs versus its supporters—and inconsistency between WTA, WTP, and in the voting—does not change the fact that the high discounts, which reflect the trade-off between perceived risk and price, threaten the introduction and economic viability of GMF varieties. The preference for traditionally grown agricultural products is striking given that, in terms of food safety, prod ucts labeled as GM-free have not been proven to be safer for the consumers or the environment. Furthermore, concern about the application of pesticides in conventional farming should have driven consumers to prefer GMFs. There is a growing body of literature that suggests that consumer objection to the application of biotechnology in the production of food is partially attributed to predispositions. These ten dencies have been created by negative publicity on one hand, without being presented with any tangible benefits on the other hand, except the promise of a price reduction.
Consumers are aware of the claim that GMFs increase the efficiency of production, which may result in lower prices of food. The exposure to unfavorable information and the concern about risks has created a negative predisposition toward GMF products. If these dispositions are not strongly grounded and if the risk is not very high, then a moderate price discount will convince some consumers to choose GMF products over traditional food products. Thus, evaluation of the potential profitability of GMFs depends on the correct assessment of the perceptions of risk and the strength of negative prior perceptions. Economists and marketing experts have been challenged to find methodologies to quantify the predispositions to GMFs and the factors that affect them. Studies have found that the negative dispositions are not strongly cor related with education and knowledge, but are related to gender. Specifically, females tend to oppose GMFs more strongly than males. As the ratio of GM ingredients to traditional ingredients is increased, so does the discount required by consumers in order to choose GMFs. On the other hand, the introduction of GM vegetables and fruits with enhanced nutritional benefits reverse consumer resistance and increase the likelihood of acceptance of GMFs. In studies where consumers had a choice between a traditionally grown agricultural product and a GM product with enhanced nutritional value, consumers preferred the GM product and were willing to pay a price premium. Thus, it seems that consumers’ perceptions and choices might be influenced by the framing of benefit , where positive framing is supposed to increase support while negative framing is expected to increase fear and resistance to GMF. In this paper, we explore the effect of subtle information framing, namely wording of statements, on perceptions and choices of GMF products. In two experiments, consumers were exposed to either positive or negative statements about GMFs. Next, they were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the statement, and then to choose between GM and convention ally grown vegetables. Perceptions and choices were compared to those of a control group. We show that,blueberry container despite more than a decade without significant evidence of GM health risks or environmental hazards, consumers are easily swayed by negative or positive framing. Previous literature has suggested that framing affects overall perception and judgment. Positive framing triggers favorable perceptions while negatively framed statements trigger unfavorable judgments. This phenomenon has been explained by information models in which consumers use the negative or positive characterization of the framing as a new piece of information, and the notion of avail ability heuristic. This notion is part of a behavioral theory that people’s attitude is affected by available information. Consumer behavior is frequently explained by the availability heuristic because consumers make little effort to systematically collect information. Consumers estimate the likelihood of risk by relating it to the ease with which risky or hazardous events come to mind. Negative framing of information about health risks and environmental hazards is supposed to provoke fear, which, in turn, decreases certainty, reduces a sense of control, and increases the accessibility of risk. Therefore, judgments and choices are affected. The effect of framing is stronger when consumers have little knowledge about the judgment task or when they are uncertain about the product .
Consumer choices are affected by their perception of benefits, costs, GM food is healthy GM food is tastier Biotech increases yields GM food has longer shelf life GM food reduces pesticide Biotech contributes to economy Biotech supports the environment Biotech is moral Control Positive Negative usage and risks, as well as the weights that are assigned to each of these. Higher accessibility to risk is likely to increase the weight that consumers assign to the manipulated attribute in the choice process and accelerate the effect of information framing on choices. We conducted an experiment in Israel with 399 student consumers who were randomly allocated to either the control or the two treatment groups, i.e., positive and negative framing. The survey sample consisted of 216 females and 183 males . Out of 399 respondents, 58% had a scientific back ground . The remaining 42% had social science and humanities backgrounds. Our experiment is hypothetical, which has advantages in eliciting consumers’ WTA. We framed information on seven attributes of GM bell pep pers, which, of course, do not exist. Each respondent read seven statements regarding GM bell peppers and indicated on a seven-point scale the level of agreement. The seven statements were framed either positively or negatively. The manipulation was pretested in a class of 40 undergraduates, who were randomly assigned to two classrooms wherein the questions were read aloud and followed by an open discussion on biotechnology and genetic modification. The subsequent atmosphere and discussion indicated that the manipulation succeeded in increasing or decreasing support for biotechnology. Each of the interviewers received a mixed package of questionnaires , knowing neither the order nor the framing, and distributed them during a lunch break on predetermined days . Out of 399 respondents, 99 were assigned to the control group, 148 received positively framed questionnaires, and 152 received negatively framed questionnaires. Respondents were asked to report their perceptions using a seven point scale of bipolar questions. For example, “Genetically modified vegetables are more tasty than traditionally grown vegetables: 2: Strongly agree; 0: Neither agree or disagree; -2: Strongly disagree.” Consumers were asked about their perceptions of GM bell peppers in regard to health and taste, biotechnology’s effect on the environment, their views on biotechnology’s moral aspects, reduction in pesticide use, GMF’s increased shelf life, contribution to the economy, and potential to increase yields. Following the questions about perceptions, respondents were asked to choose between GMF and tradition ally grown vegetables when the GMF price reflected discounts of 5% and 30%. In addition to perceptions and choices, respondents indicated their genders and their majors, specifically science, social sciences, or humanities. Figure 1 presents the perceptions of GMF attributes and consumer attitude on the issue of gene-exchange morality and possible negative effects on the environment under the negative and positive framing conditions compared to the control. Framing significantly affected respondents’ perceptions of healthiness and tastiness of GMFs. The direction of the framing did not affect the perceptions that GMFs are hazardous in general. However, it increased the magnitude of perceptual differences that consumption of GMFs is risky. Without exposure to information, consumers do not perceive that the consumption of GMFs is risky. Negative framing increases uncertainty, and positive framing is not trusted. Although consumers positively relate the consumption of GMFs with higher risk to health, the degree of statistical significance of this relationship is weak—suggesting that their fear level is not very high. Consumers believe that GMFs have the potential to be tastier relative to traditionally grown food in both manipulation groups, while the control group tends to reject this idea. Framing had little effect on the perception that biotechnology will reduce pesticide usage in agriculture, increase yields, and contribute to the economy.However, framing did increase the perception that GMFs would negatively affect the environment. Finally, consumers do believe that biotechnology has the capability to improve product taste. In general, negative framing resulted in stronger resistance to biotechnology. While consumers were not very fearful about health hazards, framing increased fear and uncertainty.