← Risk register SOC 13-1074 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Farm Labor Contractors

310 US workers · median $58,460/yr · Business

SAFE

The paperwork half of this job — H-2A petitions, payroll runs, piece-rate calculations, MSPA disclosure forms, crew scheduling, wage statements — is exactly what software and AI already handle, and labor-management platforms are eating it. What does not automate is standing in a strawberry field at 5am deciding whether the crew moves rows, physically transporting and housing workers, and being the registered human name on the certificate when a wage-and-hour or heat-illness claim lands. The federal MSPA certificate of registration and state licenses (e.g., California FLC) legally require a named human registrant with personal liability, which is a real but regulatory moat.

10-year outlook: Ten years out the back-office margin in this job is largely gone to labor platforms, but the licensed, liable, boots-in-the-field contractor who reliably delivers and supervises crews still gets paid — expect fewer, larger, more compliance-heavy operators.

US employment, 2019–2025+93.8%
160310 workers

Headcount grew steadily across the period.

Median pay $61,910 → $58,460 -24.5% in real terms (nominal -5.6%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+6%

Percentage only. The projection counts a different population from the 310 above — it includes self-employed workers, which for this occupation is most of them, so the two headcounts are not comparable.

Hard to automate, and growing

The work resists current AI and the BLS projects +6% more of these jobs by 2034. Note that safe does not mean well paid — several of the fastest-growing resistant occupations are among the lowest paid on the register.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~300 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 11 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

Field ManagerFarm ContractorFarm Crew LeaderFarm Crew MemberField ContractorField SupervisorHarvest ContractorFarm Labor ContractorHarvesting ContractorFarm Sanitation EmployeeField Crop Harvest Contractor

Score — 68/100 resistance

Holding it up: liability shield (15/20). Weakest point: task resistance (12/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 12 + 14 + 15 + 14 + 13 = 68. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 12/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier Half the week is H-2A clearance orders, payroll and piece-rate reconciliation, and MSPA wage statements that farm-labor software already generates, but the other half — recruiting a 40-person crew from a specific village network, arriving before dawn to judge whether the berries are dry enough to pick, and renegotiating with the grower when the harvest window collapses — has no digital substitute, which is what holds it at 12 rather than down near 6 with payroll clerks.

Embodiment 14/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments You are driving the crew bus, inspecting the housing you registered on your MSPA certificate, walking rows in the heat to check pick quality and worker pace, and hauling water and shade structures to comply with heat-illness standards — uncontrolled outdoor sites, other people's vehicles, other people's fields, which is 14; it stops short of 18 because a meaningful block of hours is still spent on a phone and a laptop.

Liability shield 15/20

Licensed human required and personally liable The MSPA certificate of registration names a natural person, with separate endorsements to drive, house, and transport workers, and California FLC licensure adds a bond, an exam, and joint-and-several wage liability with the grower — the DOL can debar you personally and workers can sue you individually, which is why this sits at 15 rather than in the certification-preferred band.

Trust premium 14/20

The human relationship is the product Growers hand over their harvest to a contractor they have used for years, and crews follow a specific contractor from crop to crop and state to state largely on their word about pay and housing — that two-sided personal reputation is the asset, though it is 14 and not 18 because a grower will still switch contractors over price when the crew can be replaced.

Judgment & accountability 13/20

Meaningful discretion Deciding to pull a crew off a block when the fruit isn't ready, setting a piece rate that clears minimum wage across variable field conditions, and calling a heat stand-down are ambiguous decisions with wage-claim and worker-safety consequences you personally answer for; it lands at 13 rather than higher because the grower typically sets the harvest plan and acreage you are executing against.

This verdict was revised after a second scoring. Two independent runs of the same rubric returned 65/100 and 70/100. The score above is their average, and the change of label held whichever way the rounding went — so it reflects the two runs genuinely disagreeing with the first published number, not a rounding artefact.

Confidence: medium · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: licensure, liability, trust

How to future-proof this job

Where to go deeper on what this job runs on: Toastmasters — public speaking practice at local clubs worldwide low · Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit · Coursera — people management and team leadership specialisations free to audit · Coursera — work planning and personal productivity free to audit · Coursera — critical thinking and logic, audit free free to audit · Coursera — communication and interpersonal skills free to audit

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 76/100, still SAFE.

3 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening liability shield +3

    DOL expanding MSPA enforcement so that the named registrant is personally liable jointly with the grower for wage, transport and housing violations — plus state additions like California AB 1963-style FLC bond increases and the CA Labor Commissioner's practice of naming individual registrants in citations. A rule requiring the registrant (not a corporate entity) to personally attest to each H-2A job order's wage and housing compliance would push this near ceiling.

  • already happening task resistance +2

    Task-mix shift: once H-2A petitions, payroll and piece-rate math are fully platformed (Seso, AgWorks already do this), the residual job is crew discipline, housing crises, dispute resolution and audit defense — the judgment tier. The score rises even as total headcount falls.

  • plausible judgment accountability +3

    Heat-illness standards (Cal/OSHA 3395, the proposed federal OSHA heat rule) make a named supervisor responsible for real-time work/rest calls; if the federal rule finalizes with a designated-person requirement, the contractor owns a documented life-safety judgment under ambiguity every hot day.

The limit. Note the 310-worker headcount: liability and judgment scores can rise while the occupation shrinks, since the moat protects the certificate holder, not the back-office staff behind them. Trust premium has no realistic route — growers buy compliance cover and labor supply, not human-ness.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Revision history

Every change to this verdict since we started logging. Moves inside the measured noise band — three points or less — are not recorded, because re-scoring the same occupation drifts that much on its own and logging it would bury the real movements.

  1. 2026-08-12 EXPOSED → SAFE 65 → 68/100

    Adjudication: scored twice independently and the runs disagreed. The change held under every rounding method, so the average was published.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 68. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.