10 research outputs found

    Agricultural Exceptionalism at the State Level: Characterization of Wage and Hour Laws for U.S. Farmworkers

    No full text
    Despite difficult working conditions, farmworkers in the United States are excluded from many federal-level labor protections. The exclusion of farmworkers from standards that apply to most other workers is referred to as agricultural exceptionalism. This exclusion was born out of the successful efforts of southern agricultural interests to exempt black sharecroppers from the New Deal package of social reforms. Farmworkers continue to belong to particularly vulnerable social and economic groups. U.S. states can establish their own labor protections that go beyond federal laws and regulations. Though agricultural exceptionalism is understood at the federal level, little is known about agricultural exceptionalism in state labor standards. This study is a comprehensive 50-state legal and regulatory mapping of minimum wage, overtime, and rest and meal period standards as they apply to farmworkers. To analyze the extent of agricultural exceptionalism in the states, we performed a search of iteratively defined search terms in WestLawNext. Two researchers independently read and coded identified state laws and regulations in their entireties. Results reveal that agricultural exceptionalism is far-reaching in state-level minimum wage and overtime protections. Exceptionalism is universal in overtime standards. Rest and meal period standards exist less frequently at the state level, and exceptions for agriculture in those standards are rare. The results from this analysis are useful in identifying states and policy areas with strong and weak protections for farmworkers

    Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

    No full text
    Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

    Progression of Geographic Atrophy in Age-related Macular Degeneration

    No full text
    corecore