AMHERST COLLEGE I Lx '~^ J^
310212 3111 4589 8 ASONAL FARMWORKER
POWERLESSNESS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGEATORY LABOR
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FIEST CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION ON
EFFORTS TO ORGANIZE
JULY 15, 1969
PART 3-A
Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER POWERLESSNESS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGEATORY LABOE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION ON
EFFORTS TO ORGANIZE
JULY 15, 1969
PART 3-A
Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 36-613 O WASHINGTON : 1970
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE RALPH YARBOROUGH, Texas, Chairman
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia JACOB K. JAVITS, New York
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, Jr., New Jersey WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont CLAIBORNE PELL, Rliode Island PETER H. DOMINICK, Colorado
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts GEORGE MURPHY, California
GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
WALTER F. MONDALE, Minnesota WILLIAM B. SAXBE, Ohio
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri HENRY BELLMON, Oklahoma
ALAN CRANSTON, California HAROLD E. HUGHES, Iowa
Robert O. Harris, Staff Director
John S. Forsythe, General Counsel
Roy H. Millenson, Minority Staff Director
Eugene Mittelman, Minority Counsel
Subcommittee on Migratory Labor
WALTER F. MONDALE, Minnesota, Chairman HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, Jr., New Jersey WILLIAM B. SAXBE, Ohio EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts GEORGE MURPHY, California
ALAN CRANSTON, California RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
HAROLD E. HUGHE'S, Iowa HENRY BELLMON, Oklahoma
BOREN Chertkov, Counscl
A. Sidney Johnson, Professional Staff Member
Eugene Mittelman, Minority Counsel
(H)
Format of Hearings on Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
powerlessness
The Subcommittee on Migratory Labor conducted public hearings m Washington, D.C, during the 91st Congress on "Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Powerlessness." These hearings are contained in the following parts :
Subject matter Hearing dates
Part 1: Who are the Migrants? June 9 and 10, 1969
Part 2 : The Migrant Subculture July 28, 1969
Part 3-A : Efforts to Organize July 15, 1969
Part 3-B : Efforts to Orangize July 16 and 17, 1969
Part 4: Farmworker Legal Problems Aug. 7 and 8, 1969
Part 5 : Border Commuter Labor Problem May 21 and 22, 1969
Part 6: Pesticides and the Farmworker Aug. 1, Sept. 29 and 30, 1969
Part 7 : Manpower and Economic Problems Apr. 14 and 15, 1970
Additional hearings are tentatively scheduled by the Subcommittee during the second session, 91st Congress.
(Ill)
CONTENTS
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES Tuesday, July 15, 1969
Huerta, Mrs. Dolores, vice president, United Farm Workers Organizing ^^se Committee, AFL-CIO 551
Babione, Dale R., Deputy Executive Director, Procurement and Production, Defense Supply Agency, accompanied by Capt. James A. Warren, SC, U.S. Navy, Director for Food Services, OflBce of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Installations and Logistics ; and Lt. Col. William H. Mason, U.S. Army, Chief, Subsistence Purchasing Division, Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pa 624
Kircher, William, director of organization, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C 646
STATEMENTS
Babione, Dale R., Deputy Executive Director, Procurement and Production, Defense Supply Agency ; accompanied by Capt. James A. Warren, SC, U.S. Navy, Director for Food Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Installations and Logistics ; and Lt. Col. William H. Mason, U.S. Army, Chief, Subsistence Purchasing Division, Defense Personnel
Support Center, Philadelphia, Pa 624
Prepared statement 624
Huerta, Mrs. Dolores, vice president United Farm Workers Organizing
Committee, AFL-CIO 551
Prepared statement 562
Kircher, William, director of organization, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C 646
Prepared statement 650
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Articles, publications, etc. :
"Anti-UFWOC Group Is Called Right-Wing Unit," from the Fresno Bee. March 3, 1969 588
"Army's Grape Buys Called Tax Subsidy to Struck Growers," from the
Union Advocate, St. Paul, Minn., June 12, 1969 566
Counterpart funds used to purchase perishable food in foreign
countries 645
Department of Defense food purchase to minimize impact on consumer
prices 637
"Ex-Employee Charged With Fires at A. & P.," from Supermarket
News, June 16, 1969 578
"Federal Report : Big Growers' Secret Anti-Union Organization," by
Dick Meister, from the San Francisco Chronicle, March 4, 1969 587
Fruit purchases in Vietnam 640
Grape production in the United States 640
"Growers Present Farmworkers With a Hobson's Choice : A Company
Union or a Powerless Union," from the Congressional Record,
May 20, 1969 579
Guidelines for domestic action program from the Department of
Defense 628
"Labor Handling Issue Under Study," from the Riverside (Calif.)
Press Enterprise, October 13, 1968 591
Limited use of nectarines explained 643
(V)
(VI)
Articles, publications, etc. — Continued
"Mafia Slew A. & P. Aides, Firebombed Units To Push Detergent, ^^ee Lawman Says ; Net Up," from a Wall Street Journal news roundup— 578 "Number of Illegal Mexican Farmworkers Increasing," by Ron Hosie,
from the Riverside (Calif.) Press-Enterprise, October 13, 1968 592
"Proclamation of the Delano Grape Workers," remarks by Hon. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, in the House of Representatives,
Monday, May 12, 1969, from the Congressional Record 575
-- "Rival to Chavez: Growers Hit as Organizers of New Union," by
Harry Bernstein, from the Los Angeles Times, March 4, 1969 586
"The Delano Grape Strike and Boycott : Inroads to Collective Bargain- ing in Agriculture," by Peter Hugh Georgi 731
"The Grape Boycott * * * Why It Has To Be," by Cesar Chavez 571
^ "The Grapes of War," from United Farm Workers Organizing Com- mittee, AFL-CIO, Delano, Calif 568
"Three A. & P. Stores Firebombed ; Link to Grape Strike Studied," by
Will Lissner, from the New York Times, October 24, 1969 577
"Unsanitary Conditions Cited — Court Upholds Jobless Man's Right To Refuse Farm Work," by Harry Bernstein, Los Angeles Times labor writer, from the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, Calif., July 4,
1969 565
"Washington Reviewed — Eight Pounds of Grapes Per Man," by Frank Mankiewicz and Tom Braden, from the Fresno Bee, Fresno, Calif.,
April 25, 1969 567
Communications to :
Mondale, Hon. Walter F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota, from :
Individuals and organizations concerning grape boycott 602
Memorandum from :
Defense Supply Agency (with enclosures) 674
Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C., June 30, 1969, for Secretaries of the military departments. Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of Defen.se Research and Engineering, Assistant Secretaries of Defense, Assistants to the Secretary of Defense, Directors of
defense agencies 628
Questions submitted by the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor re purchase of table grai)es and other fruits, and its impact, and answers supplied by DOD 654
MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER POWERLESSNESS
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1969
U.S. Senate, SuBCOMMrrrEE on Migratory Labor OF THE Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
Washington^ D.C.
The committee met at 9 :40 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Walter F. Mondale (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Mondale (presiding), Cranston, Huges, Saxbe, Murphy, and Schweiker.
Committee staff member present : Boren Chertkov, majority counsel ; Eugene Mittelman, minority counsel.
Senator Mondale. The Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor will come to order.
This morning the Migratory Labor Subcommittee begins its third set of hearings on migrant and seasonal farm labor problems in. the United States. The theme for the entire series of hearings is power- lessness. The subcommittee is examining the depth of powerlessness among migrants, and the reasons for it.
These hearings are designed to explore the extent to which migrant workers are powerless to influence decisions in both their home base communities and in so-called user States. The subcommittee is ex- amining the degree to which, and the ways in which, migrant and seasonal farmworkers are deprived of political power, deprived of economic power, deprived of cultural identity or pride, deprived of rights and privileges that most Americans take for granted.
In June we had an opportunity to hear migrant and seasonal farmworkers themselves tell of their own living and working condi- tions. Often unschooled, and always unable to hire lawyers or public relations men, they spoke for themselves with an eloquence and clarity that comes only out of their suffering and deprivation. Our hearings in May revealed the harmful impact of the border com- muter labor problem on migratory and seasonal farmworkers specifi- cally, and explained part of the social and economic deprivation — and the powerlessness — faced by migrants.
For the next 3 days this committee will continue to probe the various factors which contribute to the powerlessness of the farmworker. Our hearings will concentrate on the efforts of migrant and seasonal farmworkers to organize.
Witnesses today will discuss the current strife surrounding the or- ganizing efforts of farm laborers in the grape industry in California. Although many workers in the wine grape industry are now covered
(.549)
550
by contracts resulting from collective bargaining, a battle is presently raging in the table grape industry from the fertile valleys of Cali- fornia to supermarkets in the Nation's Capital. It is crucial that we understand the implications of this struggle in its entirety, and the effects of Defense Department grape purchases on the grape boycott.
The sessions on Wednesday and Thursday will concentrate on both community and miion organizational efforts of farmworkers in other parts of the country. These efforts have involved home-based migrants, seasonal farmworkers, and ex-migrants who are attempting to settle in a community.
In the discussion of these efforts, charges and counter charges will no doubt abound. We need to examine closely the reports of Govern- ment resistance and grower harassment which have been alleged. It is imperative that the incidents be dissected and weighed in order that a clearer understanding may be reached regarding the reasons that or- ganization is so difficult.
Organization traditionally has proved to be the key to securing po- litical, economic, and social change, and migratory workers and their leaders across this Nation agree that one of their most effective means is organization. This is the same manner in whicli our citizens have traditionally moved the economic, social, and political systems to cure obvious abuses and deprivation.
It is imperative that we examine this history of migrant and sea- sonal farmworker attempts to organize, the extent to which their at- tempts have been successful, and the reason for the successes or fail- ures. The purpose of our hearings this morning is to learn about the farmworkers' efforts to organize to gain their fair share of power, and to investigate the extent to which public and private institutions and practices may be suppressing farmworker attempts to organize.
Following this week's hearings, the subcommittee will hold hearings on a number of other subject areas that will further define and describe the problem of migrant and seasonal farmworker powerlessness.
On July 28 Dr. Robert Coles, a Harvard psychiatrist, is scheduled to testify on the formation of Avhat he defines as a "migrant subculture." The political, economic, social, and cultural facts that affect the lives of migrants, their activities, their point of view of themselves in relation to others amund them, and the assumptions they make about the world, will be studied.
On July 29 the subcommittee has scheduled hearings to examine the short,- and long-range effects of pesticides on farmworkers; the ex- tent of research on occupational hazards to farmworkers of pesticides ; the Government programs that exist for protection of the farmworker from pesticides, and whether they are adequately funded and enforced.
And, on August 7 and 8 the subcommittee plans to hold hearings designed to examine the legal problems and barriers faced by migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
Ill future hearings we int.eiid to explore the nature and scope of the rural employment and manpower problem, the limitations of current Government service programs, and social and worker benefit problems, and finally, what is the future of migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
We now begin our third set of hearings on powerlessness, and we begin with a study of efforts to organize.
We have a most distinguished panel of witnesses.
551
Senator Cranston?
Senator Cranston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my admiration of your leadership in holding these hearings and exploring the titantie problems facing the farmworkers of the United States. The bill you introduced (S. 2568) is typical of your leadership, a bill mak- ing it milawful to employ green carders to replace strikers during a labor dispute.
I would also like to welcome Dolores Huerta, who is a remarkably effective leader in this struggle, and whose presence here will enable us to get into the record a fascinating, illuminating, and highly dis- turbing story of the valiant struggle of the fannworkers who face so many serious problems in our society.
I deeply believe that resolving this problem in a sensible way will be of benefit not only to the many people who work as laborers on the farm, but to f armowners who, in the long run 1 think, will be far better off when we have laws governing labor relations in agriculture and when we have a far more stable situation than we have now.
Senator Mondale. Thank vou, Senator Cranston.
I am impressed by your thought fulness and leadership in this field, and we are very grateful to you and for j^our new voice in the U.S. Senate.
Senator Murphy ?
Senator Murphy. I am pleased to be here today. I have been inter- ested in this problem for some time, directly for 5 years, and indirectly for 30 years. With the fine leadership here today, I have no question that we shall find the solution to these problems, and at long last arrive at a series of circumstances whereby the growers and the workers can get their crops planted, harvested, and taken to market.
I hope the hardship will disappear for all time. I have put in a farm labor bill, directed to agriculture, that is now before the Agriculture Committee. Wlien it finishes hearings there, it will come back to this committee, and from my 45 years' experience as a labor leader — I have helped in the formation of three unions and therefore I am not new at this, I think this bill probably includes all the characteristics necessary in this case.
I am pleased to be here this morning.
Senator Mondale. Thank you. Senator Murphy.
Our first witness this morning is Mrs. Dolores Huerta', who is vice president of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee of Delano, Calif.
Mrs. Huerta, we are delighted to have you here this morning.
STATEMENT OF MRS. DOLORES HTJERTA, VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED FARM WORJCERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO
Mrs. Huerta. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, we are again glad to be here and present our long, sad story of trying to orga- nize the farmworkers.
We have had tremendous difficulties in trying to organize farm- workers. I don't think, first of all, that we have to belabor the reason 1 why farmworkers need a union. The horrible state in which farm- workers find themselves, faced with such extreme poverty and dis- I crimination, has taught us that the only way we can change our situation is by organization of a union.
552
I don't believe that it can be done any other way. Certainly, we cairt depend on Government to do it, nor can we expect them to take the responsibility.
On the other hand, our problem is the Grovemment's responsibility, I think, when they try to keep the farmworkers from being organized or actually take action that makes it difficult for farmworkers to organize.
I am going to read a prepared statement regarding our boycott, and then I would like to get into s]3ec(ifics and try to point out to the Senatoi'S why our work is so difficult.
As you know, UFWOC has undert-aken an international boycott of all California-Arizona table grapes in order to gain union recogni- tion for striking farmworkers. We did not take up the burden of the boycott willingly. It is expensive. It is a hardship on the farmworkers' families who have left the small valley towns to travel across the country to boycott grapes.
But, because of the table grape growers' refusal to bargain with their workers, the boycott is our major weapon and I might say a nonviolent weapon, and our last line of defense against the growers wlio use foreign labor to break our strikes.
It is only through the pressure of the boycott that UFWOC has won contracts with major California wine grape growers. At this point, the major obstacles to our efforts to organize farmworkers are obstacles to our boycott.
Our boycott has been met with well-organized and well-financed opposition by the growers and their sympathizers. Most recently, sev- eral major California grape growers joined with other agribusiness interests and members of the John Birch Society to form an employer- dominated "union," the Agricultural Workers Freedom To Work Asso- ciation (AWFWA), for the sole purpose of destroying UFWOC. AWFWA's activities have been described in a sworn statement to the U.S. Government, which I would like permission to place in the record at the close of my remarks.
In spite of this type of antiunion activity, our boycott of California- Arizona table graj^es has been successful. It is being successful for the simple reason that millions of Americans are supporting the grape workers strike by not buying table grapes.
After 6 weeks of the 1969-70 table grape harvest, California table p-rane shipments to 36 major IT.S. cities are down 20 percent from last year, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture reports. The price per lug for Thompson seedless grapes is at least $1 less than it was at this time of last year's harvest. And I might add that that has dropped even more since this statement was written.
It is because of the successful boycott that, on Friday, June 13, 1969, 10 major California growers offered to meet with ITFWOC under the auspices of the Federal Mediation Service. UFWOC represent- atives and ranch committee members met with the growers for 2 ^\•eeks. Progress is being made in these negotiations, which are pres- ently recessed over the issue of pesticides.
However, the U.S. Department of Defense table grape purchases have been very detrimental to our effort.
553
Now that the boycott has brought us so close to a negotiated settle- ment of this 3-year-old dispute, we learn that the U.S. Department . of Defense (DOD) has doubled its purchases of table grapes. We \ appear to be witnessing an all-out effort by the military to bail out 1 the growere and break our boycott. Let me review the facts behind \ this imposing Federal obstacle to farmworker organizing. _J
- The DOD is doubling its purchases of table grapes this year. DOD bought 6.9 million pounds of table grapes in fiscal year 1968, and 8 million pounds in the first half of fiscal year 1969, with an estimated "climb to over 16 million this year" — I am quoting here an article that appeared in the Fresno Bee, April 25, 1969, by Frank Mankiewicz and Tom Braden.
' DOD table grape shipments to South Vietnam this year have in- creased by 400 percent. In fiscal year 1968, 550,000 pounds were shipped to South Vietnam. In the first half of fiscal year 1969 alone these shipments totaled 2,047,695 pounds. This data on completed fiscal year purchases of table grapes comes directly from a DOD fact sheet entitled "Use of Table Grapes," dated March 28, 1969.
Commercial shipments of fresh table grapes to South Vietnam in 1968 have risen nine times since 1966, according to U.S. Department of Commerce statistics. In 1966 South Vietnam imported 331,662 pounds of U.S. grapes and was the world's 23d largest importer of U.S. fresh table grapes. In 1967, when the UFWOC boycott of Giumarra table grapes began. South Vietnam's imports of U.S. table grapes jumped to 1,194,988 pounds, making it the world's ninth largest importer. Last year, 1968, South Vietnam became the world's fifth largest importer of this luxury commodity, by buying 2,855,016 pounds of U.S. table grapes. "This could not have occurred," states the AFL- CIO News of June 14, 1969, "without both DOD and Agriculture Department encouragement." — >>
These are the facts as to how the grapes of wrath are being con- 1 verted into the grapes of war by the world's richest government in order to stop farmworkers from waging a successful boycott and_) organizing campaign against grape growers.
The DOD argues in its fact sheet that "The total Defense Supply Agency purchases of table grapes represent less than 1 percent of U.S. table grape production. '" Data from the California Co-op and Livestock Reporting Service indicate, however, that "table" grapes may be utilized in three different ways : fresh for table use ; crushed for wine ; or dried as raisins. I refer to table I that is attached to this statement. Looking at table II, it is clear that DOD purchases of table grapes for fresh use represents nearly 2.5 percent of all U.S. fresh table grape production.
Table grape prices, like those of other fruits and vegetables, are extremely susceptible to minor fluctuations in supply. DOD pur- chases of some table grapes are probably shoring up the price of all table grapes and, at a critical point in the UFWOC boycott, are per- mitting many growers to stand firm in their refusual to negotiate with their workers.
It is obvious that the DOD is taking sides with the growers in this dispute. The DOD fact sheet states that "The basic policy of the DOD with regard to awarding defense contracts to contractors in- volved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the
554
merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to DOD procurement need to maintain a sound workino; relationship with both labor and management." Nevertheless, many unions in the United States are decrying this fantastic increase in DOD table grape purchases.
AFI^CIO News of June 14, 1969, notes that "union observers point out, however, that DOD does become involved in a labor dis- pute when it so greatly increases its purchase of boycotted grapes." It seems that the DOD is violating its own policy and endangering its working relationship w4th labor, and we hope that the committee will ex])lore this fully.
DOD table grape purchases are a national outrage. The history of our struggle against agribusiness is punctuated by the continued viola- tions of health and safety codes by growlers, including many table grape growers. Much of this documentation has already been sub- mitted to the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. Such viola- tions are so well documented that Superior Judge Irving Perluss, of California, recently ruled that a jobless worker was w^ithin his rights when he refused to accept farm labor work offered him through the California Department of Employment on grounds that most of such jobs are in violation of State health and sanitation codes. There is an attached Los Angeles Times article of July 4, 1969.
If the Federal Government and the DOD is not concerned about the welfare of farmworkers, they must be concerned with protecting our servicemen from contamination and disease carried by grapes picked in fields without toilets or w^ashstands.
Recent laboratory tests have found DDT residues on California grapes. Economic poisons have killed and injured farmworkers. Will they also prove dangerous to U.S. military personnel ?
Focusing on other fonns of crime in the fields, we would finally ask if the DOD buys table grapes from the numerous growers who daily violate State and Federal minimum w^age and child labor laws, who employ illegal foreign labor, and who do not deduct social se- curity payments from farmworkers' wages?
I would like to depart from the text for a second to read from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. There is a section here which talks about adulterated food, chapter 4. In this, we have "adulter- ated food will be considered adulterated if it has been prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary conditions where it may have been contaminated with filth or where it may have been rendered injurious to health."
By this definition it is clear that DOD is buying adulterated food. For instance, one of the growere the Department of Defense lists as their No. 1 customer is the Giumarra Corp. The Giumarra Corp. was convicted of several counts of violation of law in Keni County. The violations were for not having toilets in the field, and working minors without due regard to the law.
What was the sentence when the Giumarra Corp. w^as guilty of vio- lating these laws? For 23 counts of violations, they were fined $1,150, but this fine w^as suspended.
Of course, the Government subsidy that they later on received in that year, $274,000, not only paid for the fine, but offset any losses they may have suffered from the boycott.
555
The same grower, the Giumarra Corp., used DDT, Parathion, and so forth. All of these are known to have bad effects on the workers, and in accumulation, on the consumer that eats the grapes.
The same grower, the Giumarra Corp., which had 32 occupational injuries reported in 1 year, the majority of which were caused by pesti- cides in its fields.
Jack Pandol, another grower whom the Department of Defense purchases from, reported seven occupational injuries from pesticides. Another had even more. He had 48 injuries in 1967.
Let me add one other thing as long as we are talking aibout health. The health care of farmworkers is almost nonexistent, and the rate of tuberculosis is 200 percent above the national average. Wlien you consider that many of the people now picking the grapes are being brought in from Mexico, that they are people without any type of legal residence papers, and therefore, have not been processed through the health regulations that usually apply to immigrants coming into this country, you can imagine what the contamination possibilities are, when the people are coming from a country with lower health standards than the United States.
There is one other thing I want to point out. When people pick t^ible gripes, one of the things they are ordered to do is to be careful rot to take off any of the "bloom." The bloom is all the dust, and filth on the grapes. If you wipe it off so the grapes are shiny then the grape will rot much faster. For the same reason, grapes are not washed by the picker or packer, and any of those pesticides or other things that may be on the grapes oome straight to the consmner, and grapes^ are also very difficult to wash. Those grapes are picked and pa<?ked right in the field ; they don't go through any other kind of processing. They are taken off the ^-ines, put in a box, lidded, taken into the cold storage, and shipped to the customers, and that is the way they come directly to the customers.
— The Department of Defense increasing purchases of table grapes is nothing short of a national outrage. It is an outrage to the millions of American taxpayers who are supporting the farmworkers' struggle for justice by boycotting table grapes. How can any American believe that the U.S. Government is sincere in its efforts to eradicate poverty when the military uses its immense purchasing power to subvert the farmworkers' nonviolent struggle for a decent, living wage and a better future?
Many farmworkers are members of minority groups. They are Filipino and Mexican and black Americans. These same minority people are on the f rontlines of battle in Vietnam. It is a cruel and ironic slap in the face to these men who have left the fields to fulfill their military obligation to find increasing amounts of boycotted grapes in their messkits.
I would like to relate the story of a farmworking family. I want to tell you the story of the Saladado family. They have been members of the farmworkers' association since 1963. They were among the grape pickers that went on strike in 1965. They spent 5 months on the picket lines, which was especially hard in those days when we never had enough to eat, and they lost many of their personal belongings. They went on a 300-mile pilgrimage to Sacramento. Then the brother went into the U.S. Army. His two sisters, who had never
556
visited an eastern city in their lives, have been on the east coast work- ing on the boycott. Maria went to Chicago for a year and a half. An- tonia worked in New York for a year and a half and is now in Phila- delphia. Their brother, Frank, has been in Vietnam — you can imagine how he felt, when he knew his own personal sacrifice, and his mother's and father's, and the sacrifice of his two sisters, how he felt that he was continually served grapes in Vietnam, the disappointment of it.
This family has personally asked me to relate their experience to the committee today.
The Department of Defense makes a big deal about demand, claim- ing that they are buying grapes because there is troop acceptance and troop demand. We doubt this very much, and we doubt it because of the reports we are getting from the men in Vietnam.
The number of people with Spanish surnames in the service is close to 19 percent. We have close to 25 percent who are black. Neither of these groups want grapes to be used in Vietnam, and they have made this very vocal.
So, how can the Department of Defense explain or justify the inter- vention into the grape boycott, while we are supposedly fighting for freedom in Vietnam, and yet we are trying to destroy the farm- workers' struggle for economic freedom in our own country.
While it seems like the Department of Defense is doing everything to break our boycott, the Congress voted a $3.9 billion subsidy for the growers of this country so that they can further fight the unions and use Government funds to help the farmer avoid improving conditions.
Our only weapon is the boycott. Just when our boycott is success- ful the U.S. military doubles its purchases of table grapes, creating a major obstacle to farmworker organizing and union recognition. The Department of Defense is obviously acting as a buyer of last resort for scab grapes and is, in effect, providing another form of Federal subsidy for antiunion 2:rowers who would destroy the efforts of the poor to build a union. UFWOC calls on all concerned Ameri- cans and on the members of the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor to protest this antiunion policy of the military and the Nixon administration.
The amount of grapes that the Department of Defense has pur- chased equals about 2.4 percent of the total grape market. This would be about the same amount of grapes that a city like Detroit would use. The city of Detroit has about 2i/2 million people, and yet it seems that for our troops, the Department of Defense is buying enough grapes that would furnish grapes for a city like Detroit.
To use another example, the amount of grapes purchased by the entire populations of Fort Worth, Providence, Milwaukee, Louisville, Ottawa, and Salt Lake City combined equals the amount of grapes being purchased for Vietnam.
I don't believe the people in Vietnam are eating that many grapes. So where are the grapes going?
I don't know if tlie Senators realize the amount of M'ork that it takes to have a boycott. And just this amount of grapes being pur- chased, this 2.5 percent, can make a tremendous amount of difference on wliether the grape boycott is successful or not. If one of the grape markets is closed and another is opened, it would yield the employer from 50 to 75 cents a box. With a yield of 500 boxes an acre, approxi-
557
mately, this would be an additional yield of $200 an acre. If the grower has 1,000 acres, that would means $200,000 additional income.
The 2 i^ercent could be the make-or-break point in terms of the boycott.
I would like to indicate to you how difficult it is to organize the grape boycott. It is not a very easy thing, you know. I will take the city of Detroit for example. Let me give you an idea of the amount of work it has taken there.
In 1967 two farmworkers went to Detroit. After they had spent many, many months informing organizations, (church groups, student groups), and spent a lot of money on leaflets to inform the public — this is when we were boycotting a single producer of table grapes — then the grower started switching labels, and all the work they had done had to be redone. We had been successful in boycotting his grapes, so ,he began using the labels of all the other companies.
They were joined by a former nun, who worked during the year 1968 organizing the picket lines and informing the consumers of the injustices against the farmworkers, and finally, in the winter of 1968, we started having success in the new boycott against all the table grapes.
This year we have another farmworker family there, a man, his wife, and 11 children. Just recently. State Senator Roger Craig and the Reverend Baldwin conducted a 20-day fast to try to win sympathy for the grape boycott.
You can see the tremendous amount of work and suffering it takes to try to establish the boycott. I think some of you understand this. It takes on some of the ramifications of a political campaign, because you have to inform the consumers and tell tnem the facts, but its like working in a political campaign where nobody knows when the elec- tion will be.
Now, the reason why we have to use the boycott is that our other weapons have been rendered ineffective.
In the Coachella Valley, before we ever had any kind of a strike, we had voluntary elections among the workers, and these were ignored by the employers. We then proceeded to the strike. The workers in large numbers went out on strike. Immediately after, thousands of illegal workers were brought in to take their place. Right now, while I am sitting here talking to you, thousands of the people work in California, and they are being brought in to break the strike.
The Immigration Service turned its head. In one area, the workers are taken from the detention area right to the fields.
Workers' transportation is paid for when the workers come from Mexico,
This would more than pay for any increase in wages if they recog- nize the union.
I should also mention that one of the reasons why it is so easy for them to bring people from Mexico is because people are very, very poor. They recruit the workers, they bring them in, and then they withhold 3 or 4 days' wages. If a worker works a week, they only pay him for 3 or 4 days. If a worker wants to leave, he can't, because he has no money to leave with once he has been brought in the country.
We have an additional problem, because even after we report to the Immigration Service, and do all the investigation for them, they
558
still refuse to move. There is one Delano grower who has a foreman who has a false compartment in his truck in which he smuggles in aliens, and tliough all the facts have been given to the Immigration Service, they have refused to jail this person for a Federal offense.
In addition to the thousands of illegals and green carders being brought in to break the strike in Delano, there are many wetbacks that are being brought to other parts of the State to work, and other parts of the country.
Just recently a crew of farmworker went to Oregon and found when tliey got. there that their jobs were no longer there. The em- ployer had hired illegal workers, and was paying them $1.25 an hour. So, they had to come back to Delano.
The police harassment against the strikers is unbelievable. We have to say that the police departments and sheriffs departments are in most cases direct agents of the employers. We have had several hundred arrests. We had one conviction, which was for resisting arrest. All the hundreds of arrests have cost the union a tremendous amount of money in bail and attorneys' fees.
Forty-four people were charged with unlawful assembly. Many people were arrested because they accidentally went on a private road. They were arrested for trying to talk to workers in camp, I was one of them.
Cesar, a priest, a minister, and nine farmworkers were arrested for going into a camp in Borrego Springs, just to get the workers' clothes after the workers were fired for union activity. They were arrested, stripped naked, and chained by the officers.
Just Saturday, when 60 melonpickers went out on strike in Lost Hills, there was a picket line, and the sheriff's deputies, David Kaylor and R. M. Osborn, refused to protect our picket line, dragged a striker on the ground and arrested him. We had this picket line; across the street from our picket line was a counterpicket line, which was being conducted by the reactionary groups in Delano. They were shouting things like "Go home, Spic," and saying a lot of four-letter words to the women on the picket line. In fact, the officers went over and shook hands with them, and Avere conversing with them. The counterpickets opened up a tank of ammonia, and the strikers were getting gagged from ammonia.
When our attorney went up and asked them to close the ammonia, they refused to do so. Our attorney finally had to go over to the tank himself and turn it off.
Later on in the day, one of our strikers tried to get out of the way of a truck, he fell down, and the sheriff went over and arrested him.
David Averbuck, who was on our line, is crippled. He walks on crutches all the time. He had polio. David was talking to some people, and a truck came up and backed right into David and knocked him unconscious, and the supervisor kept flagging the truck on to keep on going. Finally, someone reached into the cab of the truck and yanked the driver out. Otherwise, it would have crushed David.
These things happened Saturday. They happen all the time on our picket lines. The police really work against the strikers. When a melon truck came to the picket line, the driver said that he didn't want to go through the picket line, and the police ordered him through the picket line anyway. This is a common practice with the police.
559
Regardless of what may happen to the strikers, they never arrest those who harass strikers and pickets. You have to go to the district attorney's office to try to get a complaint, and the chances of getting complaints are very few and far between.
Then we go to the courts, and we try to get some relief from the courts, but there, again, we find that we have none. The courts, on the other hand, issue injunctions against the strikers. We now have an injunction in the Coachella Valley which prohibits us from speak- ing to the workers. You cannot get into the camps or fields, you cannot follow them and try to talk to them in their cars.
So, it really seems that all our constitutional rights have been removed from us by the court injunction.
In terms of trying to get the courts to do anything about the illegal recruitment of workers, again, we have no recourse. In fact, in the Los Angeles Federal court. Judge Pearson Hall issued an injunction on June 20, 1968, which prohibited enforcement of the Federal law on the green carders, which meant that even though all the growers were bringing in green carders to break the strike, this order issued by the jud^e in Los Angeles prohibited the Immigration Service from en- forcing the law. After the harvest was over, then, you know, the judge changed his mind and said they could enforce the law, but by that time, it was too late.
Just recently, in Coachella Valley, when a group of farmworkers in one camp went on a strike, there, the judge in that court issued an order for the immediate eviction of the workers. This was their home and where they were living but for staying there several of the workers were arrested just because they went on strike.
So, regardless of where we go, what courts we go to, it is very diffi- cult to try to get any kind of relief. Just recently the growers tried to get a $75 million injunction against the union to break the boycott filed in Federal court in Fresno. The growers know they cannot win the suit, because they are trying to allege that we do not represent the farmworkers. Well, it has been proved that we do, but they are trying to use this suit to tape depositions of the chainstores and thereby scare the chainstores into buying grapes.
When the Giumarra Corp. used the labels of other growers on their own boxes we went to the Federal Government to try to get relief. They gave them a slap on the hand and said, "You shouldn't do this," and the same year we found many instances of mislabeled grapes.
I don't see that we are going to get any kind of a relief from the courts at all. Even under the niational labor relations law, even though we are not covered by the law, the growers are constantly filing unfair labor practices against us, and although they know they can't win them, this takes up the time of our attorneys.
Wlien we try to go to the Government for any kind of help, even for the enforcement of the sanitation laws, the Government turns its head. When we went to a local agent of the Agriculture Department to get information on DDT, our attorney went to the office at 11 o'clock, and by 1 o'clock the growers had an injunction prohibiting us from seeing the records on DDT.
This is all the way from the Governor down to the local agencies.
The Table Grape Commission of the State of California, which is a quasi-official organization, which receives State money, is fighting the grape workers openly.
36-513 O - 70 - pt. 3A - 2
560
The State department of employment has refused to certify our strikes this year so that even though we call on them to try to come and interview the workers, they refuse to do so, and even in some instances where our strike had been certified, they still referred workers to places where people were on strike.
In addition to all of this lack of protection from the police, in addi- tion to the lack of protection from the courts, we also have all of the attempts to break the union. They have formed at least six different — I might say so-called company unions — in an attempt to break our union : Kern-Tulare County Independent Farmworkers Citizens for Facts, from Delano, then Men Against Chavez, Women Against Cha- vez, and other groups, and most recently, the Agricultural Workers Freedom To Work Association.
If we look at the customers that the Department of Defense has been buying grapes from, we will find that these growers are the ones who have been involved in antiunion activities. These are the same growers who have contributed money to try to break the union.
The growers are willing to spend tremendous amounts of money to try to represent the fact that farmworkers don't want a union, by hiring people like Jose Mendoza, who took a picture with Senator Dirksen to try to prove that the farmworkers don't want a union. They could very easily have paid the workers decent wages with the money they are spending.
They have hired public relations firms to try to prove that we are a violent union, which I think everyone knows we are not.
They are spending an awful lot of money on this campaign. I have heard reports of as high as $5 million a year, they are going through- out the country, buying television and radio time, printing up bro- chures by the hundreds of thousands, and I want to express some- thing here.
I think we are very, very concerned. We have .seen reports of recent incidents of violence that we know are being perpetrated by someone other than ourselves, and these instances of violence make us believe that there is going to be a concerted effort by individuals to create violence either in some of the boycott cities or in some of the areas of California where the strike is now in progress.
I^t me give you a specific instance. In Coachella one of the grow- ers that negotiated with the union had 35,000 boxes burned 2 days after he made the announcement.
Another grower who was negotiating with the union was attacked and almost had his eyes torn out. He was assaulted from behind. He had scratch marks all over his eyes. He was able to beat off the assail- ant. He knows it was no one from the union who did this.
Several of the growers who are now in negotiations have been threatened with death threats.
So, you can see that the situation is very, very serious. Now, if we look at some of the noises that some of the people that are fighting the union are making, they are talking about violence.
We look at Mr. BaVr, who is one of the members of the California Grape & Tree Fruit League, and he is talking about violence.
Mr. Allen Grant, one of Reagan's top men in agriculture in Cali- fornia, is talkino; about violence. They are trying to create a climate of fear and violence.
561
We are going to do everything we can to create just the opposite kind of a climate, but I want you to be aware of this, because I think that all of these aspects should be investigated.
We think that this is a deliberate effort to bring violence into the farm labor scene which we know has not been there.
There have been incidents of violence against the union, many of them, and it has taken all that Cesar can do and the rest of the people can do to keep workers nonviolent.
You know, we have had acts of violence at some stores. One of the people on the picket line was shot at with a gun. Another worker, another striker, was beaten. Mark Silverman, a worker on a boycott in New York City, was beaten in front of D'Agostina's chainstore.
We can prove these things have happened, but our people have never reacted with violence.
On the other hand, at the Giumarra Corp., we even have one suit where violence is being perpetrated against our people, and we have filed suits and have won these.
Some of these people that the employers have used to create violence are still on their payroll. One of the men, Stanley Jacobs, who kid- naped one man and beat him up, and fired a rifle at some of the people in Delano, is still on the payroll.
We are fearful of the paid professional strikebreakers. We are fear- ful of the type of climate that they are trying to create, and we hope that the committee here will do everything within its power that it can to prevent some of this.
If, somehow, we can give the workers some protection in organizing, some protection on the boycott, we can do it ourselves. We will be able to take care of the problems.
One of the things I would like to mention again, because Senator Murphy is here, and he wasn't here the last time we testified, is that the growers don't have any heart at all. They have all the economic power, the power in hiring and firing. There have been entire crews of workers fired because one person in the crew said something favor- able about the union. There are entire crews of workers who were fired because they had Kennedy stickers on the bumpers of their cars.
One woman was fired, along with her whole family, because she objected to being hit on the head by Mr. Giumarra.
I don't believe anyone sitting on the committee would support that kind of activities by the growers, or support many kinds of things they are doing.
The people in the union have to take a tremendous amount of har- assment, such as the materials of State Senator Hugh Burns' Com- mittee on Un-American Activities in California. The man who made up that committee report was sitting in his home in Three Rivers. He never once went to Delano. Yet, he Avrote a report which has been used all over the country in which he tried to redbait the members of the union.
Among other mistruths, he says 3 years of Cesar Chavez' life are missing, and suggests he was getting some kind of subversive train- ing. Those are the 3 years he spent in the U.S. Navy. That should be put in the record.
Gunmen have gone to our offices, taken canceled checks, membership files, and some of these membership files have been used in blacklisting for jobs.
562
Our insurance has been canceled for our cars and we would like to have the committee investigate this. We would like to have the coni- mittee investigate the Aetna Insurance Co. and ask them why it is they canceled our insurance. Our record has been good.
At one point, the Texaco Co. refused to sell gas to our gas station. There are many types of harassment which can be used against an or- ganization. Our telephone lines are tapped. Many times, when we are in an extremely important conversation, you don't complete the call, be- cause something interferes with the wires. This happens all the time.
We are not afraid, and we will continue, but we do need some help, and we hope that the committee here will be able to furnish some of it,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert my printed statement in the record at this point.
(The prepared statement of Mrs. Huerta follows :)
Prepared Statement of Mrs. Dolores Huerta, Vice-President, United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO
My name is Dolores Huerta. I am the Vice-President of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC), AFL-CIO. It is a pleasure to come before your committee to discuss a very serious matter for our union and for all farm woi^ers — obstacles to farm worker organizing.
" As you know, UFWOC has undertaken an international boycott of all Cali- fornia-Arizona table grapes in order to gain union recognition for striking farm workers. We did not take up the burden of the boycott willingly. It is expensive. It is a hardship on the farm worker families who have left the small valley towns to travel across the country to boycott grapes. But, because of the table grape growers' refusal to bargain with their workers, the boycott is our major weapon and our last line of defense against the growers who use foreign labor to break our strikes. It is only through the pressure of the boycott that UFWOC has won contracts with major California wine grape growers. At this point, the major obstacles to our efforts to organize farm workers are obstacles to our boycott.
Our boycott has been met with well-organized and well-financed opposition by the growers and their sympathizers. Most recently, several major California grape growers joined with other agribusiness interests and members of the John Birch Society to form an employer-dominated "union", the Agricultural Workers Freedom to Work Association (AWFWA), for the sole purpose of destroying UFWOC. AWFWA's activities have been described in a sworn statement to the U.S. Government, which Senator Mondale has placed in the Congressional Record.
In spite of this type of anti-union activity, our boycott of California-Arizona table grapes is successful. It is being successful for the simple reason that mil- lions of Americans are supporting the grape workers strike by not buying table grapes.
After six weeks of the 1969-1970 table grape harvest, California table grape shipments to 36 major United States cities are down 20 percent from last year, according to United States Department of Agriculture reports. The price per lug for Thompson Seedless grapes is at least $1.00 less than it was at this time of last year's harvest.
It is because of the successful boycott that, on Friday, June 13, 1969, ten major California growers offered to meet with UFWOC under the auspices of the Fed- eral Mediation Service. UFWOC representatives and ranch committee members met with the growers for two weeks. Progress is being made in these negotia- tions, which are presently recessed over the issue of pesticides.
U.S. department of defense table grape purchases
Now that the boycott has brought us so close to a negotiated settlement of this three-year old dispute, we learn that the United States Department of Defense (DOD) has doubled its purchases of table grapes. We appear to be witnessing an all out effort by the military to bail out the growers and break our boycott. Let me review the facts behind this imposing federal obstacle to farm worker organizing.
563
*The DOB is donblmg its purchases of table grapes this year. — DOD bought 6.9 million pounds of table grapes in FY 1968, and 8 million pounds in the first half of FY 1969, with an estimated "climb to over 16 million this year" (according to an article in THE FRESNO BEE, 4/25/69 by Frank Mankiewicz and Tom Braden ) .
*DOD tabic grape shipments to South Vietnam this year have increased this year by 400 percent. — In FY 1968, 550,000 pounds were shipped to S. Viet- nam. In the first half of FY 1969 alone, these shipments totaled 2,047,695 pounds. This data on completed FY year purchases of table grapes come directly from a DOD Fact Sheet entitled "Use of Table Grapes", dated March 28, 1969.
*Cammcrcial shipments of fre.^h table grapes to South Vietnam in- 1968 have risen nine times since 1966. aceordimi to U.S. Department of Commerce statis- tics.—In 1966, S. Vietnam imported 331,662 pounds of U.S. grapes and was the world's 23rd largest importer of U.S. fresh table grapes. In 1967, when the UFAVOC boycott of Giumarra table grapes began, S. Vietnam's imports of U.S. table grapes jumped to 1,194,988 pounds, making it the world's 9th largest importer. Last year, 1968, S. Vietnam became the world's 5th largest importer of this luxury commodity, by buying 2,855,016 pounds of U.S. table grapes. "This could not have occured," states the AFL-CIO News of June 14, 1969, "without both DOD and Agriculture De])t. encouragement."
These are the facts as to how the Grapes of Wrath are being converted into the Grapes of War by the world's richest government in order to stop farm workers from waging a successful boycott and organizing campaign against grape growers.
The DOD argues in its Fact Sheet that "The total Defense Supply Agency purchases of table grapes represent less than one percent of U.S. table grape production." Data from the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service indicate, however, that table grapes may be utilized in three different ways : fresh for table use; crushed for wine; or dried as raisins (see Table I. attached to this statement). Looking at Table II, it is clear that DOD purchases of table grapes for fresh use represents nearly 2.5% of all U.S. fresh table grape pro- duction !
Table grape prices, like those of other fruits and vegetables, are extremely susceptible to minor fluctuations in supply. DOD purchases of table grapes are probably shoring up the price of all grapes and, at a critical point in the UFWOC boycott, are permitting many growers to stand firm in their refusal to negotiate with their workers.
It is obvious that the DOD is taking sides with the growers in this dispute. The DOD Fact Sheet states that "The basic policy of the DOD with regard to awarding defense contract^ to contractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to DoD procurement needs to main- tain a sound working relationship with both labor and management." Never- theless, many unions in the United States are decrying this fantastic increase in DOD table grape purchases. AFL-CIO ycu-s of June 14. 1969, notes that "union observers point out, however, that DoD does become involved in a labor dispute w>en it so greatly increases its pruchase of boycotted grapes." It seems that the DOD is violating its own policy and endangering its working relationship with labor, and we hope that the committee will explore this fully.
DOD TABLE GRAPE PUECHASES : A NATIONAL OUTRAGE
The history of our struggle against agribusiness is punctuated by the con- tinued violations of health and safety codes by growers, including many table grape growers. Much of this documentation has already been submitted to the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. Such violations are so well docu- mented that Superior Judge Irving Perluss recently ruled that a jobless worker was within his rights when he refused to accept farm labor work offered him through the California Department of Employment on grounds that most of such jobs are in violation of state health and sanitation codes (see attached LOS ANGELES TIMES article, July 4. 1969) .
If the federal government and the DOD is not concerned about the welfare of farm workers, they must be concerned with protecting our servicemen from contamination and disease carried by grapes picked in fields without toilets or washstands. Recent laboratory tests have found DDT residues on California grapes. Economic poisons have killed and injured farm workers. Will they also
564
prove dangerous to U.S. military personnel? Focusing on other forms of crime in the fields, we would finally ask if the DOD buys table grapes from the numerous growers who daily violate state and federal minimum wage and child labor laws, who employ illegal foreign labor, and who do not deduct social security payments from farm worker wages?
The DOD increasing purchase of table grapes is nothing short of a national outrage. It is an outrage to the million of American taxpayers who are sup- porting the farm workers struggle for justice by boycotting table grapes. How can any American believe that the U.S. Government is sincere in its efforts to eradicate poverty when the military uses its immense purchasing power to subvert the farm workers non-violent struggle for a descent, living wage and a better future?
Many farm workers are members of minority groups. They are Filipino- and Mexican-Aine:i(i!n, and uia;K Amtrican:^. ihe.ve same farm workers are on the front lines of battle in Vietnam. It is a cruel and ironic slap in the face to these men who have left the fields to fulfill their military obligation to find increasing amounts of non-union grapes in their mess kits.
In conclusion let me say that our only weapon is the boycott. Just when our boycott is successful the U.S. military doubles its purchases of table grapes, creating a major obstacle to farm worker organization and union recognition. The DOD is obviously acting as a buyer of last resort for scab grapes and is, in effect, providing another form of federal subsidy for anti-union growers who would destroy the efforts of the poor to build a union. UFVVOC caiis on all con- cerned Americans and on the members of the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor to protest this anti-union policy of the military and the Nixon administration.
Attachments :
Fact Sheet — Department or Defense Use of Table Grapes — March 1969
1. The basic policy of the Department of Defense with regard to awarding defense contracts to ccmtractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to DoD procurement needs to maintain a sound working relationship with both labor and management. The resolution of labor disputes involves complex and delicate areas of judgment and interpretation for which the responsibility has been vested by the Congress in other agencies of the Government. From the diverse opinions that have appeared in various news media, it is quite apparent that the dispute over California table grapes falls in this category.
2. In addition to the above policy, the General Accounting OflBce has stated that it is only to the extent that a contractor's labor practices interfere with the potential performance of a contract that a contracting officer may consider the labor practices of a contractor (43 Comp Gen 32.3 (1963) ). Also, the Comp- troller General has ruled that there is no authority to reject bids on the basis that an employer does not employ union labor (31 Comp Gen 561).
3. The Defense Supply Agency, which is responsible for the purchase of food for military dining halls and commissaries, reports that procurements of table grapes for the past three and one-half years have been as follows :
Million Million
Fiscal year pounds dollars
1966—
1967 _
1968__
1969,lsthalf
The total Defense Supply Agency purchases of table grapes represent less than one percent of U.S. table grape production.
4. There is no record of any grape shipments to Vietnam prior to fiscal year 1967. Shipments during the past two and one- half years have been as follows : Fiscal year: Pounds
1967 468,000
1968 5.5.5, 000
1969 (1st half) 2,047.695
|
7.5 |
1.04 |
|
8.3 |
1.25 |
|
6.9 |
1.32 |
|
8.0 |
1.26 |
565
The increase in the Vietnam requirement for grapes during the first half of FY 1969 was influenced by the following factors : ( 1 ) the high troop accepta- bility of this seasonal item; (2) the reduced availability of export quality fresh oranges, with a substitution of table grapes; and (3) the improved capability of shipping perishable items, including grapes, to Vietnam by refrigerated vans. In this connection, it is significant that the quantities of all fresh produce shipped to Vietnam have greatly increased during the past three years. Export quality oranges again became available in late Calendar Year 1968 (second quarter, FY 1969), and action was taken to resume procurement of oranges for shipment to Vietnam.
5. The Department of Defense does not purchase grapes merely because they have been made more available and less expensive due to the effects of the boy- cott. Grape purchases are made by the Defense Supply Agency in response to requisitions from the Military Services. These requisitions are based on planned menus which reflect numerous factors, among them being troop acceptability ; nutritional requirements ; variety ; and item availability, perishability, and cost. In the interests of objective and systematic management, menu planners (often working a year to eighteen months in advance) should not be required to con- sider whether a labor dispute exists when making these decisions.
TABLE I— CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPES: UriLIZAflON, PRODUCTION, AND AVERAGE RETURN TO GROWERS, 196S-68
|
Production |
(in tons) |
Average returns • |
(dollars per ton) |
|||||
|
Utilization |
1965 |
1966 |
1967 |
1968 |
1965 |
1966 |
1967 |
1968 |
|
Fresh (table) |
265,900 |
261, 000 297, 000 1,700 |
163, 900 270, 000 800 |
218, 500 250, 000 1,100 |
44.00 24.50 41.90 |
79.00 26.80 56.90 |
107. 00 34.50 62.50 |
80.70 |
|
Crushed (juice) Dried (raisin) |
381,800 2,000 |
34.00 58.80 |
||||||
|
Total sold ._ .. |
649,700 |
559, 700 |
434, 700 |
469, 600 |
32.40 |
51.20 |
61.90 |
55.80 |
> Average returns on basis of bulk fruit at growers' 1st delivery point. Source: California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Sacramento, Calif.
TABLE II.— TOTAL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TABLE GRAPE PURCHASES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL U.S. FRESH TABLE GRAPE PRODUCTION, BY FISCAL YEAR AND HARVEST YEAR, 1965-68
|
California |
Estimated |
Percent DOD |
|||
|
fresh table |
U.S. fresh |
DOD table |
table grape |
||
|
grape |
table graps |
grape |
purchases of |
||
|
production |
production ' |
purchases |
total U.S. fresh |
||
|
Fiscal |
(millions of |
(millions of |
(millions of |
table grape |
|
|
Harvest year |
year |
pounds) |
pounds) |
pounds) |
production |
|
1965 _._ |
1966 |
531.8 |
557.6 |
7.5 |
1.3 |
|
1966 |
1967 |
522.0 |
548. 1 |
8.3 |
1.5 |
|
1967... |
1968 |
326.0 |
342.3 |
6.9 |
2.0 |
|
1968 |
1969 |
437.0 |
458.8 |
11.0 |
2.4 |
1 California production plus 5 percent.
Source: Compiled from California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Sacramento, Calif., and Factsheet: Department of Defense Use of Table Grapes, June 10, 1969.
[From the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, Calif., July 4, 1969]
Unsanitary Conditions Cited — Court Upholds Jobless Man's Right To Refuse Farm Work
(By Harry Bernstein, Times Labor Writer)
Superior Judge Irving Perluss ruled Thursday that a jobless worker was within his rights when he refused to accept farm labor work on grounds that most of such jobs are in violation of state health and sanitation laws.
The court ruled that Mauricio Munoz, 31, of Salinas, is entitled to unemploy- ment beneflts even though he refused to accept a farm job offered him through the California Department of Employment.
566
The precedent-setting case held that the state agency has the primary respon- sibility for making sure that farm jobs are in compliance with health and sanitation laws before requiring jobless workers to apply for such jobs.
The unusual legal action was brought by California Rural Legal Assistance, a federally financed legal aid agency.
Robert Gnaizda, CRLA counsel, said "if the court decision is not appealed or is upheld as expected, it will mean the Department of Employment will have to simply certify that farm jobs do have one toilet for every 40 workers for instance, sanitary drinking facilities, and in other ways comply with the law."
A spokesman for the Department of Employment said no decision has been made on whether to appeal Judge Perluss' ruling but that it could impose a serious problem of enforcement if the ruling is allowed to stand.
Munoz, an insurance salesman, was referred for work at Salinas Strawberry Co., Inc., when he lost his insurance job.
When he turned down the referral, the state rejected his request for unem- ployment benefits because workers have to accept "suitable employment" to qualify for jobless pay.
Munoz, a former paratrooper and Korean war veteran, went to CRLA for help and the test case was filed.
SURVEY OF FARMS
CRLA gathered statistics alleging that more than 90% of California farm jobs violated state health and sanitation laws.
The legal aid group made a survey of 107 farms in the Salinas area and found 1,869 violations ranging from lack of toilets to one drinking cup for entire crews of workers.
Judge Perluss said that in industrial and business jobs, "actual participation through trial and experience" by a worker is used to determine whether the jobs are in compliance with state health and sanitation laws.
But this presumption cannot apply in agriculture, he said, because of the alleged widespread violations of the law and the long distances a worker must go from the job placement office to a farm to check on job suitability.
Therefore, he said, because the state agency has more easily obtainable in- formation about such work, the agency rather than the individual should make sure that the jobs comply with state laws before the individuals are set out for such work from state employment oflices.
Munoz, who is married and has three children, is now employed by the Salinas School District as a counselor.
[From the Union Advocate, St. Paul, Minn., June 12, 1969] Army's Grape Bxtys Called Tax Subsidy to Struck Growers
Washington — The grim battle of the California table grape workers for a union and decent living standards is being undercut by the Department of Defense (DOD) on a wholesale basis.
As the nationwide boycott of table grapes grows in effectiveness, DOD has stepped up its purchases of the fruit, Press Associates has learned.
The revelation brought sharp criticism from Cesar Chavez, director of the AFI^CIO Farm Workers.
"This is a blatant case of government sources subsidizing scab grapes," he said, "It calls for legal action and we intend to take it."
The spiraling of grape purchases was admitted by DOD in a fact sheet, entitled "Use of Table Grapes", issued March 28, 1969. It had an extremely limited distribution.
The fact sheet shows that DOD is purchasing California table grapes at a level almost triple the previous year. Statistically, DOD bought 6.9 million pounds of grapes in fiscal year 1968 and more than 8 million pounds the first half of fiscal year 1969.
Equally interesting, the growers have been selling their grapes to DOD in the last year at less than half the price of the previous year. In fiscal 1969. DOD paid .$1,820,000 for 6.9 million pounds while in the first half of fiscal 1969 it paid only $1,260,000 for the 8 million pounds.
The largest part of the DOD grape purchase went to Vietnam. The figure rose from 468,000 pounds in fiscal 1966-1967 to 555,000 pounds in fiscal 1967-1968 to 4.1 million pounds e.stimated by DOD for this fiscal year ending July 1.
In a parallel development, the fruit and vegetable division of the Foreign
667
Agricultural Service has confirmed the fact that civilian table grape shipments from the U.S. to South Vietnam have risen almost seven times since 1066.
This could not have occurred without both DOD and Agriculture Department encouragement.
Officials of the Foreign Agricultural Service told Press Associates that ship- ments of table grapes from the U.S. to South Vietnam was 122 short tons in 1965-66; 299 short tons 1966-67; 667 short tons 1967-68 and 1,641 short tons the first ten months of fiscal 1969.
In an extremely defensive statement, DOD says of its own purchase policy:
"The Department of Defense doe-s not purchase grapes merely because they have been made more available and less expensive due to the effect of the boycott."
"Grape purchases are made by the defense supply agency in response to requests from military services. These requisitions are based on planned menus which reflect numerous factors, among them troop receptability, nutritional requirements, variety and items of availability, perishability and cost."
Columnist Frank Mankiewicz had this interpretation :
"Congressional critics of the Pentagon should be pleased to know that at United States bases around the world our weapons systems may not be delivered on time, the new helicopters may never be operational and complaints persist about the M16 rifle, but the vaunted United States delivery capability works in one respect — there is no shortage (indeed near glut) of table grapes."
[From the Fresno Bee, Fresno, Calif., Apr. 25, 1969]
Washington Reviewed — Eight Pounds of Grapes Per Man
By Frank Mankiewicz and Tom Braden
Coachella, Calif. — Here on the California desert, 75 feet below sea level, where every wind brings a sandstorm, Ce.sar Chavez and his farm workers' union are preparing a strike call against the major grape growers. It will be supported — according to their plan— by a nationwide boycott. And 3,000 miles away in Washington, buyers for the Department of Defense — perhaps unwit- tingly— are busy breaking both strike and boycott.
The Chavez struggle to organize the farm workers is difficult to understand without one crucial piece of information. It is that almost all of the social legislation passed for the benefit of the working man in the past 30 years has — intentionally, in order to get the votes of rural representatives — left the farm workers without protection.
The National Labor Relations Act, for instance, as amended by Taft-Hartley 20 years ago, gives virtually every other kind of workers the right to form a union, if a majority of those workers vote to form one. But that protection is not available to farm workers.
Hostile growers refuse to call an election or permit the NLRB to intervene — ■ all the while loudly claiming Chavez' union represents only a small percentage of the grape workers. The strike is for recognition and a contract something other workers have had for years.
Spread — Against that background, the strike began two years ago in Cali- fornia's central valleys and spread here last year. And to support the strike Chavez' union is persisting with a nationwide boycott by the strike's supporters.
Some of the larger table grape growers here say — privately — that the boycott is beginning to hurt in two ways. First, it has cut domestic grape sales by as much as 20 per cent Second, wholesale buyers in many cities have taken ad- vantage of the boycott to force lower prices for those grapes they do buy.
Thus it comes as a grim surprise to Cesar Chavez that now — when sympa- thetic housewives across the nation seem about to make the growers wince for the first time — the Department of Defense is shipping eight times as many California table grapes to the troops in Vietnam as in any previous year.
The figures are astonishing. In fiscal year 1967-68, for example, 5.55,000 pounds of grapes went to Vietnam. In the previous fiscal year, 468,000 pounds were shipped. But in the first six months of this fiscal year, over 2 million pounds went to Vietnam ; the Department of Defense estimates the total will be over 4 million pounds by July 1. That is eight pounds of table grapes for every American in South Vietnam. It is enough to suggest Gen. Creighton Abrams has abandoned search-and-destroy missions in favor of Bacchanalia.
Increase — Total defense purchases of California table grapes are al.so vastly increased. From under 7 million pounds worldwide last year, they will climb to
568
over 16 million this year. Congressional critics of the Pentagon should be pleased to know that at United States bases around the world our weapons systems may not be delivered on time, the new helicopters may never be operational and complaints persist about the MIG rifle, but the vaunted United States delivery capability works in one respect — there is no shortage (indeed near glut) of table grapes.
On the civilian side of the government the increase is equally sharp. Private shipments to Vietnamese importers, which have the approval if not the stimulus of the Department of Agriculture, were up 133 per cent in 19G8 over 1967, ac- cording to the fruit and vegetable division of the Foreign Agricultural Service, never a hotbed of social action.
What seems clear is that the California grape growers have a great deal more influence in the Pentagon than they have in the supermarket. And those Ameri- can who support the boycott with their food budget are breaking it with their taxes.
[From United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, Delano, Calif.]
The Grapes of War
1. u.s. grapes shipments to south vietnam
In 1965 and 1966, when the Delano grape strike began. South Vietnam was the 25th largest importer of US fresh grapes, importing under 350,000 pounds or $40,000 worth of grapes (U.S. Dept of Commerce figures). California pro- duces over 90 per cent of U.S. fresh table grapes. During this period, UFWOC was striking several major California wine grape growers.
In 1967, the year UFWOC initated the boycott of Giumarra grapes (the Giu- marra Corp. is the world's largest grape grower). In 1968, with the UFWOC boycott expanded to all California grapes, private shipments to South Vietnam were nearly tripled to $476,607 (2,855,016). This impoverished nation has be- come the world's third largest importer of California grapes.
It should be noted that these export figures are for private, commercial sales and do not include grape shipments to U.S. Armed Forces, to IT.S. Government employees overseas, or to the Canal Zone. However, in addition to private ex- ports shipments, these U.S. Department of Commerce (Report FT 410) figures do not include shipments under foreign aid under Foreign Assistance Act, for Dept. of Defense Military Assistance Program grants and for agricultural com- modities under Public Law 480. Since specific breakdowns of U.S. grape ex- ports under these government programs are not shown in this report, the fol- lowing questions ari.se: (1) are non-union California grapes being exported to South Vietnam under U.S. government programs? (2) Are California grapes transported to South Vietnam in U.S. Government ships and planes? (3) Are these grapes imported by Soiith Vietnamese middlemen for resale to U.S. Government commissaries and PXs? In short, is the U.S. Government using public programs to break UFWOC strike and boycott by providing new markets for struck grai^e growers?
GRAPE PURCHASES
Use Period Pounds Dollars
Fiscal year:
1 . Total, Department of Defense Purchase i. . 1966-67-68 (3-year average) 7, 500, 000 1, 200, 000
1969, 2 quarters 8,000,000 1,260,000
1969, estimate 16,000,000 2,500,000
2. Department of Defense purchase for South 1967 468,000 70,200
Vietnam. 1968 555,000 94,350
1969, 2 quarters 2 2,047,695 0)
1969, estimate 4,000,000 0)
Calendar year:
3. Private commercial shipments to South 1965 244,952 32,438
Vietnam 4 1966 331,662 67,533
1967 1,194,988 214,330
1968 2,855,016 476,607
1 Source: U.S. Department of Defense fact sheet, Department of Defense use of table grapes, Feb. 12, 1968; Frank Mankiewicz and Tom Braden "8 Pounds of Grapes Per Man," Fresno Bee, Apr. 25, 1969. ■ July to December only. 3 Not available. < U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Exports, report ft 410, annual.
569
2. MILITARY GRAPE PURCHASES
The military has been buying up dumped California grapes, especially for shipment to South Vietnam. In response to repeated requests by U.S. Senators and Representatives, concerned religious groups, the press and UFWOC, the Pentagon has finally made public information on its grape purchases.
In 1969, the Defense Department is shipping eight pounds of grapes per man to American soldiers in South Vietnam.
A recent San Francisco Chronicle (10/4/68, p. 2) article notes that "local Defense Department officials acknowledged buying the grapes, and in ever in- creasing amounts, from some of the growers who are targets of a nationwide farm union boycott."
At 15(^ per pound, one fact is clear — the U.S. Dept. of Defense is providing a market of last resort for the grapes struck growers are dumping on the market.
The gigantic jump in DOD grape shipments to Vietnam in 1968-69 — at a time when the troop level there has been stable for two years — raises other disturb- ing questions. Who's eating all these grapes — certainly they are not flown in refrigerated mess kits to our boys in the field? Also which growers provided the DOD with table grapes? Are the contracts allocated across the board or are they concentrated in the hands of a few grower-packer-shipper conglomerates like the Giumarra Corp., which has 12,459 acres of land and received a $278,721 subsidy from the U.S. Government under the 1967 agricultural soil bank program?
Why is the Pentagon giving increasing aid to the growers? The DOD claims that the existence of a labor dispute has no bearing on the allocation of defense contracts and contends that :
"The resolution of labor disputes involves complex and delicate areas of judg- ment and interpretation for which the responsibility has been vested by the Congress in other agencies of the Government. From the diverse opinions that have appeared in various news media, it is quite apparent that the dispute over California table grapes falls in this category." (Fact Sheet, p. 1 emphasis added).
When the Pentagon begins formulating the law of the land on the basis of "diverse opinions" in the newspapers, then we are all in trouble. This incredu- lous statement reflects an ignorance of the U.S. Labor law that is only surpassed by President Nixon's claim during the campaign that the boycott is "clearly illegal" and that farmworkers have ". . . the National Labor Relations Board to impartially supervise the election of collective bargaining agents, and to safeguard the rights of the organizers." It is precisely because farmworkers have been specifically excluded from the National Labor Relations Act for over 30 years that the grape boycott is necessary. Either the DOD and President Nixon, a lawyer himself, are ignorant of the law or are lying. In Nixon's case, it seems that telling the truth is less important than getting campaign contributions from agribusiness.
At a recent speech to the National Security Industrial Association, outgoing Secretary of Defense, Clark Clifford, urged that the Pentagon has "not only a moral obligation but an opportunity to contribute far more to the social needs of our country than we have ever done before." This is rank hypocrisy. The U.S. Government declares a "War on Poverty" on one hand and systematically subverts, by buying up huge quantities of struck California grapes, the American farmworkers efforts to better himself through organization.
Delano, Calif., August 2, 1968. Clark Clifford,
Siecretary of Defense, Department of Defense. Washington, D.C.
UFWOC AFL-CIO again ask for policy decision regarding military procure- ment of California table grapes which are subject to nationwide boycott sanc- tioned by AFL-CIO, Teamsters and United Auto Workers and all major re- ligious bodies. We suggest you contact us for further clarification — if needed. We are hopeful that your department will be sensitive to the efforts of Cali- fornia farm workers to claim their rights.
Cesar Chavez.
570
August 8, 1968. Mb. Cesar Chavez, Delano, Calif.
Dear Mr. Chavez : This is in response to your telegram of August 1 in which you asked for the policy position of the Department of Defense on the military procurement of California table grapes in light of the boycott presently being imposed.
The basic policy of the Department of Defense with regard to awarding de- fense contracts to contractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to our procurement needs to maintain a sound working rela- tionship with both labor and management. As you know, the resolution of labor disputes involves complex and delicate areas of judgment and interpretation for which the responsibility has been vested by the Congress in other agencies of the Government.
In addition to the above policy, the General Accounting OflBce has stated that it is only to the extent that a contractor's labor practices interfere with the po- tential performance of a contract that a Contracting Officer may consider the labor practices of a contractor. (43 Comp Gen 323 (1963). We are not aware that the boycott will impair the ability of the contractors to perform their contracts.
Accordingly, the Department of Defense does not have any basis upon which to restrict awards to the producers affected by the boycott. I trust you will find this information helpful in answer to your question. Sincerely,
Thomas D. Morris, Assistant Secretary of Defense,
(Installations and Logistics) .
United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO,
Delano, Calif., September 23, 1968. Thomas D. Morris, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Installations and Logistics, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mb. Morris : Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1968 wherein you state that the responsibility for making judgments about labor disputes rests with other agencies of the government. That is exactly why we have had to take our fight for justice to the conscience of America ; there are no government agen- cies that have this responsibility because there is no legislation that protects the rights of farm workers to organize and/or bargain collectively with Agribusi- ness. As you know there is much legi-slation and many many agencies, including your own, that have the responsibility of aiding Agribusiness through very liberal and far-reaching procurement policies and even direct subsidies.
But we also know that the American serviceman — most of whom are from the poor and di.senfranchised here at home — will not long tolerate the use of Cali- fornia table grapes in their mess halls or hospitals ; or even on the tables of the Officers. That is because these grapes are produced at the expense and ex- ploitation of the poor, and under conditions not fit for the dignity of a human being. And where one nationality is pitted against the other with survival wages as the goal.
Please make no mistake about this issue ; farm workers have been waiting for more than fifty years ; and every Administration and every government agency knowns and has known about their plight and apparently all are powerless to act — let alone to help. But our best lobbyists in 1968 are those who are willing to sacrifice to effect change, those who are willing to organize for justice.
It is inevitable, I suppose, that this issue of justice as it relates to farm workers and their rights will become hopelessly entangled with the issue of the war in Vietnam. That is not our purpose and we try to prevent it by talking with you directly and honestly about this serious matter. But at the same time we feel that short of "banning grapes by regulation" there are some very concrete steps that your department can take. Unless we hear from you in the very near future we trust that there will be no hard feelings or bitterness between our movement here in California and your department. Sincerely,
Cesar E. Chavez, Director.
571
BCKCOTT
IN NEARLY EVERY major city of the United States today there are California-based union farm workers. iThey are there, they hope temporarily, ,' to promote the boycott against Calif or- j nia grapes and to seek broad under- ' standing and support from the con- sumer community.
They are far from their homes and most of their relatives. They are away from their friends, living new lives in strange 'places under extremely diffi- cult conditions. Why do they do it? Be- cause there is no other way forward! The alternative is to stand still, and in so doing to hand down to their chil- dren the same bleak frustration of their lives, with no security, no dignity and very little hope.
The consumer boycott is the only open door in the dark corridor of noth- ingness down which farm workers have had to walk for so many years. It is a gate of hope through which they expect to find the sunlight of a better life for themselves and their families. To get from where they are to where they want to be, they must go together. They must organize, and for workers that means to unionize.
This is not" the first effort to union- ize among farm workers. It is simply the first one that has succeeded, and it is succeeding, slowly but surely. To un- derstand the significance of the prog-
ress that has been made, one only needs to know that previous efforts of farm workers ended in bitterness and often bloodshed, crushed beneath the boots of the extremely wealthy and powerful agriculture interests in the West.
A reasonable person might ask, "Aren't there legal procedures for de- termining the rights and the wishes of workers with respect to having un- ions?"
The answer is "Yes" for milUons of American workers — but not for farm workers! They are iq>ecif ically . ««• eluded from the coverage of the Fed* eral law that assures and protects the rights of other workers to 'organize and to bargain collectively. The sam* person might say, "But surely some reasonable procedure could be worked out to determine the wirfies of the workers and give them some equal treatment where these rights are c<m- cerned?"
Such a proposition sounds reason- able. As a matter of fact, hundreds of priests, rabbis, ministers, professoca, industrialists and others have thoueht so, and have offered their services as third party participants. The employ- ers have turned down every such ef- fort.
Denied the protection and proce- dures under the Federal law and faced with the growers' refusal even to dis- cuss the matter of union recognition, the workers were forced to choose be- tween striking and crawling. They say they will no longer be the last vestige of the "crawling American." They struck.
L
572
rpHE BUILT-IN PITFALLS of farm- » X labor strikes became immediately; apparent. Local courts, free to take ju- risdiction of each and every complaint^ against the union, went into action Judges and public officials who have long been a part of the power struc ture in agriculiure-dominated commu nities, are "soft" on growers. Injunc tions were quick amd devastating.
The gates that the injunctions opened in the picket lines were soon filled with masses of strike-breakers — green-card visa holders from Mexico with easy entrance into the United States because of the laxity of the Gov- ernment in enforcing its immigration policy. The green-carders flooded the strike-bound fields, often in buses pro- vided by growers and escorted by local police, ready and willing to compete against and undercut their brothers be- cause of econbmic con<litions in Mex- ico that make U.S. farm wages, how- ever miserable by American standards, look very, very good.
Faced with such limitations on the strike's effectiveness, the farm worker reinforced his strike activities by intro- ducing the boycott, which he realized was his last best hope of success, not by choice but by process cf eliminating the other alternatives where unfair and inequltous treatment jeopardized any chance of real success.
The current boycott was started well over a year ago against one company, Giumarra Vineyards Corporation in the Bakersfield area of California, probably the Nation's largest shipper of fresh table grapes. To frustrate the ; boycott the Giumarra Company started shipping its grapes in cartons bearing the labels of its competitors. Whereas Giumarra normally shipped under a half dozen labels, suddenly there were 50 or 60 labels available to them, lent by their "competitors." Under such conditions the union had no alterna- tive but to include all of the "competi- tors" In the boycott ^ . . thus the ac- tion against 4ZI Cal^oi^nia grai^.
That is wl^ere it Stands today and that is why California farm workers—
Mexican-American, Filipino-American, Negro-American and "Anglos" — can be found in Boston, New York, Washing- ton, Chicago, Cleveland, Seattle and the other big cities, rallying support for the "Don't Buy Grapes" campaign.
They have really been forced there by a Government policy which denies them equal protection of the law as American workers but gives them spe- cial services as non-American strike- breakers. They have been forced there by a co«miunity of growers whose mentality is reminiscent of the bitter anti-union days of the 1930's and who simply refuse to recognize the rights of workers to do anything but serve them at their convenience and on their terms. Not only do the growers enter into a near-conspiracy with each other, they openly enlist and welcome the aid of traditional right-wing anti-union or- ganizations such as the John Birch So- ciety, tht National Right-to-Work Com- mittee and the American Farm Bu- reau.
Some public officials from the very area of the dispute who have "supped at labor's table" in the past have tiu-ned their backs on the farm work- ers to keep their lines tight with the local power structure and are champi- oning the cause of the growers in some of the legislative halls of the Nation. With the dispute consuming much of the interest of the Nation for the past three years, the Congressmen whose two districts embrace most of the area of the dispute have not taken one sin- gle affirmative step to contribute to a solution other than championing the cause of the growers and joining them in the dream that some time they'll wake up and find things like they were in the "good old days."
Massive Resistance '
rpHE !rESISTANCE to THE farm- X workers' organizational efforts has been massive. Numerous lawsuits, to- taling millions of dollars, have been filed against the union. There has been constant harassment in the courts, both through civil suits and action by
573
local constabulary. Dealing in double standards doesn't bother the growers a bit! The National Labor Relations Act protects both employes and employers. The industry is fighting bitterly to pre- vent the farm workers from being cov- ered by that part of the law which pro- tects the workers' rights. Yet the grow- ers have instituted several massive legal cases with the National Labor Relations Board to force coverage where the rights of the employers are concerned.
Propaganda campaigns have been in- stituted by the growers and their friends that portray the farm worker 'union as weak and unable to attract farm workers to memjiership.
All of these anti-union smear cam- paigners who argue that farm workers don't want to organize are actively op- posing legislation to extend the Fed- eral law to cover those farm workers so they caii vote their true feelings in secret - ballot Government - conducted elections.
The Farm Bureau and the right-to- workers smear the boycott by saying that the issue in the boycott is "com- pulsory unionism," and that the boy- cott is to try to force unionism on workers who really don't want it. The facts are that not a single grower of table grapes has ever been presented any demand at any time by the union which would require any worker to join the union. The only demand is that the companies agree to sit down and discuss ways and means of recog- • nizing the union and then make plans to enter into negotiations.
Phony wage data and economic sta- tistics are part of the resistance propa- ganda. The growers and their support- ers quote California farm wages as the best in the Nation — piece work aver- ages of $2.50 per hour. They fail to mention that these are wage statistics that are built up during long hours at harvest peak under optimal piece-work conditions. Neither do they mention the fact that frequently the mother and father are the payroll statistic but all their children may be in the field
picking with them and having their production credited to the parents, thereby inflating the wage rate.
California farm wages are the best in the Nation next to Hawaii and Ha- waii's agricultural workforce has a greater degree of unionization than any state. California wage levels in ag- riculture have risen at a faster rate in the past eight years than in any other comparable period in history. It goes without saying that they have also outdistanced every other state's rate of
you CAN HELP/
Tell Yi^ul tT^miLv/ i^yltM TiMe^ roo
CifiSen. TV — /tMpl rRMJftiejJr
farm labor wage improvement. It is in- teresting to note that those years are exactly the period of the union organi- : zational effort in California.
The facts are that by management's own admission a healthy, energetic, highly skilled grape harvester getting the maximum hours among all grape workers and working under the brst of conditions can expect to make between
574
S3000 and $35U0 per * I hose are po\"il.' lc\ol wajics aji '< !i' s llie elite — llip rriMm of the cmi -' th respect m oarninCF. Imagine how ii is with the others.
In reality, whether the wages are more or less has little to do with the real isiue, which is: Do farm workers have rights similar to those of other workers, or are they to be relegated to second-cli^ss citizenship simply because they are farm workers?
No Sanitary Facilities
BESIDES, THERE ARE SOME is- sues that override even the eco- nomics. The bad practice of inadequate or no sanitary facilities for workers, toilets in the fields, is an issue of great importance to the workers, for their own personal dignity as well as for the conditions wherein these foodstuffs grow.
Even more critical is the question of the pesticides and chemicals which, we are convinced, are at the base of the increased number of skin afflictions and respiratory problems we are dis- covering among the field workers. There are many who feel that the pro- tection and welfare of the consumer is also a matter of concern. Yet the grow- ers refuse to talk to the workers about the pesticides and chemicals.
Growers like to convey an image of little family-operated farms of few acres, struggling against great odds to eke out a living from the soil. The 1964 Census of Agriculture shows 81,000 farms in California. 49,000 of them hire no outside labor. So 60 per cent of the farms have no labor and are not in- volved in this maitter. These farms av- erage less than 50 acres and their total acreage is only 5- per cent of Califor-
nia's agricultural land.
However, less than 6 per cent of Cal- ifornia's farms constitute 75 per cent of the land! Add to this picture the fact that California agriculture is big busi- ness. Gross agricultural income in 1966 was a record $3.95 billion. Since then that annual figure has grown to exceed $4 billion. California agriculture and related industries, by their own testi- mony, account for 33 per cent of the jobs in the State.
Arrayed against this wealth and this power are the farm workers. Their aver- age income is less than $1400 per year. They are lucky to have a year or two of high school education. The educa- tional attainment level of their chil- dren is one of the lowest in the Nation. The health levels of the children and the women is far below national aver- ages. Their housing and living condi- tions are substandard. Many of them have problems requiring legal assist- ance; frequently they need medical at- tention.
So they are trying to do something about it. They are not doing it by seek- ing charity. They are not begging at the welfare office. They are not, like many of their employers, lobbying the halls of Congress with their gold- plated tin cups asking to be paid for not growing crops. They are trying to do it in the way that millions of other Ametttans have s'hown is the right way — organization, unionism, collec- tive bargaining.
If there is any doubt as to how great the American people have reacted to the plight of the f«vrnj worker, just re- member— only if the boycott were suc- ceeding would the poH^ri ul unioii-hat- ing elemenits be joiniir? with the grow- ers to crush the f ai:]3k,workeri.
TO xJOlN AND WELP TH\S CAOJ£^WBlTe
AND 5£ND CONTglBUTlONS TO UNITED FARrAWOek£»2SOlCGr.CbtO../\FL^CIO
BOX i3o
575
[From the Congressional Record]
Pboclamation of the Delano Grape Woekebs
bemabks of hon. james g. o'hara, of michigan, in the house of
REPRESENTATIVES, MONDAY, MAY 12, 19 69
Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, May 10, was proclaimed Interna- tional Boycott Day by the Delano grape workers. Consumers everywhere were called upon to withhold their patronage from stores selling table grapes.
When the Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act over 30 years ago, agriculture workers were excluded from the provisions of this act. In ef- fect, the Congress made second-class citizens of farmworkers by refusing to pro- tect their right to form unions and to bargain collectively with their employers.
For the past 7 years, efforts on the part of the grape workers to bargain col- lectively have been largely ignored by the growers. Without the protection of the law, the workers had nowhere to go but to the public.
Two years ago, the farmworkers of California called upon consumers to boy- cott grapes in an effort to force the growers to recognize the rights of the work- ers and to bargain collectively with them. The boycott has been more and more effective as the public has become more and more aware of the plight of the farmworkers. By boycotting grapes, consumers tell growers that they will not purchase their product until they know that the workers who harvest it are assured of a just wage, humane working conditions, job security, and other employee benefits taken for granted by most working men and women in America.
Mr. Speaker, I insert the proclamation of the Delano grape workers for International Boycott Day at this point in the Record :
Proclamation of the Delano Grape Workers for International Boycott Day,
May 10, 1969
We, the striking grape workers of California, join on this International Boy- cott Day with the consumers across the continent in planning the steps that lie ahead on the road to our liberation. As we plan, we recall the footsteps that brought up fb this day and the events of this day. The historic road of our pilgrimage to Sacramento later branched out, spreading like the unpruned vines in struck fields, until it led us to willing exile in cities across this land. There, far from the earth we tilled for generations, we have cultivated the strange soil of public understanding, sowing the seed of our truth and our cause in the minds and hearts of men.
We have been farm workers for hundreds of years and pioneers for seven. Mexicans, Filipinos, Africans and others, our ancestors were among those who founded this land and tamed its natural wilderness. But we are still pilgrims on this land, and we are pioneers who blaze a trail out of the vdlderness of hunger and deprivation that we have suffered even as our ancestors did. We are conscious today of the significance of our present quest. If this road we chart leads to the rights and reforms we demand, if it leads to just wages, humane working conditions, protection from the misuse of pesticides, and to the funda- mental right of collective bargaining, if it changes the social order that relegates us to the bottom reaches of society, then in our wake will follow thousands of American farm workers. Our example will make them free. But if our road does not bring us to victory and social change, it will not be because our direc- tion is mistaken or our resolve too weak, but only because our bodies are mortal and our journey hard. For we are in the midst of a great social movement, and we will not stop struggling 'til we die, or win !
We have been farm workers for hundreds of years and strikers for four. It was four years ago that we threw down our plowshares and pruninghooks. These Biblical symbols of peace and tranquility to us represent too many lifetimes of unprotesting submission to a degrading social system that allows us no dignity, no comfort, no peace. We mean to have our peace, and to win it without violence, for it is violence we would overcome — the subtle spiritual and mental violence of oppression, the violence subhuman toil does to the human body. So we went and stood tall outside the vineyards where we had stooped for years. But the tail- ors of national labor legislation had left us naked. Thus exposed, our picket lines were crippled by injunctions and harassed by growers; our strike was broken by imported scabs ; our overtures to our employers were ignored. Yet we knew the day must come when they would talk to us, as equals.
36-513 O - 70 - pt. 3A - 3
576
We have been farm workers for hundreds of years and boycotters for two. We did not choose the grape boycott, but we had chosen to leave our peonage, poverty, and dispair behind. Though our first bid for freedom, the strike, was weakened, we would not turn back. The boycott was the only way forward the growers left to us. We called upon our fellow men and were answered by consumers who said — as all men of conscience must — that they would no longer allow their tables to be subsidized by our sweat and our sorrow : They shunned the grapes, fruit of our affliction.
We marched alone at the beginning, but today we count men of all creeds, nationalities, and occupations in our number. Between us and the justice we seek now stand the large and powerful grocers who, in continuing to buy table grapes, betray the boycott their own customers have built. These stores treat their patrons' demands to remove the grapes the same way the growers treat our demands for union recognition — by ignoring them. The consumers who rally behind our cause are responding as we do to such treatment — with a boycott ! They pledge to withhold their patronage from stores that handle grapes during the boycott, just as we withhold our labor from the growers until our dispute is resolved.
Grapes must remain an unenjoyed luxury for all as long as the barest human needs and basic human rights are still luxuries for farm workers. The grapes grow sweet and heavy on the vines, but they will have to wait while we reach out first for our freedom. The time is ripe for our liberation.
A Portrait of Agribusiness Power in the San Joaquin Valley of California
(Prepared by Wayne C. Hartmire, Jr., Director, California Migrant Ministry,
May 1968)
1966 Company Acreage^ subsiciy'^
Kern County Land 348,026 $652,057
Standard Oil 218,485
Southern Pacific 201,851
Tejon Ranch 168, 531 121. 096
Vista de Llano (Anderson, Clayton) 52,000 622,840
Boston Ranch (J. G. Boswell) 37,555 506,061
Russell Giffen 33, 000 2, 397. 073
J. G. Boswell 32,364 2,807,633
South Lake Farms 30,478 1,468,696
Di Giorgio (Delano strike area) 26.000 56,100
Everett Salyer 25, 220 1, 014, 860
Miller & Lux 25,313 299,051
Giumarra (Delano strike area) 12,459 246,882
Bianco (Delano strike area) 6,795
Divizich (Delano strike area) 5,500
Steele (Delano strike area) 4,187
Schenley (Delano strike area) 3,700
Pandol (Delano strike area) . 2,288
Perelli-Minetti (Delano strike area) 2,280
6.0% of California's farms own 75% of the land (1959 Census)
5.2% of California's farms pay 60.2% of the farm labor wages (1959 Census)
1 1959 U.S. Census of Agriculture. ■2 Figures published by Senator John Williams of Delaware.
' Includes only soil bank and acreage diversion payments ; doesn't include price support program or water subsidy. June 19, 1967 Statement by Senator Williams : "Based upon these large payments it is obvious that the small family-type farmer is not the real beneficiary of our present farm program ; but rather the Government through these large payments is in reality subsidizing an expansion of the corporate-type of farming operation."
The Citizens' Board of Inquiry into Hunger & Malnutrition in the USA, a group which includes major Protestant representation came to the following con- clusions about governmental farm support programs : "Judged by the allocation of payments to farmers in 1967, this purpose (to encourage, promote & strengthen the family farm) has not been achieved. Some 42.7% of farmers — the classical small family farmers — with gross income of less than $2500 received 4.5% of
577
the total farm payments from the government while the top 10% of farmers — the large, diversified, and in many cases corporate landowners — each with more than $20,000 gross income, received $54.5% of total farm payments."
The growers have used the following article, as many of you know, to try to malign our non-violent efforts to achieve social change. They have publicized the New York A&P fires and blamed the farmworkers and boycott supporters for them as a justification for saying that boycott supporters are not non-violent and are intimidating stores and customers.
[From the New York Times, Oct. 24, 1968]
Three A. & P. Stores Firebombed ; Link to Grape Strike Studied
(By Will Lissner)
Three A. & P. stores in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx were set ablaze early yesterday by Molotov cocktails that had been thrown through the front windows.
Two night stock clerks were burned in one of the fires, at the store at 549 Third Avenue near 36th Street.
Chief Fire Marshal Vincent M. Canty said that there had been two fire-bomb- ings of supermarkets a month ago. One, on Sept. 13, was in an A. & P. store at 541 East 149th Street, in the Bronx. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Com- pany, Inc., operator of the stores, put the damage at $10,000. The other was on Sept. 15 at a Key Food chain store at 235 East 106th Street.
Chief Canty said he was investigating the possibility that the five fire-bomb- ings were connected in some way with the boycott and strike against certain growers of table grapes in California.
ALL SOLD GRAPES
"The one fact that links all five stores," Chief Canty said, "is that they all sold California grapes, they all have been picketed, and they all have been asked to join the boycott."
Chief Canty and a spokesman for A. & P. both said there was no evidence link- ing the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee or any oflScial organiza- tion in the grape pickers' strike to the incidents.
The two stock clerks injured in the Manhattan fire were Harold Gifford, 41 years old, of 443 Cyprus Place, the Bronx, and Robert Collins, 40, of 144 Cedar Street, Ridgefield Park, N. J. They were sitting on checkout counters having lunch at 3 :16 A.M. when soft-drink bottles, filled with gasoline and set off by flaming wicks, crashed through the window.
They said the Molotov cocktails had been thrown by a man who fled. The two men put out the flames, which caused only slight damage to the store. Mr. Gifford was taken to Bellevue Hospital for treatment of first- and second- degree burns of the head, arms and body. Mr. Collins received treatment at Bellevue for slight burns and went home.
The Brooklyn store, at 1576 Ralph Avenue, was hit at 2:59 A.M. No clerks were working at the time, and the blaze caused considerable damage to stock and fixtures. At first defective wiring was suspected, but the investigation turned up remnants of a fire bomb.
The third store, at 1215 233d Street in the East Bronx, was hit at 4:02 A.M. Two men threw a Molotov cocktail from a passing automobile. Employes quickly extinguished the flames, and the damage was slight.
During the summer a consumer boycott cut into the sale of California table grapes here, but recently shipments have increased. Seven food chains currently are advertising California table grapes, mostly the Emperor Red variety.
It is interesting that this particular incident occurred after these stores removed California table grapes.
It finally comes out, however, that the whole series of A&P fires and other destruction was the work of the MAFIA.
I think it is important that when growers or their agents try to slander us to set them straight with the FACTS. We will win . . . and we will win non- violently !
578
VIVA!
[From Supermarket News, June 16, 1969]
Ex-Employee Charged With Fires at A. & P.
NEW YORK. — A former A&P porter was indicted last weeli on charges of first degree arson in connection witli a $6 million fire at the firm's Ridgewood (Queens, N.Y.) warehouse last year.
The accused, James A. Castorina, 20, Mamaroneck, N.Y., who was employed at the warehouse at the time of the fire, will be arraigned this week.
Should Mr. Castorina plead not guilty and the case go to trial, the spotlight could be turned on alleged efforts by the underworld to muscle into food industry.
The Ridgewood fire, as well as other fires at A&P stores and warehouses and the slayings of two A&P store managers, was tied by Queens District Attorney Thomas J. Mackell to the Tea Company's refusal to stock a detergent made by a Mafia-controlled firm.
A spokesman for the district attorney's ofl5ce said the detergent was a "no- name product which would have been sold under the A&P label." He said no other chains had been connected with the matter, but that the investigation continues.
The arrest of Mr. Castorina came after investigation disclosed that he had been employed at another A&P warehouse in Elmsford, N.Y., when that facility was destroyed by fire in 1967, causing $18.7 million in damages.
Attacks on A&P properties date back to 1964. Sixteen separate incidents were listed by Mr. Mackell.
A spokesman for A&P said : "The matter is in the hands of the authorities with whom A&P has been cooperating throughout the investigation. The company has no statement to make at this time, nor would it be appropriate from a legal standpoint to comment on the report by the Queens District Attorney's office in announcing the indictment."
The spokesman declined to give a figure on the firm's total losses since the harassment began.
[A Wall Street Journal News Roundup]
Mafia Slew A. & P. Aides, Firebombed Units To Push Detergent, Lawman Says ; Net Up
The Mafia murdered two A&P supermarket managers and inflicted $50 million of arson damage on A&P stores and warehouses in trying to force Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. to carry a certain detergent, the Queens County district attor- ney in New I'^ork City told the Associated Press.
Thomas J. Mackell said A&P stores and warehouses were hit by 16 fire bomb- ing incidents starting early in 1964 following the company's decision to reject the detergent as unfit to distribute. Mr. Mackell declined to disclose its name.
A&P, which yesterday said it had a 21% rise in first quarter earnings, stated : "The A&P has been cooperating throughout the investigation with the proper authorities. We have no further conmient at this time."
In the period ended May 24, A&P estimated it had net of $11.8 millon, or 47 cents a share, up from $9.7 million, or 39 cents a share, a year earlier.
The food company's earnings in the past five quarters had trailed year-before figures.
Sales in the first quarter rose to an estimated $1.37 billion from $1.35 billion in last year's like period Melvin W. Alldredge, chairman, said.
A&P spokesmen declined to comment on the sharp earnings turnaround.
Mr. Mackell's office told the AP that James A. Castorina, described as a 20-year-old former porter in an A&P warehouse in Elmsford, N.Y., had been indicted on arson charges. He was accused of first-degree arson in connection with a fire that caused $6 million in damage at an A&P warehouse in Ridgewood, Queens, a year ago.
The district attorney's office added that the warehouse where Mr. Castorina worked had also been damaged — to the extent of $18.2 million — 18 months ago. That fire was declared suspicious, the spokesman said.
The underworld family of Gerardo "Jerry" Catena held a distribution rights monopoly for the unidentified detergent, which was presented to the A&P management through a sales agency, Mr. Mackell asserted. The sales agency was successful in getting A&P's consent to test the product in their laboratories.
579
The labs rejected the product in April 1964. Shortly after, an A&P store in Yonkers, N.Y., was devastated by an incendiary device, Mr. Mackell said.
Similar fires were set in three A&P warehouses, six stores, and other installa- tions over a period of four years in parts of New York City and Secaucus, N.J., the district attorney said.
The two A&P store managers who were murdered were John Mossner and James B. Walsh, Mr. Mackell said.
Mr. Mossner was shot in early 1965. Two months before the slaying, "three hoodlums" entered his A&P store in the Bronx and attempted to place a fire bomb in the rear, Mr. Mackell said. The three warned Mr. Mossner that they were bombing his store because A&P refused to handle the detergent. Mr. Moss- ner chased the three men and no damage was done.
Later, Mr. Mossner, was fatally shot three times in the head on Long Island, where he lived. Before he was killed, he identified one of the men who had attempted to bomb his store to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which also is investigating the case.
Mr. Walsh was shot dead Jan. 23, 1965, as he was fixing a flat tire on his car in Brooklyn.
[From the Congressional Record, May 20, 1969]
Growers Present Farmworkers With a Hobson's Choice: A Company Union
OR A Powerless Union
Mr. Mondale. Mr. President, Webster's dictionary defines a Hobson's choice as being "an apparent free choice with no real alternative."
It is just such a choice that many growers wish to present their farm- workers— a choice between a company union and a powerless union.
The realities of this "Hobson's choice" were made unmistakably clear at the recent hearings by Senator Harrison A. Williams' Labor Subcommittee on S. 8, the legislation which would extend the National Labor Relations Act to the agriculture industry.
On the opening day, representatives of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO — UFWOC — joined by representatives of other farm labor organizing efforts across the country, presented testimony that clearly indicated the need for legislation that will shift the balance of labor-management power in rural areas. Farmworkers, they pointed out, must have an opportunity to develop the strong institutions that have so long served as a bulwark of indus- trial democracy in other sectors of our economy. The National Farmers Union, the National Farmers Organization, and the National Grange have favored coverage of the agriculture industry under the NLRA.
The American Farm Bureau Federation president presented testimony in opposition to the enactment of S. 8, although nominally affirming the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Farm Bureau proposed alternative legislation.
Two aspects of the testimony reveal that many growers, while appearing to advocate a free choice to farmworkers, had in effect presented ^ Hobson's choice.
First, Mr. President, the Labor Subcommittee was presented documents, signed and sworn, that tell of the grower formed, grower dominated Agriculture Workers Freedom to Work Association — AWFWA. The documents exposing and confirming this most horrendous activity were official reports filed by officers of AWFWA pursuant to the section 203(b) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. Because of their importance and significance to all of my colleagues, I would like to have them inserted in the Congressional Record, along with some newspaper articles, at the conclusion of my remarks.
This so-called union organization was secretly provided expense money, office space, telephones, cars, and gasoline by growers in California. Money was funneled through an organization called Mexican-American Democrats for Re- publican Action, and it was used to finance nationwide speaking tours during which the organization efforts of Cesar Chavez and UFWOC were viciously attacked.
The important point is that growers were not offering farmworkers an oppor- tunity to choose through democratic election procedures a genuine representa- tive of farmworker interests, but inetead they insisted on a company union that growers themselves organized and financed.
580
The second disturbing aspect of the testimony was that the determination of the growers to establish a grower dominated union for the farmworker has now been transferred to insuring that any union chosen by the worlters is left powerless, and must exist on the terms and conditions of the growers.
Growers' testimony seemed to confirm their interest in guaranteeing a power- less union, for the subcommittee heard various grower representatives oppose coverage of the agriculture industry under the NLRA, although lipservice was paid to elections and collective bargaining.
Careful study of their specific legislative proposals sheds light on their true feelings. First, many growers would deny farmworkers the same economic weapons that are guaranteed to every other American worker by severely limiting the employees right to strike, and restraining not only the farmworkers but the entire labor movement from engaging in a primary product boycott.
Second, many growers insist on legislation that would deny both the employer and the union an opportunity to bargain over union security agreements.
Third, many growers would have their labor management relations mediated and supervised by partisan agents of the growers. The Farm Bureau, for ex- ample, has proposed that farmer and farmworker relationships should be governed by a separate statute, and not within the purview of the NLRB, an agency with an expertise in labor relations for all industries, including highly perishable agriculture packing sheds, processing operations, and the like. Instead, they would place administration of labor-management relations in the Agricul- ture Department, which has a more abiding interest in agriculture production than labor relations, and the Federal district courts, which are already over- crowded.
Fourth, growers are demanding limited statutory coverage of farmworkers, some suggesting that only those workers on farms that hired the equivalent of eight or more full-time, year-round employees could participate in elections of a representative, and bargain collectively with their employers.
At one point, Mr. President, I hoped that growers would simply recognize the worth and dignity of the farmworker, and urge passage of S. 8. That bill would guarantee, at least in part, some of the protections and procedures to the agriculture industry, through orderly recognition procedures and good-faith collective bargaining, encouraged by the NLRA.
Unfortunately, however, the effort and energy of growers, as evidenced by the various proposals to avoid coverage of agricultural employees under the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, particularly when read in the light of the formation of a company union, and proposals for a powerless union, dims the prospect for humane advancement in the industry.
It is regrettable that growers who mu.st rely on their workers to reap the harvest, can give in return only a Hobson's choice. The burden is squarely on the shoiilders of the growers to demand a free choice in the greatest of democratic traditions for their employees and, if the growers insist on company unions, or powerless unions, then Congress must act to bring democracy to the farm.
Mr. President, I ask unamimous consent that the dociiments concerning the growers' formation of a company union be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the documents were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows :
Agriculture Workers Freedom
To Work Association, Delano, Calif., February 22. 1969. Secretary of Labor,
Office of Lahor Manaf/ement and Welfare Pension Reports, U.S. Department of Lahor. San Francisco. Calif.
Dear Sir : The under signed oflScers of AWFWA herewith submit an Agree- ment and Activities Report (Form LM-20) and a Receipt and Disbursements Report (Form LM-21) as reqiiired by Section 203(b) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1969.
The reports may be incomplete but they reflect all the information cxirrpntly available to ns. We are instituting action to recover financial records of AWFWA. if thev still exist, and the reports will be amended to reflect any furt>ipr information as it becomes available.
AWFWA was an outgrowth of an untitled group led by the growers which hired .Tose Mendoza and Gilbert Rubio to persuade the workers that there was two sides to the union story, don't be afraid of Chavez, be united and we will
581
protect and support you. The employees and members of the group were to try to get information on plans of UFWOC. This group and others became AWFWA which was incorporated by Jose Mendoza, Gilbert Rubio and Shirley Fetalvero on July 1968. The three incorporators became the directors of AWFWA. The first public actions of the new organization were counter picket- ing of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee. AFL-CIO, pickets at the homes of Giumarra foremen, crew bosses at McFarland and Earlimart, Cali- fornia in May of 1968, also at public picnic attended by 1,500 people was held at Delano Park on June 16, 1968.
Until recently AWFWA never had a meeting of the Board of Directors or an election of officers. Jose Mendoza called himself General-Secretary and some- times. Gilbert Rubio was identified as chairman. Mendoza acted as the chief- executive of AWFWA. ^Mendoza was advised by Mr. Basoco of the Department of Labor that a consultant was required if AWFWA had an agreement with employers connected with the grape labor dispute and boycott. Mendoza denied any agreement existed or that AWFWA was being supported by the growers.
So far as we know all of AWFWA's records were maintained by first Fernando Marquez, then by Jose Mendoza and then turned over to Donald Garaniga. We are making efforts to recover these records.
In late 1968, Jose Mendoza left Bakersfield on several trips, on his return he contacted Shirley Fetalvero and Gilbert Rubio wanting them to agree to dissolve AWFWA so it would be legally out of existence. We, with advice from Cornelio Marcias, refused to sign to dissolve the corporation. Mendoza advised he was no longer associated with AWFWA and Cornelio Marcias could be a Director in his place. He threatened to send the Department of Labor after us. In October or November 1968, Shirley Fetalvero and Gilbert Rubio informally met as a Board of Directors and elected Cornelio Macia as Director of AWFWA.
We have been interviewed by Robert H. Holland of the San Francisco office of the office of Labor Management and Welfare Pension Reports, U.S. Depart- ment of Labor. Mr. Holland advised us that AWFWA was covered by the filing requirements of Section 203(b) of the Labor Management Reporting & Dis- closure Act of 1959 and had been delinquent in filing an Agreement and Activi- ties Report (LM-20) since July 3, 1968 or earlier. He also advised us that a Receipts and Disbursements Report covering the fiscal year ending December 31, 1968. was due by March 31, 1969.
On February 22, 1969 Shirley Fetalvero and Gilbert Rubio held an emergency meeting of the Board of Directors of AWFWA. Cornelio Marcias could not be contacted. Gilbert Rubio was elected president and Shirley Fetalvero was elected secretary-treasurer for the purpose of 1.) submitting the required re- ports to the Secretary of Labor, 2.) obtaining records of AWFWA to complete this filing and other filings which may be required and 3.) to make plans as ap- propriate to dissolve AWFWA or to decide on future activities.
In line with the preceding the attached reports are forwarded. This letter should be considered an integral part of the filing.
Gilbert Rubio,
President. Shirley Fetalvero,
Secretary-Treasurer.
A. person filing
1. Name and mailing address (include ZIP code): AWFWA, aka ; Agricul- tural Workers Freedom to Work Association, % (see attached sheet).
2. Any other address where records necessary to verify this report are kept : Donald Gazzaniga, PRI, 6408 Sally Avenue, Bakersfield, Calif.
3. Date fiscal year ends : December 31, 1968.
4. Type of person :
(a) n INDIYIDUAL.
(b) n PARTNERSHIP.
(c) [x] CORPORATION.
(d) n OTHER (Specify) :
B. NATURE OF AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENT
5. Full name and address of employer with whom made (include ZIP code) ( See attached sheet) .
6. Date entered into : On or about May, 1968.
582
7. Names of persons through whom made : Same as above.
8. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether an object of the activities undertaken is directly or indirectly :
a. |x] To persuade employees to exercise or not to exercise, or persuade em- ployees as to the manner of exercising, the right to organize and bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing.
b. [x] To supply an employer with information concerning the activities of em- ployees or a labor organization in connection with a labor dispute involving such employer, except information for use solely in conjunction with an administra- tive or arbitral proceeding or a criminal or civil judicial proceeding.
9. Terms and conditions {Explain in detail; see Part B-9 of instruction) : (See attached sheet) .
C. SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES TO BE PERFORMED
10. For each activity, separately list in detail the information required (see Part C-10 of instructions) :
a. Nature of activity : ( See attached sheet. )
b. Period during which performed : ( See attached sheet. )
c. Extent performed : ( See attached sheet. )
d. Names and addresses of persons through whom performed : ( See attached sheet. )
11. Identify (a) Subject employees, groups of employees, and (b) labor orga- nizations. ( See attached sheet. )
D. VERIFICATION AND SIGNATURE
The person in item 1 above and each of his undersigned authorized oflBcers declares, under penalty of law, that all information in this report, including all attachments incorporated therein or referred in this report, has been examined by him and is, to the best of his knowledge and belief, true, correct, and complete.
Signed: Gilbert Rubio, President, at Delano. Calif., on February 22, 1969. (If other title, cross out and write in correct title above.)
Signed : Shirley Fetalever, Treasurer, at Delano, Calif., on February 22, 1969. (If other title, cross out and write in correct title above.)
No. 8 (a) Jose Mendoza ; a. unknown; b. unknown; e. unknown.
Gilbert Rubio ; a. unknown ; b. unknown ; c. unknown.
Aurelio Rios ; a. unknown ; b. unknown ; c. unknown.
No. 9-14 : Unknown.
No. 15 : These are disbursement currently available to us. Additional informa- tion will be furnished when available.
M.A.D.R.A. withdrawals, June 28, 1968— $700.35 for Cashiers check to PRI endorsed Donald A. Gazzaniga for return to AWFWA.
June 28, 1968, Wonderly Electronics $84.08 for tape recorder.
June 28, 1968, Roundtree Camera $103.00 for camera and supplies $58.70, check No. 103.
Check No. 104, July 2, 1968, County of Kern— $100.00— Reservation for Hart Park.
, Check No. 108, Radio Station KWAC $640, July 16, 1968 Radio advertising AWFWA.
Check No. 105, $477.07 Davenports July 2, 1968 Copying machine.
Check No. 106, July 10, 1968, Smith Radio Service $50.00 Public Address Service.
Check No. 107, July 10, 1968, Jose-Mendoza $300.00 cash endorsed by Jose Mendoza.
Check No. 109, July 9, 1968, A. B. Dick Co., $168.99 for mimeograph and supplies.
Check No. 110, July 19, 1968, Delano Ambulance— Service Ambulance for Gil- bert Rubio for .$37.00.
Check No. Ill, July 19, 1968, $20, Mrs. Rubio, repair for Gilbert Rubio's car.
Check No. 112. July 19, 1968, Golden West Telephone Company, $79.86 for payment of Jose Mendoza's telephone bill.
Check No. 113, $300.50 to Bank of America.
583
A.W.F.W.A. CHECKS
Check No. 117, September 9, 1968, Gilbert Rubio, expenses, $21.00.
Check No. 119, September 17, 1968, Pacific Telephone Co., $119.00.
Check No. 116, September 10, 1968, Kern County Patrol, $30.00, Bodyguard for Mendoza.
Check No. 120, October 14, 1968, Merchants Printers, $78.59.
Check No. 121, October 14, 1968, Golden West Telephone Co. $337.71.
Disbursements were made by PRI for AWFWA for salary and expenses of Mendoza, Rubio and Rios.
Telephone bills of Shirley Fetalvero and Gilbert Rubio of over $500 were paid in cash by Wanda Hillary and Jose Mendoza.
1. Shirley Fetalvero, 117 W. 15th Avenue, Delano, Calif.
5. John Giumarra, Jr., John Giumarra, Sr., Joseph Giumarra operating in whole or in part as Giumamar Vineyards Corp., Giummara Farms, Inc. and Giumarra Bros. Fruit Co., Edison Highway, Bakersfield, Calif.
Jack Pandol, Rt. 2, Box 388, Delano, Calif.
Pandol & Sons, Rt. 2, Box 388, Delano, Calif.
Robert Sabovich, Melvin Sabovich, Sabovich Bros., P.O. Box 577, Lament, Calif.
Eugene Nalbandian, Eugene Nalbandian Inc., P.O. Box 665, Lamont, Calif.
John J. Kovacevich, P.O. Bin 488, Arvin, Calif.
William Mosesian, Lamont, Calif.
9. During early 1968, the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL- CIO, UPWOC, was engaged in a labor dispute with several table grape growers in around Kern and Tulare Counties in California, including the Giumarra vineyards Corporation, Highway #56, Edison, California, and Pandol & Sons, Rt. 2 Box 388, Delano, California. In May, 1968, a meeting was held at Sambo's Restaurant on Union Street in Bakersfield attended by John Giumarra, Sr., John Giumarra, Jr., Treasurer and General Counsel respectively of Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, Teresa Arrambide, labor foreman for Giummara, Paul Marrufo, head foreman for Sabovich Bros., grape growers, Vine & DiGiogio Roads, Lamont, California, Louis Barazza, a former associate of Cesar Chavez, Robert Flores, personnel manager of Di Giorgio Fruit Corporation, Jess Mar- quez, who runs a camp for DiGiorgio, Fernando Marquez, brother of Jess, an accountant with an office in Lamont, Jack Pandol of Pandol & Sons, Gilbert Rubio, Jose Mendoza, and others.
This meeting was to outline activities of AWFWA. We were to tell workers not to be afraid of Chavez to be united and we as an organizatin would support and protect workers ; we were to oppose UFWOC efforts to organize and boycott. This meeing and other meetings decided AWFWA would also try to enlist workers and obtain information on UFWOC's plans and activities. The meeting decided to get funds from the growers and hire Mendoza and Rubio at $120.00 a week to start opposing Chavez. AWFWA started counter-picketing UFWOC pickets at the homes of Giumarra's foremen in McFarland and Earlimart. The Giumarras furnished office space for Mendoza and Rubio in the conference room at the Edison Highway headquarters with typewriter and other office supplies.
Arrangements were made to pay Mendoza and Rubio and then Aurelio Rios through Fernando Marquez first through MADRA then through an AWFWA bank account. Several meetings involving many persons were held but only John Guimarra, Jr., Robert Sabovich, and Jack Pandol gave orders to Mendoza and AWFWA.
10. (A) AWFWA WAS TO :
(a) Counter-picket and try to drown out UFWOC pickets wherever they pickted any grape grower or they picketed any grape grower or their employees, using sound trucks, jeers, etc.
(b) Hold picnics for mass of asricuutural workers giving free food, beer, and music and raffles to get them to listen to speeches against Chavez and UFWOC.
(c) Enlist the aid of all growers and their foremen in enrolling workers into AWFWA without cost with the idea that we would represent them.
(d) Try to settle grievances or disputes between farm workers and the grape growers.
(e) Picket advertisers of Catholic Register which supported Chavez and UFWOC until John Guimarra, Jr.. told us to stop.
(f ) Appear on radio, TV and the news with propaganda against Chavez and UFWOC.
584
(g) Opposed Teamsters-UFWOC boycott of Coors beer by counterpickering.
(h) Try to get information on all UFWOC planned activities to take action to halt or disrupt them (Sanger picnic, labor day parade).
(i) To keep track of all people associated with and helping UFWOC using friends, papers, and taking pictures of people in and around UFWOC headquarters.
(j) To put out mimeographed notices, flyers, message and reports on flyers to be widely distributed to the workers and the public in Spanish and English. Obtain bumper stickers attacking the boycott and UFWOC.
(k) Counter picket stores selling New York products after New York City boycotted the table grapes, including picketing of Sachs 5th Avenue in Los Angeles.
(1) Picket news media and TV stations in Los Angeles who were giving biased coverage for Chavez and UFWOC.
(m) To use all of the above methods to get headlines, newspaper and TV coverage with statement of farm workers are not on strike and boycott is just another trick to force the Union on the workers.
10. (B) These activities were performed between May and October 1968.
10. (C) All activities were performed to the extent possible.
10. (D) All activities were carried out under the name of AWFWA or MADRA (Mexican-American Democrats for Republican Action) by the following people:
(1) Jose Mendoza, 2421 I Street, Bakersfield.
(2) Gilbert Rubio, 217 Cliff Street, McFarland.
(3) Shirley Fetal vero, 177 W. 15th Avenue, Delano.
(4) Mary Matt, 371 Oleander Drive, Bakersfield.
(5) Wanda Hillary, Baker Street, Bakersfield.
(6) Donald Gazzaniga. Sally Drive, Bakersfield.
(7) Robert Flores, DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation, Lamont.
(8) Jess Marquez, DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation, Lamont.
(9) Fernando Marquez, 4212 Alexander, Bakersfield.
(10) Cornelio Marcias, Newark Road, Sanger.
(11) Teresa Arrambide, Moffet St., Wasco.
(12) Louis Baraza.
(13) Aurelio Rios, Dover Street, Delano.
(14) Paul Maruffo.
(15) Helen Murillo, 7616 Delight Avenue, Lamont.
(16) Anna Mariano, 822 Kensington, Delano.
(17) John Giumarra, Jr., Edison Headquarters, Edison, Ca.
(18) Robert Sabovich, P.O. Box 577, Lamont.
(19) Melvin Sabovich, P.O. Box 577, Lamont.
(20) Eugene Nalbandian, P.O. Box 665, Lamont.
(21) William Mosesian, Lamont, California.
(22) John Kovacevich, P.O. Bin 488, Arvin.
(23) Sabovich Bros, P.O. Box 577, Lamont.
(24) Jack Pandol, Rt. 2, Box 388, Delano.
Many people were interested to picket and to come to picnics, etc.
11. Employes of all table grape growers in Kern, Tulare, and Fresno Coun- ties of California, including field workers, both members and non-members of UFWOC, AFL-CIO and unorganized employees in the sheds. We were supposed to be active in the Coachella Valley but we never went.
A. PERSON FILING
1. Name and address (include ZIP code) : AWFWA, aka, Agriculture Workers Freedom To Work Association, c/o Shirley Fetalvero, 117 W. 15th Ave., Delano, Calif.
2. Any other address where records necessary to verify this report are kept : Donald Gazzaniga, Public Research Institute, 6408 Sally Ave., Bakersfield, Calif.
3. File No.
4. Period covered by this report. From : To : .
B. Statement of receipts : Report all receipts from employers in connection with labor relations advice or services regardless of the purposes of the advice or services.
5. Name and address of employer (include ZIP code) : This information is given to the best of our knowledge at this time. As more information becomes available we will submit it. See attached sheet for numbers 5, 6 and 7.
585
6. Termination date.
7. Amount.
C. Statement of disbursements. Report all disbursements made by the report- ing organization in connection with labor relations advice or services rendered to the employers listed in Part B.
8. Disbursements to oflBcers and employees : See attached sheet.
9. Oflice and administrative expenses.
10. Publicity.
11. Fees for professional services, No. 9 through 14.
12. Loans made, see attached sheet.
13. Other disbursements.
14. Total disbursements (sum of items 8-13).
D. Schedule for statement of disbursements. Use this Schedule to report only disbursements made for the purposes described in part D of the instructions.
15. Employer : See attached sheet.
16. To whom paid.
17. Amount.
18. Purpose.
IP MORE SPACE IS NEEDED ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS
E. Verification and signature. The person in item 1 above and each of his undersigned authorized officers declares, under penalty of law, that all informa- tion in this report, including all attachments incorporated therein or referred to in this report, has been examined by him and is, to the best of his knowledge and belief, true, correct, and complete.
Signed: Gilbert Rubio, President, at Delano, Calif., on February 22, 1969. (If other title, cross out and write in correct title above.)
Signed : Shirley Fetalvero, Treasurer, at Delano, Calif., on February 22, 1969. (If other title, cross out and write in correct title above.)
Numbers 5, 6, and 7 : The checks below were deposited in the M.A.D.R.A. Account No. 0208686 at the Community National Bank at 6th and Chester Avenue in Bakersfield.
Date of check Name and address of account Signed by— Amount
June 18,1968 Kern Valley Farms, Inc., Post Office Box 505, Lamont, Calif. James Trino, Jr $200
Office : Wheeler Ridge Rd., Mettler, Calif., phone, 858-2874.
United California Bank, Bakersfield. June 19, 1968 Dalton Richardson, Richardson Farms, Route 2, Box 520, Dalton Richardson 200
Valpredo Rd., Mettler, Calif., phone 858-2520, Bank of
America, Arvin, Calif. Do Muzinich Farms, 207 Panorama Dr., Bakersfield, Calif., farm Anthony L. Muzinich 200
on Le Gray Rd., phone 858-2555, residence phone 323-2252.
United California Bank, Bakersfield. Do Gagosian Fa rms, 2455 Produce St., Greenfield, phone 323-9493, Leo Gagosian _ . 200
also on DiGiorgio Rd., phone 845-1561. Bakersfield National
Bank, Greenfield, Calif. Do _, Griffin Spray Co., 3104 St. Mary's St., phones 871-8000 and Thomas E. Griffin 200
366-3308. Community National Bank, Bakersfield, Calif. June 20,1969 Eugene Nalbandian, Inc., Post Office Box 665, Lamont, Calif., Eugene Nalbandlan 200
phone 845-0729, shed on DiGiorgio Rd. Bank of America,
Bakersfield, Calif. June 22,1969 C. Scarrone, Marie Scarrone, Route 1, Box 640, phone 858- C. Scarrone 200
2510, Arvin, Calif. Bank of America, Arvin branch. June 28,1968 Bianco Fruit Corp., Post Office Box 1801, Delano, Calif., phone Bianco Fruit Corp. (machine 200
725-3215. Bank of America, Delano, Calif. stamp initials not discern- ible on microfilm copy). June 30,1968 Haddad & Berling, G St., Wasco, Calif. Made out to Harley Berling 200
MADRA Research.
Check No. 1335, July 8, 1968, from General Distributors Fresno, Ca., East Fresno Branch of the Bank of America to the amount of $250.00 paid to Berge Kirkorian c/o P.O. Box 202, Arvin, Calif. Endorsed and deposited to M.A.D.R.A. account.
Check No. 325, July 21, 1968, from Calpine Containers, 1875 Olympic Blvd., Walnut Creek, California to the amount of $250.00 to John Kovacevich, endorsed and deposited to M.A.D.R.A. account.
The checks listed below were deposited in AWFWA Account No. 0647802166, Bank of America at "H" & Broad, Bakersfield, Calif. Account was opened July 25, 1968.
586
Bank No.
Amount Issued by-
Date
Payable to-
Mazzle Farms, Derby Rd.,Arvln, Calif July 11,1968 AWFWA.
San Joaquin Tractor Co., 1201 Union Ave., June 28, 1968 AWFWA.
Bakersfield, Calif.
Kern County Equipment Co ..July 3,1968 AWFWA.
Central California Ice Co., 3401 Chester St., July 1,1968 AWFWA.
Bakersfield, Calif. California Box & Lumber Co., DiGiorgio Rd., July 6,1968 AWFWA.
Lamont, Calif. Blake Moffit & Towne,2225 16th St., Bakersfield, June 20, 1968 AWFWA.
Calif. 0. D. Handel & Son Farms, 413 Central Ave., Aug. 5, 1968 AWFWA.
Shaffer, Calif. D. A. Gazzaniga, expense account, 6408 Sally Sept. 11, 1968 Jose Mendoza.
California for Right'to Work, 300 27th St., suite Oct. 9, 1968 Do.
C, Oakland, Calif.
|
90-142, check No. 2276.. 90-142, check No. 52641. |
$300 100 |
|
90-139 |
100 |
|
90-90, check No. 793.... |
100 |
|
90-142, check No. 015703. |
200 |
|
11-55, check No. 140860. |
200 |
|
150 |
|
|
Deposit, check No. 236... |
1400 |
|
Check No. 174 |
500 |
'Sept. 10, 1968.
Note: Account closed out Oct. 25, 1968.
1. Zellebrach Paper Company contributed a check for $200.00 to Farm Workers' Rally which was not deposited in the above bank accounts.
2. Jack Pandol lent AWFWA his 1968 Chevy pick-up for two months for AWFWA use.
3. Bob Sabovich gave AWFWA a 1958 Chevy station wagon for AWFWA use.
4. DiGiorgio furnished mimeograph machines and supplies to print AWFWA flyers on DiGiorgio property.
5. The Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, Edison Highway No. 84, Bakersfield. California, through John Giumarra, Sr., and John Giumarra, Jr., paid the fol- lowing :
( 1 ) A salary in an unknown amount for Jose Mendoza.
(2) Two $50 "loans" to Gilbert Rubio and one $50 "loan" to Aurelio Rios totaling $150.
The Giumarras also allowed use of conference room at Giumarra headquarters with telephone, typewriter, and office supplies.
6. They also allowed free access to the yard gas pump to obtain gas for vehicles for AWFWA business. They provided repair of automobiles in the corporate garage.
7. Fernando Marquez furnished expense money in cash and checks to Mendoza, Rubio. and Rios.
8. Don Gazzaniga paid salary to Mendoza, Rubio, and Rios through the Public Research Institute (PRI) with the cover that they were researchers for PRI. Information and pictures obtained by AWFWA were used for PRI.
[From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 4, 1969] Rival to Chavez : Growers Hit as Organizers of New Union
(By Harry Bernstein)
A group of California growers, aided by members of the John Birch Society, helped create an organization of workers set up as a rival to Ce.sar Chavez AFL- CIO United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, it was charged Monday.
California state law prohibits employer sponsorship of unions or associations which are ostensibly formed to represent workers.
Monday's accusation followed disclosure of a bitter fight among leaders of the Agriculture Workers Freedom to Work Assn. (AWFWA) .
Two officers of AWFWA reported to the Labor Department in Washington that the organization was founded by growers, not workers, as a counteraction to AFL-CIO efforts to unionize farm workers, and to boycott grape growers who have refused to hold union representation elections.
Jerry Cohen, attorney for Chavez' AFL-CIO union, said court action will be filed this week in Bakersfield against the John Birch Society, the Right to Work Committee and a group of growers on grounds that they all conspired to illegally help form the rival AWFWA.
587
AIDE DENOUNCED BOYCOTT
Jose Mendoza, general secretary of the AWFWA, recently made a nationwide tour to denounce Chavez and the grape boycott. He charged repeatedly that Chavez had no support among farm workers.
Mendoza, 37, was honored at a banquet of the National Right to Work Com- mittee in Washington, D.C., and was presented with a award by Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.) on behalf of the committee for his efforts to help farm workers.
Mendoza, of Bakersfield, olficially was getting financial help from the Na- tional Right to Work Committee for his nationwide tour.
A week ago, however, Gilbert Rubio, listed as president of the AAVFWA, and Shirley Fetalvero, secretary-treasurer of the organization, filed a report with the Labor Department's Office of Labor Management Reports to comply with the federal Landrum-Griflin Act of 1959.
LISTS ORGANIZATION DATE
That document contended AWFWA was first conceived in May, 1968, at a meeting in a Bakersfield restaurant attended by Mendoza, Rubio and a group of about 10 key grape growers.
Rubio and Miss Fetalvero said in a sworn statement to the Labor Department that those attending the session included John Giumarra Sr., and John, Gui- marra Jr., treasurer and general counsel respectively of Giumarra Vineyards, the prime target of the AFL-CIO strike-boycott.
Others at the meeting included Jack Pandol, another grower, and representa- tives of the Di Giorgio Corp., which is one of the few companies under contract to the Chavez farm workers' union.
The meeting was called to "outline activities of AWFWA," Rubio and Miss Fetalvero said, adding :
"We were to tell workers not to be afraid of Chavez, to be united, and we would support and protect workers and oppose (AFL-CIO) efforts to organize and boycott."
He and Mendoza were offered $120 a week to start opposing Chavez, Rubio said, but that money, along with other sums, was paid to AWFWA through an- other organization to be called MADRA, the Mexican-American Democrats for Republican Action.
Records of the operation were kept by a "one-man public relations operation," said the union attorney, referring to Donald Gazzanlga, head of Public Research Institute, which is itself a part of a firm known as California Editors Publish- ing Co.
Gazzaniga recently published a booklet, "California's Number One Industry Under Attack," defending grape growers' opposition to unionization of their workers.
PAID SALARIES
It was distributed by the National Right to Work Committee.
Gazzaniga paid the salaries to Mendoza and Rubio under the cover that they were researchers for (his publication)," Rubio said.
The document filed with the Labor Department then listed dozens of cheeks ranging up to $500 which were allegedly used by AWFWA after they came through the Mexican-American Democrats for Republican Action.
John Giumarra Jr., reached by phone in Rochester, N.Y. where he was making a speech, said "the allegations that we gave money to Mendoza are not true and we will fight it in court."
He said Rubio had once supported the union then joined AWFWA to fight the union, "and now seems to have switched again. None of their legal actions have been upheld in court, and this will not either."
[From the San Frajicisco Chronicle, Mar. 4, 1969]
Federal Report : Big Growers' Secret Anti-Union Organization /
(By Dick Meister)
Government reports dsclosed here yesterday that some of the State's largest growers secretly operated what they disguised as a workers' organization to try to undermine California's farm union organizers.
588
The organization— still in existence but virtually inoperable since the Govern- ment demanded the reports that disclosed its true nature — is called the Agricul- tural Workers Freedom to Work Association (AWFWA).
Since last July, the association's general secretary, Jose Mendoza, has spoken at legislative hearings and elsewhere saying he represented a large group of farm workers who are opposed to unionization.
Mendoza, who recently left the association to carry on similar activities with the "Right to AVork Committee," repeatedly denied the association had anything to do with growers.
But Gilbert Rubio, the president of the association, and Shirley Fetalvero, the secretary-treasurer, described it far differently in the Government reports.
The reports, required of labor and management groups under the Landrum- Griffin Act, finally were submitted at least eight months late — to the OflSce of Labor Management and Welfare Pension Reports here on February 22.
They said the association "was an outgrowth of an untitled group led by the growers which hired Jose Mendoza and Gilbert Rubio" and made them the chief oflBcers of the association.
It got started, they said, at a meeting in Bakersfield last May, attended by Rubio, Mendoza and the owners and managers of several of the area's larger vineyards.
Among those present, said the reports, were growers John Giummara Jr., John Giummara Sr. and Jack Pandol ; Robert Flores, personnel manager of the Di- Giorgio Fruit Corporation, and a foreman, Paul Marrufo, for the Sabovich Bros, vineyard.
AGAINST
The reports said the meeting was called to outline the association's activities against the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC) and its efforts, under Cesar Chavez, to organize vineyard workers.
"Several meetings involving many persons were held," said the reports, "but only John Giummarra Jr., Robert Sabovich and Jack Pandol gave orders to Mendoza and AWFWA."
Among other things, the orders told the association to carry out in the name of farm workers such acts as :
"Halt counter-picket and try to drown out NFWOC pickets . . . get information on all NFWOC planned activities to take action to halt or disrupt them."
"To keep track of all people associated with the helping UFWOC, using friends, papers and taking pictures of people in and around UFWOC headquarters."
"Picket advertisers of Catholic Register, which supported Chavez and UFWOC until John Giummarra Jr. told us to stop."
"Hold picnics for mass of agricultural workers giving free food, beer and music and raffles to get them to listen to speeches against Chavez and UFWOC."
The reports said the aim was "to get headlines" and TV coverage for state- ments that the organizing committee's strike against the growers, and its related grape boycott, were designed to force unions on the workers.
[From the Fresno Bee, Mar. 3, 1969]
Anti-UFWOC Group Is Called Right-Wing Unit
Los Angeles. — The formation and subsequent activities of the Agricultural Workers Freedom To AVork Association (AAA^FAVA) today were linked to south- ern San Joaquin Valley growers and the "right wing."
The tie-up i.s reported in a letter from officers of AWFWA to the U.S. Depart- ment of Labor and verbally by a member of the association who declined to be identified.
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee attorney Jerry Cohen scheduled a press conference here today to release the AAA^FAA^A letter. Cohen claims AWFAVA was established deliberately as a "company union" to further what he calls the growers' anti-labor aims.
Cohen said that later this week he will amend an UFAVOC suit against the AWFWA which accuses the latter of being a company union. He said the amend-
589
ment will contain a long list of names of growers who contributed financially to the AWFWA.
While the AWFWA report to the Labor Department, filed in compliance with Labor Department regulations, is the key to Cohen's presentation, his allega- tions are supported by an independent check with a member of the AWFWA. This AWFWA member said the organization was founded "on the labor issue, but within a month we found we were part of the red guard and the main issue was the right to work."
This member said the AWFWA was started to give farm workers a voice in the battle between the UFWOC and the growers. The member then said : "But we found that we were fair game for anybody. We thought AWFWA was our organization, then we found we were a front."
Cohen, in an interview before the press conference said he plans to show that some Giumarra Rahch officials helped form the AWFWA and provided office space, telephones and gasoline for cars.
Cohen said that an organization called Mexican-American Democrats for Republican Action was used to funnel money to AWFWA.
The money the lawyer asserted was used to finance AWFWA rallies, picket lines and to pay for AWFWA Director Jose Mendoza's speaking trips. Later, the continued Californians For Right To Work, an organization which has as one of its five directors Jack Fandol, a Delano grower, began to finance Mendoza's speaking tours.
It is Cohen's contention the AWFWA was formed by growers and that Men- doza was hired at $120 a week to direct the operations.
Mendoza has since withdrawn from AWFWA and now is traveling widely and talking, as a grape worker, in the right-to-work cause.
Cohen said right-wingers, including the John Birch Society, have been involved in anti-UFWOC and anti-Chavez work. He said that in Cleveland a dial-a-number telephone provides a recorded voice that claims Sirhan Sirhan was a member of the UFWOC.
The unidentified member of AWFWA also said right-winger influence has moved in and dominated the AWFWA's actions. By California Law. according to Cohen prohibits a company union that is formed by and financed by a company in opposition to union activity.
Senator Mondale, Thank you, Mrs. Huerta, for your excellent testimony.
Senator Cranston?
Senator Cranston. I would like, ag;ain, to thank you very much for bein<j here, and for your very valuable testimony.
You referred at one point to grapes being served three times a day to our forces in Vietnam. Do you have information that they are actually being served morning, noon, and night in Vietnam?
Mrs. Hferta. This is what we have received from the sons of people who are on strike. Also, some of the soldiers at Fort Dix called our boycott office in New York City to tell them they had grapes coming out of their ears, and thev felt the grapes were being given them to help break the boycott. These were soldiers themselves who called our office to complain.
Senator Cranston. You mentioned a detention camp somewhere in California Avhere you stated that illegal entrants were taken out to be used as pickers.
Could vou give a little bit more detail ?
Mrs. Huerta. That camp is located near Coachella. There has been an expose on that, but it is still continued. They pick up the illegal workers, hold them in a detention camp, and growers go over there and pick them up for work.
Senator Cranston. They take them back each night to the camp ?
Mrs. Huerta. Yes.
Senator Cranston. How many are in the camp ?
590
Mrs. HuERTA. I can't tell you just how many now. The harvest is ending this week. It changes from time to time.
Senator Cr.\nston. They hold them there until the season is over, and then deport them back to Mexico?
Mrs. HuERTA. Eight.
Senator Cranston. On the acts of violence at your office and else- where, have you filed formal complaints with law-enforcement officials following those acts ?
Mrs. HuERTA. Yes, we have. Once a series of fires were set in the offices, and I happened to be there, and we called the fire department. It took them quite a long time to get there. After they got there, they were more interested in looking through the papers on the desk than they were in looking for the arsonists. This is the normal pattern.
We have had instances — I will relate one specifically — where one of the strikers, Mr. Manuel Rivera, was beaten up by Mr. Jose Men- doza's friends. Even though the man was knocked unconscious after being beaten with 2-by-4 boards, even though a complaint was filed and the guilty party was in town, it took picketing the police station for a week to get the police to arrest the assailant.
Senator Cranston. Have you ever had what you consider a satis- factory response from the law-enforcement officials to whom you have complained ?
Mrs. HuERTA. No.
It took the police about 45 minutes to get to the office in one instance, and by that time the intruders had made off with money and records and had knocked out the guard. Our guards are not armed.
We asked the Justice Department to come in and investigate the actions of the Delano Police Department, but I couldn't tell you the results of that investigation.
Senator Cranston. You referred to State agencies taking various actions. What specific actions have been taken that would seem to express opposition to the boycott ?
Mrs. Huerta. A number of statements have been made about the boycott and about the pesticides. They claim that the union is making untrue statements about the pesticides used on grapes. Yet we know that many thousands of tons of DDT have been used in the Coachella Valley, and recently tested three grape growers' fields, and three out of three had DDT on the grapes.
The State department of agriculture has refused to give us the records, which are, of course, supposed to be public information. The State department of agriculture has also made statements that DDT is not really poisonous.
Senator Cranston. With regard to the acts of violence, has there been any formal investigation by the Federal or State Department of Justice ?
Mrs. HtTERTA. I don't think there has been, but I think there should be. I think there is a tremendous amount of coercion and intimidation by the reactionary growers in the Delano area, both of workers and of employers interested in negotiating. We know that this is true. I don't pretend to speak for the employers, but I say to you what they have said to us in the course of negotiations. I think that this should be investigated.
591
We know that in Palm Springs, when some growers had a meeting, some of the Delano growers, and the people from the California Grape & Tree Fruit League put tremendous pressure and threats on them to prevent them from negotiating a contract. We spoke to some of the growers after the meeting, and I saw that they were physically shaken up.
I think there should be an investigation of what is going on there. I think some of the growers have expressed that they are losing a lot of money ; they want to end the dispute. I think they should be free to do this, and they should not be pressured and coerced by anyone to keep them from doing this.
Senator Cranston. I know^ the record of the union under the lead- ership of Cesar Chavez and under your leadership has been totally nonviolent in its efforts to organize, and it seems to me that in this period when we have so much concern over the breaking of the law, that it is of great importance to have the law enforced fairly with regard to all people, and I will certainly do what I can to learn more about the violations of the law that are i^ored there.
Could you put into the record that Riverside Press Enterprise story concerning that camp ?
Mrs. HuERTA. I will do that.
(The article referred to follows :)
[From the Riverside (Calif.) Press Enterprise, Oct. 13, 1968] Labor Handling Issue Under Study
The state Division of Labor Lavp Enforcement says it will investigate the labor practices of Ramon Soto, of Thermal, to determine if he has been operat- ing as a labor contractor without a license.
Soto, while acknowledging that over the years he has "supplied quite a few farmers" with "quite a few workers." said he does not have a state license and does not need one because he is not a labor contractor.
According to the California Labor Code, a farm labor contractor, in general, is anyone who, for a fee, "recruits, solicits, supplies, or hires workers on behalf of an employer engaged in the growing or producing of farm products and who, for a fee, provides . . . one or more of the following services :
"Furnishes board, lodging or transportation for such workers."
In addition, a farm labor contractor is anyone who, for a fee, "transports by motor vehicle, workers to render personal services in connection with the production of any farm products . . . under the direction of a third person."
Robert Seitz, information officer for the Southeastern U.S. region of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said immigration officials have been under the impression that Soto is a labor contractor.
In fact, until recently Soto was one of only two employers recognized by immigration officials to take charge of certain illegal Mexican aliens who were allowed to work while awaiting to testify as material witnesses, Seitz said.
The Mexicans were caught being smuggled into the U.S. and are held by the government to testify in court against the smuggler. Under provisions of a U.S. District Court order, the "detained witnesses" are allowed to do farm work, if they choose, rather than wait in jail for the trial.
Kenneth Rosenberg, Imigration and Naturalization Service director for the Southern California District, during a recent interview, gave this account of how the court order was executed :
He said the witnesses, 602 during fiscal 1967, were turned over to the Southern California District. Because they are material witnesses, they are prisoners of the U.S. Marshal and ordinarily would be detained in the San Diego County jail. (That jail, with 274 prisoners, is overcrowded, according to Edwin Miller, U.S. Attorney for the district.)
Therefore, Rosienberg said, the witne.sses were taken to the immigration de- tention camp at El Centro. "Then we would call Mr. Soto and tell him we had 'X' numiber of prisoners and he would call for them, pick them up and take them out," Rosenberg said.
592
He said in some cases the employer picked up the witnesses and in some cases the Border Patrol delivered the witnesses.
Soto said the Border Patrol almost always delivers the witnesses to his house and he then transi>orts them to one of his labor camps. He said the farmers would pick the workers up at his camp in the morning and return them in the evening. Soto said he was employed by the Coachella Valley Farmers Association to gather the witnesses for it.s members. He said the association paid him for transporting, housing and feeding the workers.
He said while he was employed by the association he also supplied workers to farmers who did not belong to the association. "I supply (laborers) to anybody who wants them," Soto said.
He said that occasionally he would transport the workers to where they were to work during the day.
Soto claimed, however, that because he does not have a hand in the compen- sation paid to the laborers he is not a labor contractor.
Elton Gebhardt, president of the Coachella Valley Farmers Association, said that while Soto was working for the association to supply laborers, he also was working for at least one other independent farmer.
Ruth Spiers, a deputy commissioner in the Labor Law Enforcement Division headquarters office in San Francisco, said the investigation would be conducted by the division's San Bernardino regional office.
When the information on Soto's position was related to Miss Spiers by the Press-Enterprise, she said, "I think that might come under recruiting . . . under- stand that is not a definite 'Yes' . . . but it is very close to being a recruiter ... it is very possible he would need a license." She said the division would investigate. A non-profit association, such as the Coachella Valley Farmers Association, is exempt from having to have a labor contractor's license if it supplies labors only to its own members, Miss Spiers said.
She said a man could be hired as an employe of the association and then might not need a license. However, she said that if he had two or more employers at the same time the "chances are" that he would need a license.
It is a misdemeanor to operate as a farm labor contractor without a state license and, if convicted, it is punishable by six months in jail or a $500 fine or both.
A contract between Soto and the farmers association expired on Aug. 16 and was not renewed, G^ebhardt said.
According to Eldon W. Woolley, officer in charge of the Immigration and Natu- ralization subofflce in Calexico, Soto is now the agent for YK Ranch of Oasis. Woolley's office has directed government responsibility for the witnesses.
After claims were made by the California Rural Legal Assistance League, an anti-poverty legal agency, that the witnesses were being taken advantage of, Oongrepsman ,Tohn Tunney. D-Riverside and Imperial counties, asked the fed- eral departments of labor and justice to investigate.
Raymond Farrell, immigration commissioner, in August wrote to Tunney that changes were being made in the execution of the court order which allowed the witnesses to work.
"... I have concluded that our execution of the court order can be improved in several respects. The most imiportant change we are making is to remove the labor contractor from the picture and to deal directly with the employer . . .," Farrell said.
At that time only Soto and the association were authorized to take charge of the detained witnesses.
Regional and district immigration officials, however, insist that the changes were made "to tighten up procedure.s" and not because of any violations.
Under terms of the new agreement, Soto still is involved in the program as the agent for YK Ranch, of Oasis.
[Prom the Riverside (Calif.) Press-Enterprise, Oct. 13, 1968]
Number of Illegal Mexican Farmworkers Increasing
( By Ron Hosie )
Although the bracero farm-labor program expired in 1964, it appears certain that the number of Mexican aliens now working in the United States is greater than the number permitted the year before the program ended.
Rep. John Tunney, D-Riverside and Imperial counties, told the Press-Enterprise
593
he will request a full Congressional investigation when Congress convenes next session.
During the 1968 fiscal year, a federal Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman reported that 142,016 illegal Mexican aliens were apprehended in the 10-state Southwestern region of the United States alone.
During fiscal 1964, the last full year before Congress let the 13-year old bracero program expire, 181,738 Mexicans were permitted to enter the United States to work.
Kenneth Rosenberg, Immigration and Naturalization officer for the Southern California district, said during a recent interview that the number of illegal aliens caught represents only a "very, very small percentage" of the actual number.
More than two-thirds of the apprehended aliens were smuggled into the country and the number is growing "rapidly," according to the Immigration and Natural- ization Service's annual 1967 report.
However, according to Robert Seitz, public information oflBcer for the Service's southwest region, of "equal importance" is the growing number of Mexican aliens who enter this country legally as visitors and then "abandon their status" and become illegal by working.
Another significant problem is the number of Mexican citizens who obtain legal entry to the United States by declaring their intention to live here and become citizens, but who actually commute across the border daily to work in this country while continuing to live in Mexico.
Seitz said an official U.S. government count was made late last year and 40^176 "resident alien commuters" were recorded crossing the border.
The practice of the United States government is to return to Mexico most illegal aliens it apprehends without prosecuting them, he said. It is a misde- meanor charge when caught the first time and felony if caught again and a felony conviction could result in a $1,000 fine, a year in jail, or both.
The Coachella Valley chapter of the Mexican-American Political Association, in concert with two other organizations, has been working to focus public at- tention on the number of illegal aliens in the country.
Raul Loya, president of the Coachella Valley MAPA chapter, said recently that the federal government's policy of not prosecuting the illegal aliens and not prosecuting employers of illegal aliens has resulted in a de facto resumption of the bracero program.
He said the presence of thousands of illegal workers in this country deprives legal residents of work. He said that in California it seriously inhibits attempts to organize farm workers and forces legal migrant farm workers to rely on welfare.
A U.S. Senate subcommittee 1967 report on migrant labor said that although California farm workers are the highest paid in the nation, the migrant farm workers' earnings are "the lowest" of the nation's work force.
"The migrants' annual earnings were quite far below the $3,000 income level below which families are commonly considered to be living in poverty," the report said.
"The major reason for the low wages received by the farm workers is the weak- ness of their bargaining position," the report by a subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee said.
Loya said another government policy which is of concern to him is the practice of allowing apprehended aliens who are detained in this country as material witnesses to do farm work while waiting to testify in court against smugglers.
Information officer Seitz said that on Oct. 3 there were 190 "detained witnesses" working in agriculture under the permission of a 1966 U.S. District Court order.
He said all of the witnesses give their address as Thermal.
Last year, he said, 602 witnesses were detained and then allowed to work while awaiting trial. He said 91 fled and 176 went to court.
Until this summer, almost all of the witnesses were released into the custody of Roman Soto, of Thermal, who then supplied the workers to members of the Coachella Valley Farmers Association.
Southwest region and Southern California district immigration officials say that the witnesses were allowed to work only where they would not displace U.S. workers and only where there was not a labor dispute. The employer also was supposed to pay the going wage in the area for the work being done.
However, the California Rural Legal Assistance League, a federal anti- poverty legal agency, charged last July that the use of the detained workers was depressing job conditions for domestic laborers in the Coachella Valley.
594
James Lorenz, League attorney, forwarded the, charges to Congressman Tunney, who asked the federal departments of justice and labor to look into the matter.
The League was contacted by the Coachella Valley MAPA, Loya said.
Southern California district immigration officer Rosenberg said no violations of law were uncovered. Nevertheless, some Changes in the execution of the court order were implemented.
Raymond Farrell, commissioner of immigration, said in a letter received by Tunney on Aug. 19 :
"Tlie most important change we are making is to eliminate the labor con- tractor from the picture and to de^al directly with the employer, pursuant to an agreement which will include safeguards protecting the employes and guard- ing against any adverse effect to American labor."
Asked to elaborate. Michael Fargione, deputy regional commissioner of immi- gration for the Southwest region, said recently that the changes were made to allow the government "tighter control" of the program and not because of Wolations.
He said charges had been made that the witnesses were being used during the recent grape strike in the Coachella Valley. Because the witnesses were in the charge of a labor contractor, and not a specific employer, the government did not know exactly where the witnesses were working, he said.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service -has approved three employers under the new agreement. They are the Coachella Valley Farmers Association, Yeji Kitagawa, for the YK Ranch as Oasis (with Ramon Soto as the agent), and Jack Hubbard, of Santa Ana.
The Coachella Valley Farmers Association has registered three agents who take charge of the witnesses and feed, house and transport them for a fee.
According to Eldon W. Woolley, officer in charge, the Immigration and Naturalization sub-office at Calexieo, the agents are Ed Zazueta, the Upland Lemon Growers Association and the California Date Growers Association, of Indio.
Attorney Lorenz, contacted by phone at his San Francisco office, said he believed the legal use of the detained witnesses is violating the intent Congress had when it terminated the bracero program.
In addition, he said he has taken sworn testimony from workers who claim they are under-paid and overcharged for room and board by some employers. He said the testimony also indicates the witnesses are displacing some domestic workers.
The bracero program, Public Law 78, was originally enacted in 1961 as a temporary, two-year program but was extended at intervals until Congress decided to let the law expire on Dec. 31, 1964.
Proponents of the system argued it was the only economical way to allow farmers to obtain large numbers of workers during the relatively short harvest times.
In fiscal 1959 there were 447,535 braceros admitted into the United States. The lumber declined each subsequent year until the program ended. In 1961 there were 294,000 ; in 1963 there were 195,000 and in fiscal 1965, for which the program was legal for only one-half year, there were 103.500.
Opponents of the program, including Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz, argued that the domestic labor force was large enough to accommodate the needs of agriculture and the use of foreign workers displaced domestic workers.
According to the 1967 U.S. Senate subcommittee report, after "a difficult transition period" in 1965 in California, the state which had used the most foreign workers, net farm income "rebounded" in 1966 to the $1 billion level of 1964.
During 1967, California's total agricultural production was valued at $3.88 billion, a decrease of $8 million from 1966.
However, Bill Geyer, consultant to the California Assembly Agricuture Com- mittee, contacted in his Sacramento office by phone, said a not-yet-released com- mittee report on state farm labor tends to confirm the common belief that the lot of the farm woi-ker needs to be improved.
The reix)rt has been in preparation since 1964 and is expected to be published in early 1969, he said.
Immigration official Rosenberg said he believed the only way to curtail the problem of illegal aliens is to enact a law which requires that two different social security cards be distributed by the federal government.
Each should be a different color, he said. One would be for people eligible for farm work and the other for people who are not eligible.
595
In addition, he said, growers should then be fined $1,000 for each illegal alien he employs.
Selected Riverside County farmers said workers are asked for social security cards and if one is produced the worker, if qualified, is generally hired.
Rosenberg said he believes that because employers are not required to check the legality of their workers, they do not. He said this allows the illegal aliens to get work and encourages them to return to the United States.
"When you hit them in the pocket then you're going to wipe this out. . . nothing else will wipe it out," he said.
Edwin Miller, of San Diego, is the U.S. Attorney for the Southern California EKstrict, and is responsible for prosecuting the illegal aliens caught in his district. The individual cases are referred to his ofiice, generally with recommendations, from the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
He said his ofiice concentrates on prosecuting the smugglers and the "most aggravated" illegal alien cases where the alien has been caught for the second or third time.
Miller said there are only two fulltime district judges, there are never more than four courtrooms available at any one time and the eases sometimes take a day or two. "So, sure, we have a backlog," he said in a recent interview.
Information oflBcer Seitz said it would "impose staggering costs" to prosecute all the apprehended aliens.
According to the 1957 Immigration and Naturalization report, there were 3,610 prosecutions throughout the country for immigration and nationally law viola- tions, with 692 cases pending.
The report said there were 3,362 convictions including 487 for illegal entry, 1.610 for illegal reentry of a deported alien and 322 for bringing into the country or harboring an alien.
Congressman Tunney said he believed that a "big problem" is the number of people who come into this country legally on 72-hours visitor passes and then remain to \^ ork.
Since there were some 142.000 illegal Mexican aliens caught in the Southwestern region and during fiscal 1968, 112,000 gained entrance to the country illegally, according to Seitz, the statistics indicate 30,000 of those caught entered the country legally, then became illegal by going to work.
Tunney said that farmers were "specifically exempted" by legislation in the early 19.509 from having to determine if a worker could legally work before the farmer could employ the worker.
He said the exemption was "obviously placed in the law by Southern, Mid- western and Western farmers and other employers who did not want to b^ bothered with checking ..."
He termed the provision "extraordinary."
When Congress convenes next .session, he said he would ask Emanuel Celler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an investgation. He said he also would ask Sen. Edward Kennedy, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to get that body involved in the investigation.
Mrs. HiTERTA. I don't think any studies are going to do any good. There is a whole history of studies, and about the efforts that have been taken to break unions. We could look at the history of the last 4 years. If I were to tell you of every incident we would be here all day. I think action is needed at this point. I don't think any studies are going to do any good. I think positive action has to be taken to give the union protection, and also the employers who are willing to negotiate.
Senator Cr.\nston. Have you made any formal request to the U.S. Department of Justice to look into violations of law involving your group ?
Mrs. HuERTA. Yes. We have called, I guess, on every governmental agency that exists at one point or another. We have been ignored or absolutely turned down by all of them.
Senator Cranston. Have you submitted a written request to the Department of Justice ?
596
Mrs HuERTA. They did make some kind of investigation about a year and a half ago.
If nothing is going to be done about it, if there is going to be an mvestigation and nothing done, I say to the Government, stay in Washington, save your money.
They come out and shake their heads and say, "This is too bad," and they do nothing about it.
We don't need investigations. We need some action. This is what we need.
Senator Cranston. Could you furnish us with the dates of any requests, whether written or otherwise, to local, State, or Federal law enforcement officials, requesting enforcement of' the law and requesting investigations of violations that related to violence directed at the union ?
Mrs. HuERTA. Yes, we could do this about past requests. I would like to make a formal request to the committee that the recent allega- tions of violence be investigated. There is some reason why smoke^is being worked up about violence, when there isn't any violence being committed. There is some reason that their new group, the Consumer Rights Committee is putting out leaflets and pamphlets, saying there IS violence committed in chain stores, which isn't true. We would like to ask the committee to immediately investigate this before some vio- lence occurs and the union is blamed for it.
If we look at the history of labor relations, when the union is near success, some act of violence has been committed and blamed on the union.
I would like to request the committee to request the Department of Justice to investigate this.
Senator Cranston. There is great and proper concern in the De- partrnent of Justice concerning violence in America. I think you should submit a formal request to them in writing.
Mrs. HuERTA. Could the committee do the same ?
Senator Cranston. Could you furnish a copy of what you submit ?
Mrs. Huerta. Could the committee do the same ?
Senator Cranston. Thank you very much.
Senator Mondale. Senator Murphy ?
Senator Murphy. Mrs. Huerta, how many years have you been interested in labor activities in California ?
Mrs. Huerta. I guess all of my life. Senator Murphy. My father was a migrant worker. I worked as a young child. My mother had a small business, a small hotel in Stockton, Calif., which housed farm- workers. They paid a dollar a room. I was fed and clothed and edu- cated by farmworkers.
My actual interest, my activity began in 1955, when I joined the Community Service Organization, and we were doing voter regis- tration at that time.
Senator Murphy. May I interrupt for a minute ?
At that time, was Mr. Chavez part of that community organization ?
Mrs. Huerta. Yes, he was.
Senator Mttrphy. You have been associated with Mr. Chavez for how many years?
Mrs. Huerta. I joined the Community Service Organization in 1955, and I met him once, but I didn't know him well. I really didn't
597
know Cesar well until 1959, after I had been in the organization for about 4 years.
Senator Murphy. How long has the alleged strike been in progress.
Mrs. HuERTA. One of the people sitting in this room, a World War II veteran sitting in the room, has been on strike for 4 years since September 8, 1965. That's when the strike began.
Senator Murphy. There were two unions, there was AWFWA. I can remember very well, because once I went up to the valley and I was picketed before I got there. The pickets were arranged. I never knew quite why, and I was berated by one of the union leaders whose record of organization, I assure you, is not as good as mine.
You mention the terrific cost in connection with conducting this boy- cott. I can well imagine that it is high. Who stands that cost?
Mrs. HuERTA. Senator, most of our financing comes from contribu- tions.
Senator Murphy. Who contributes ?
Mrs. HuERTA. We receive a contribution from the AFL-CIO, and from the Auto Workers
Senator Murphy. Can you tell me roughly how much the Auto Workers contributed
Mrs. HuERTA. I don't have those figures at my disposal, but I will tell you what I know. They are giving us $5,000 a month, and the AFL-CIO gives us $10,000 a month. AVe pass the hat. That is the way we raise our money. The food is brought in, the clothes that we wear are also donated.
Senator Murphy. Earlier, you said you spoke for the farmworkers. Do you believe that you represent all the farmworkers, or a majority of them, or a minority of them ?
Mrs. HuERTA. Senator, the position I hold is an elected position. I was elected as a vice president at our convention, at which 900 farm- workers were present. I believe we do represent the farmworkers.
Senator Murphy. May I ask you another question : Of the 900 that were present, when did that take place ?.
Mrs. HuERTA. The last convention we had was in 1965, just before the strike.
Senator Murphy. In other words, you haven't held a convention since 1965.
Mrs. HuERTA. We haven't been able to. Senator. We have people scattered all over the country.
Senator Murphy. Are you getting help in each city from local unions in conducting your boycott ?
Mrs. Huerta. Yes. We go to the churches, the labor unions, and col- leges. We get help from everyone.
Senator Murphy. There has been, of course, a great difference of opinion as to the actual rates of pay for grape workers. I have seen some figures. For instance, let me say, when you testified before the committee in 1965, or 1966, there were great discrepancies between some of your testimony and fact.
You mentioned the Burns report. I will say for the record so that the committer will know what it is. That is Senate Factfinding Sub- committee on Un-American Activities of the California State Senate, headed up by Hugh Burns, who was the chairman of the committee and a Democratic leader, is that right?
598
Senator Saxbe. He was.
Senator Murphy. That report has been, as you said, widely dis- seminated. I read the report with a great deal of interest and suggest it for others.
In stories lately, there seem to be differences in figures on pay rates and working conditions, that just don't go together. I have watched this situation closely because I, as you know, have been terribly in- terested in this.
Mrs. HuERTA. Senator, I can give you the actual history of the wages in the Delano area.
At the time of tlie strike in 1965, wages being paid were $1 an hour, with 10 cents a box bonus for the grapes. Our union demands at that time were $1.40 an hour and union recognition.
About 2 months after the strike started, the wages went up to $1.25 an hour and 10 cents a box, in January — let me finish.
Senator Murphy. Which vineyards were on strike?
Mrs. HuERTA. It was a general strike.
Senator Murphy. If you will forgive me. You will recall that I was there, and I was handed a list of vineyards that were on strike. I checked with the California Labor Commission, and I picked out at random, I think, six or seven or these vineyards. The commission had had no notice, or no knowledge of those vineyards being on strike.
Mrs. HuERTA. I can explain that. Senator.
Senator Murphy. Just let me finish. That information was on a flyer that had been given to me by Steve Allen. It also said 4,500 workers were on strike. I found no evidence of that.
As a matter of fact, the committee found a couple of areas where there were pickets, and there had been no pickets there 2 days before,, or 2 days after we left.
In other words, I wondered if maybe there hadn't been a bit of window dressing for our visit.
Mrs. HuERTA. What happens, the department of employment is the agency that had the responsibility for certifying the strikes. Senator Murphy, there were probably more than 4,500 people that went out on strike.
Let me tell you why you didn't find any evidence. Because the de- partment of employment refused to interview the people who were on strike. We would have crews of people, hundreds of people waiting for them to interview, and they would interview one or two workers, and that took them as long as 4 hours.
We had to keej) the picket lines going, and we gave up, because the interviews were taking all our time. This is why you didn't find any evidence, because there was a deliberate effort to hide the evidence.
Senator Mtjrphy. We toured the whole area, talked to many peo- ple, and we could not find any evidence of a strike.
Mrs. Huerta. You didn't come and talk with us, the strikers. You may have talked with the growers, but you didn't talk with the strikers.
Senator Murphy. We talked to the strikers. We talked to the heads of the union. We went to the Cesar Chavez home.
Mrs. Huerta. Then you can't say you found no evidence of strikers, if you went to the hall. The people were there.
Senator Murphy. I never saw 4,500 strikers.
599
Mrs. HuERTA. Many of them had to find jobs. They have to eat. If you want to close your eyes, it is very easy to do.
Senator Murphy. Don't scold me. I won't jjennit that. I am a U.S. Senator.
I have been interested in labor unions longer than you have, and I have a more successful record in helping form unions. What I am trying to do is point out that unless we can get the true facts in these matters, it is going to be terribly difficult to pass the appropriate legislation.
You have made accusations about a lot of people. I was interested in Senator Cranston's question on whether you had asked the Depart- ment of Justice to step in.
I think the Department should stej) in. I do not think it is the business of this committee to ask them. It is the business of your union.
May I ask another thing: How long ago was your union formed?
Mrs. HuERTA. We started organizing in 1952.
Senator Murphy. I want to know when was the miion formed, not when you started organizing.
Mrs. HuTCRTA. For the National Farm Workers Association, I think it was August 16, 1962- — when w^e had our convention. That is the organizational convention at which the workers voted to start the organization ; voted the name and the program of the organiza- tion. Then we had a constitutional convention to adopt a constitution of the National Farm Workers Association in January of 1963.
Now, the Agricaltural Workers Organize the Committee, the AFL- CIO, with which NFWA is merged, began its activities in California in 1959.
Senator Murphy. When did you merge?
Mrs. HuERTA. We merged in 1966.
Senator Murphy. In other words, you merged after the Senate committee, of which 1 was a member, conducted hearings in the valley.
Mrs. HuERTA. Yes.
Senator Murphy. In other words, at that time, there were two unions in contention.
Mrs. HuERTA. That is true.
Senator Murphy. It wasn't one union.
Mrs. HuERTA. There were two unions, but we were picketing together, eating together, and working together.
Senator Murphy. I see.
I have a series of other questions, but unfortunately, I have to go to the floor, and I assume that you will probably be back as a witness.
How many times have you been a witness before congressional committees ?
Mrs. HuERTA. Before this particular committee?
Senator Murphy. No, just generally. You have been here quite often, haven't you?
Mrs. HuERTA. I think the first time I testified, Senator Murphy, was way back in 1960 on the bracero program.
Senator Murphy. You mention, incidentally, the fact that there is no control of the health conditions of the grape workers.
600
That condition used to pertain in the bracero program, did it not?
Mrs. HuERiA. I didn't hear you.
Senator Murphy. They used to have health examinations under Public Law 76.
Mrs. HuERTA. Public Law 78.
Senator Murphy. Yes, Public Law 78. They don't have that any more?
Mrs. HuERTA, No. There is no examination for the people who have the green cards. They work in the United States a couple of months and go back to Mexico, and they don't take any kind of health examination when they come back to the country.
Senator Murphy. I thank you very much. That is a most compli- cated problem, as you know. I don't know whether or not you have read the labor law that I proposed, that I have sent into the Agri- culture Committee which will come back to this committee and the full committee, but if you haven't, I wish you would.
Mrs. HuERTA. I have. Senator, and I am afraid it doesn't do very much for the union.
Senator Murphy. It provides for unions
Mrs. HuERTA. It provides for unions without any kind of bargain- ing power.
Senator Murphy. That is not true. I think I can guarantee the miion's bargaining power. I am a pretty good bargainer on occasion.
Mrs. HuERTA. We happen to disagree with you. Senator. Sorry.
Senator Murphy. I may submit further questions at a later date. I have to go over to the Chamber.
It was nice to see you. You have done your usual professional job. You are one of the best witnesses an organization can have.
Mrs, HuERTA. We get more experience every year.
Senator Mondale. Senator Hughes?
Senator Hughes. Mrs. Huerta, I was listening with a great deal of interest to your testimony about law enforcement and the problems you have encountered. I wasnt here at the beginning of your testi- mony, but I would simply like to support Senator Cranston's request. If you have documentation in your files of dates and times and the nature of your requests for investigations, I think it might be helpful to the committee. Also, if ^^ou have in your records, the indications of the response that you received and what actually took place.
I am certainly going to request the committee chairman to follow through on your information and respond, whether it is to the county sheriff's office or the State attorney general's office, of the Federal De- partment of Justice, and how they followed through on them and what they found.
I am sure it is obvious that you feel there is lack of law enforce- ment, or certainly dual standards of law enforcement involved here that you are concerned about.
I think this would be very helpful to the committee in being able to determine the nature of harassment that you feel has taken place, and legal responses to the growers on a more or less bipartisan basis, rather than a fair basis to all the people involved.
I would like to forgo questions until a later time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cranston (presiding pro tempore). Thank you.
Senator Saxbe?
601
Senator Saxbe. No questions.
Senator Cranston. Senator Schweiker, do you have any questions ?
Senator Schweiker. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cranston. Thank you very, very much for your very help- ful testimony.
Senator Mondale (presiding). Mrs. Huerta, you made a comment during your testimony about discrimination in hiring practices by cer- tain growers. As I recall from my visit to Delano and elsewhere, I heard complaints that Mexican and black workers often found it diffi- cult to get jobs such as truck drivers, tractor drivers, and some of the cleaner and better paying jobs, for those were jobs reserved for whites.
Could you comment on this, and if you have evidence of particular growers who you think resort to such discriminatory practices, would you make reference to that?
Mrs. Huerta. Senator, it is a question that they never will hire any of the workers who do stoop labor for these jobs, or any of the super- visor jobs.
Senator Mondale. Is that rather standard with nonunion growers?
Mrs. Huerta. Yes, in our union contract, of course, we have the seniority clause, and the people w^ho have the highest seniority come into those jobs if they have the qualifications to perform the jobs.
The plight of the black farmworkers is worst of all. Many growers won't hire black people.
Bakersfield has a high black population. Many of the black workers were cottonpickers. The picking machines threw them out of work, and they have never been able to break into the table grape work.
tlack Pandol, who is a customer of the Department of Defense, has never hired black grape pickers. I think this is something the Government should come into. How can they buy grapes from employ- ers who discriminate in hiring, when we have an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a Federal law in the country that says employers cannot discriminate.
One of the reasons we have to insist on a hiring hall in our con- tract is to break the discrimination pattern.
Senator Mondale. There is a Federal Executive order which pro- hibits the Defense Department, or any other agency, from doing busi- ness with a firm that discriminates.
Do you recall instances in which the Defense Department or other agencies are buying grapes from these growers, that allegedly dis- criminate ?
Mrs. Huerta. Very definitely. In fact, most of the growers they have purchased grapes from fall into this category. The discrimination is so widespread that it is almost taken for granted. That is just the way that it is.
Senator Mondale. Do you recall instances in which the Defense Department has refused to buy grapes from growers because they discriminate?
Mrs. Huerta. No; I don't know of any that the Department of Defense has refused to buy grapes.
Senator Mondale. I have a letter here, and we have several others like it. but this comes from Mr. and Mrs. Oscar Reyna, from Arvin, Calif. It reads :
602
Dear Sir, I am a labor worker. We have a son who came from Vietnam. We protest that the Department of Defense is buying grapes to send them to military- men in Vietnam. How can the Government be sincere in fighting the war on poverty when we are trying to get social justice in the fields, and the U.S. Government is buying up scab grapes that the growers cannot sell? Why is the U.S. Government trying to break the grape boycott which millions of men are supporting? What can we do to stop the Defense Department to buy table grapes ?
Have you heard this type of comment from other grape workers?
Mrs. HuERTA. Yes. We have received a tremendous amount of cor- respondence in our offices from the farmworkers who have sons in Vietnam, protesting the purchase of grapes.
Senator Mondale. You have heard this comment from other grape workers ?
Mrs. HuERTA. Yes.
Senator Mondale. I w^ould ask the staff to go through these letters and telegrams that we have received and perhaps put some of the letters in the record.
(The information referred to follows :)
Arvin, Calif., July 11, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, Ch airman, Senate Subcomtnittee on Migrator Labor
Dear Sib : I'm a labor worker. We have a son who came from Viet Nam. We protest to the Department of Defense the buying of grapes to send them to military men in Viet Nam. This should not occur without the approval of President Nixon.
How can the government be sincere in fighting a war on poverty, while we are trying nonviolent efforts to gain social justice in the fields? The U.S. Government is buying up scab grapes that the growers cannot sell.
Why is U.S. Government trying to break the grape boycott which millions of tax paying Americans are supporting?
What can we do to stop the Defense Department from buying table grapes? Yours truly,
Mr. and Mrs. Oscar Reyna-
Senator Walter Mondale: I'm writing this letter to you, hoping that you will help and advise me on what to do.
First I want to tell you that I am a housewife, farmworker, volunteer .social worker, in my community (no pay) there are many farmworkers who do not speak or write Engli.sh, and they seek my help. I always help when I can.
I am also a mother of five — two of my sons have been in the armed services in Vietnam, defending our coiintry, my youngest is still in the Navy.
I want to tell you, how I feel about the Defense Dept. It's unthinkable, but true, that they (Defense Dept.) took my sons, while on the other hand buys the grapes of the growers to send to our sons. Thus help the grape growers get rid of their grapes which we are boycotting in order to gain signed contracts with this growers, we want a union to represent us, we want unemployment Insurance, we want the same rights all Americans should have, we the farm- workers are looked doivn upon without respect, there are no laws to protect us, what few we have are not ours to benefit by, because these men that call themselves our bos.ses are free to break all the laws, like our child Labor laws. I see daily children 12 or 13 years old working O'Ut in the fields, they work 10 hours a day doing a man's job. I know that is against the law. yet tlie farmers ignore it, all they are interested in is getting their work done, even on a school day.
We are exploited daily out of our hard earned money, by labor contractors and some farnier.4 who still refu.se to pay the nunimum wage for women.
I have attended many hearings conducted by the Representatives from Wash- ington, and all we've gotten so far are promises, which are forgotten as soon as they go back to Washington.
On .luly 9 I attended a hearing by Mr. Harding Secretary of Agriculture. I spoke of our problems at this hearing, as did several farmworkers, and he prom-
603
ised to do everything in his power to help us, but he spoke to newsmen in a press release where he stated that he is in favor of Sen. Murphy's proposal for farm- workers.
We know that Sen. Murphy is helping the farmers with this proposal, not the farmworkers, he wants to ban all strike and Boycotts, which are the only weapons we have to tight the injustice done to us by this rich farmers who still get millions of tax money on subsidy's by the Dept. of Agriculture and this same growers are humiliating the farmworkers because during winter this poor people are forced to dei)end on the Welfare Dept. to survive and feed their children.
In closing I want to ask your forgiveness, but I don't very often get to ex- press what is on my mind.
Thanking you for all you can do for us. Sincerely,
Jessie De La Cruz.
Pablier, Calif.
July 14, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, Senate Suhcommitee on Migratory Lalxyr, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Mondale : In regard to your public hearing on July 15 and 16 on the farm workers and their problems to organize. I would like to bring about an important fact. The Department of Defense is helping to complicate their problems, of the farmworkers, with its increased buying of grapes.
I was in the service four years from 1961 until 1966. I served in the Far East 15 months of this time. I, nor any other soldier woke up in the morning with a craving for grapes.
The men in Vietnam are more interested in staying alive than worrying about grapes every day. I should think that a great many of them have a diet that consists mainly of C-rations. The American soldiers are in that country fighting to preserve freedom and the rights of men. If they knew that the Government was sending grapes to Vietnam, which indirectly was helping to deprive Ameri- can farm workers of their rights, the rights that they are dying for, perhaps the army would go on strike.
I am sure that you are an honest and just American citizen. I am also sure that since you are honest and just you will have to agree that the Power Struc- ture is selling the American public and its soldiers a "pig in a bag." If there has been an error on the Government's behalf. I suggest that they correct it. What they are doing is a mockery to Freedom and Equality. I'm sure Abraham Lincoln and many other of this country's great leaders of the past would turn over in their graves if they knew what problems America's poor are facing today.
Farmworkers also have sons in Vietnam. Sincerely,
Gregory Thompson,
157 N. 61sT Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19139.
The Christian Church of Northern California-Nevada,
Berkeley, Calif., July 1, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, U.S. Senate Office Build ing, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Mondale : I want to identify myself as a friend of the farm workers and a supporter of the current grape boycott being conducted by the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee. I have had a number of years involvement with the farm workers as they struggle for better conditions as part of the labor force of the United States. Naturally I am a tax payer, and since I want to address you on the subject of shipping an inordinate quantity of grapes to the armed forces in Viet Nam, I want to state that I have had three sons who have served in the United States armed forces My young nephew is in Viet Nam at present, as are many of the sons of close friends I would like to protest strongly what appears to me like an attempt on the part of the government to use this purchasing power to thwart the struggle of the farm workers. I am sure that our government under President Nixon is sincere in its efforts in fighting a war on poverty. Therefore, I feel it is very inconsistent to try to subvert the non-violent
604
effort of this group of workers who certainly qualify as victiflns of poverty by any of the standards our government has tried to establish.
I have recently been in communication with a large number of farm workers and they are dismayed to know that grapes are being fed to our own sons who are fighting in the Army. I am sure we cannot get the government to join the boycott, but is it too much to ask that the quantity of grapes bought from Cali- fornia growers not be increased at this time? In conclusion, I want to state that I know of your personal interest in the struggle of the UFOC and I appreciate this very much.
Thank you for the many things you are able to do to help expedite an early conclusion to this difficult and costly struggle. Sincerely,
Mrs. David L. Kratz,
Vice President.
Shakon, Mass., July 9, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Siiboommitfte on Migratory Lahor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Senator : I am a concerned citizen, taxpayer, and supporter of the grape boycott. / have a brother in the Navy. I am, irate about the sharp increase in Dept. of Defense grape buying, especially the shipments to Vietnam. None at this coud occur without the approval of President Nixon. How can the govern- ment be sincere about a war on poverty while it tries to subvert the non-violent efforts of farm workers to gain social justice in the fields by buying scab grapes that growers cannot sell in stores? It is an outrage for the farm workers to know that scab grapes arc being fed to their sons icho are fighting in the army. Don't plan on getting my support for the Democrats in '70 or '72 unless you give Nixon hell on this boycott issue. Peace,
Richard W. Cornish.
ViSALiA, Calif..
July 11, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
My Dear Senator Mondale : I among millions of other taxpayers support the efforts of farm workers to gain social ju.stice and I protest the shari> increase in the Department of Defense buying of grapes that farmers cannot sell because of the boycott. I doubt the sincerity of the government's War on Poverty when it continues to give HUGE cash subsidies to a few rich farmers and obstructs the attempts of the poor farm workers to improve working conditions and to gain a living wage. I am outraged that my tax money is being used to break the boy- cott. I am outraged that my son in the Army overseas is being offered scab grai>es to eat.
What can be done to stop this buying of table grapes by the Government and the Defen»se Department? Very truly yours,
Gladys M. Rich
Mrs. Charles K. Rich.
July 15. 1969. Senator W. Mondale,
Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Senator: As a citizen of the United States and member of the United States Armed Forces I am taking the advantage and the opportunity to ask you a few questions and how they could be accomplished.
Ii"'irst of all, Mr. Senator, before I go any further I am going to identify my- self— I am an Mexican American farm worker. I worked in the fields since I was a small boy. I picked grai>es and many other fruits, and as you probably know there is a big strike going around all California for all these growers. I sup-
605
ported the strikers most of the time since it has been in effect. But my problem is that I can't sui>i>ort them any longer since I am in the Army and seeing and observing all the grapes the government buys to give to his troops and to support the growers.
Here are some questions I like to ask.
Mr. Senator, could you tell me why?
1. The government i.s trying to break our strike.
2. The government buys all this grapes to feed all its troops when it knows exactly that there are lots of strikers or sons of strikers family.
3. Could you tell how : The government and defense department from buying all this products and hurting the strikers.
I've been in the Army 3 years and all this time when grai)es were in season the forces were the finst to i-eceive the .scab fruit, and of course all this time two of my farm worker sisters they have struggled trying to gain social justice and to win the strike.
Mr. Senator, I believe this is all I've got to ask you I am sure you got reasons and an.swers to our strike problem. Thank you. Sincerely yours,
A Farm Wokker and a Soldier,
Frank Saludado.
Hq. Co. U8AG, Ca/inp Roberts, California.
24 George St., Bangor, Maine,
Julv U, 1969. Senator "Waltb3i Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Mondale : I am writing concerning the buying of grapes by the Defense Department, which is a deplorable undercutting of the efforts of migra- tory workers in our Southwest to organize for legitimate collective bargaining. I have participated in boycott efforts here in Bangor, Maine, and have served in the Army. As a taxpayer, it api^ears that the administration is using my money to break a grape boycott which I support. The exploitation of migratory laborers has gone on long enough. I pray something concrete can be done to assist these workers to get a fair shake in our society. • Sincerely yours,
Robert B. Whitmore.
1808 Jefferson,
Pasco, Wash.,
July 14, 1969. Senator Waltek Mondale,
Chairmam,, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Sib: As an ex-migrant, ex-farm laborer, I support 100% the UFWOC boycott of Arizona and California table grapes and all their goals.
i protest our government's position as a strikebreaker in buying of scab grapes and their enormous increase of buying those table grapes to send overseas to our fighting men and others.
I am surprised that President Nixon permits this. Many of the sons of those farm workers are overseas fighting for our country, thus our government is using a son to break a strike and delaying what his family back home is desi)erately trying to do to be recognized for a change and treated a little better so as to upgrade his way of living.
So, as a taxpayer and supporter of the UFWOC, I demand our government stop being a strikebreaker and show us that the U.S. Government is representa- tive of all of the i^eople, not just the ones with power and influence. Respectfully yours,
ROSALIO Armijo.
606
United Farm Workers, Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO,
Philadelphia, Pa., July 11, 1969. Re Hearings on farmworkers. Senator Walter Mondale, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Building, Washington, D.C.
Sir : I am from Fresno, California. I have been a farmworker. My parents and my grand-parents and all my Aztec ancestors have been farm workers. I am at the present time working full-time with the Boycott of California grapes here in Philadelphia.
It seems as if the American public has made our cause their own personal cause. They are that concerned about cleaning this city of grapes. It's not the grapes so much as what they represent. Ironically enough, the one fruit mentioned in the Bible, is the fruit that today represents, hunger, cold, unemployment and poverty in general. However it also represents exploitation and the real existence of America's hardest working group. This Biblical fruit has again made the head- lines from the Bible to the "limelight" to expose the conditions that we Americans, we generosity personified humanitarians have allowed and ignored through the years. True to form "graiies" again are a blessing in disguise.
I want to thank you for the favorable position that you have taken regarding our strike and boycott. Thank goodness that we have leaders with minds of their own. However we do have those that are led by "$$$" Power and it is these who preach patriotism with one side of their face and destroy if with the other.
The farmworker has long been the greatest asset to the economy of this coun- try and yet when the harvest season is over, he is considered a nuisance, dead- weight, and a charity case. AVe are trying to overcome this image, we have come out of that dependent shell, that well of ignorance that we were en.slaved to. We want to help ourselves. For the past four years we have been forced to extremes, but we are willing to sacrifice and we will continue to do so in order to gain the resi^ect that we deserve. This is all we're trying to do. Why, then, does the govern- ment, who should by rights be giving us a hand, turn around anl sell us out to the growers by breaking our strike and trying to weaken our only weai>on, the boycott. I was born and raised in California. I am a voting citizen. I have a son in Vietnam and he certainly doesn't go out of his way to demand grapes. If the fellows in Vietnam demand anything it's probably milkshakes and straw- berry shortcake.
Instead of worrying about how much money the growers are losing with the boycott, the government should be worrying about the health of those men over- seas, when they feed them fresh fruits.
An analyses of grapes will show the amount of residue, DDT, that is still on the fruit when it is delivered to the stores to be sold to the public.
Is the government trying to kill our men in Vietnam wih economic jwisons if they don't get kiled by the enemy V Are there going to be special awards for those men that are systematically poisoned by an unconcerned go\^eirnment ? Don't you feel that our men deserve the best that America has to offer and not the garbage that America rejects?
I can understand my son being killed in battle, but when he gets poisoned by the same fruit that I am rejecting, and when I have to pay for this "damned" fruit with my taxes and add to my son's demi.se, I refu.se to understand, and I will see the rest of my sons in hell before I allow them to join the armed forces, I too will teach them to resist.
I don't sound like the old-time farmworker do I? Farmworkers will never be the isame again.
The spotlight is the "grapes" and the government is buying those grapes, so evi- dently the government wants to get into the act. AVe should brina; the government out into the spotlight. I hope that during the hearings, you will do. just this.
Viva la causa,
Hope Lopez, Philadelphia Boycott Coordinator.
607
Spirit Lake, Iowa,
July 11, 1969. Senator Waxter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Mondale: I am deeply concerned with the policy of the U.S. Government (particularly the Defense Dept. ) in carrying on Watant strike- breaking activities by increasing the purchases of fresh table grajpes from California.
Not only are these purchases an outright denial of the non-violent efforts of farmworkers to improve their lives and fight poverty here at home, but they are also a disgusting and demoralizing way of showing support to military men supposedly fighting for "freedom" in Vietnam. My brother is stationed in Viet- nam. It is difficult to write him telling of efforts here at home to upgrade human lives at the same time this coimtry's government, for whom he is fighting, is contradicting the very principles of justice that sent him over there.
I have been working with the grape boycott for almost a year now. I see many signs of victory for impoverished people from thousands who believe in the struggle of the farmworkers. The discouraging signs of defeat include the unwillingness of large Agribusinesis gluttons to share the abundance of the earth's products plus the U.S. Government's insistence to supjwrt these imfair labor practices.
I will continue my work with people and grocery store managers to see that the boycott works. But what can be done to stop the Government and Defense Dept. from buying up the table grapes that the average citizen has i>assed up? I would appreciate your consideration of this matter, particularly before the 15-16 July public hearings en Migratory Labor problems. Sincerely,
(Mrs.) Judy Dare.
Baton Rouge, La.,
July 14, 1969. Dear Senator Mondale : As a supporter of the grape boycott of the U.F.W.O.C., I wish to register my sharp protest at the buying by the Government of grapes from the struck growers. As a veteran of Vietnam, I would like to know who the hell over there is eating all those grapes. I think that the DoD increase in grape buying clearly points out Mr. Nixon as anti-labor. The sooner this govern- ment buying stops, the sooner this strike can be settled by peaceful negotiations. Sincerely,
J. Kevin Bishop. P.S. — I am sending a similar letter to my Senator, Rus.sell Long, of Louisiana.
Mission Hills, Calif.,
July 12, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Sxibcommittee on Migratory Labor, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator: As a former serviceman and now a supporter of the grape boycott, I demand tliat the Justice Department stop trying to break the strike with its immoral purchase of grapes.
This country should try to improve the living conditions of its people instead of iselling them into economic slavery.
I want to commend you for your efforts in behalf of the farm workers and urge you to use al.l powers available to help alleviate this terrible plight in our country.
Sincerely,
Ed Rose.
36-513 O - 70 - pt. 3A - 5
008
New Orleans, La.,
July 12, 1969. Senator Walter Monuaij:,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Buildiny, Washinyton, D.C.
Dear Senator Mondale : As a friend of the farm worker and as a supporter of the boycott of California g^rai>es, I am extremely concenied with the govern- ment's involvement with the grape growers. I presently have a cousin who is .serving in the U.S. Army in South Vietnam. He i.s also curious about the huge ship- ments of the boycotted graijes to Vietnam. Why is the existing government, which is sincere in fighting the War on Poverty, trying to subvert the non-violent efforts of farm workers to organize non-violently, by buying the grapes that growers cannot sell because of the boycott? Why has the Defense Department doubled its buying of scab table grapes in the last year? None of this could occur without the approva,! of President Nixon. AVhy is the government trying to break the graiye strike and the boycott by supporting the growers when millions of taxpaying Americans are supporting the boycott? And finally, what can be done to stop the government and the Defense Department from buying up the scab grapes?
I am anxiously awaiting the results of your Subcommittee's hearings concern- ing the migrant grai>e strikers on the 15th and 16th of July. Sincerely,
Nancy Jones.
Sun Valley Calif., July 8, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Subcom,mittec on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Mondale : I am writing to you in regard to the United States government's attempt to de.«troy the unionization movement in California agri- culture. My name is James Robert Hard. I am a United States veteran and a student at San Fernando Valley State College in California. I am a "grape boy- cott supporter" and have not eaten grapes in three years.
I am appalled to see our government, through the Department of Defense at- tempting to break the strike of the farmworkers, in California, by buying scab grapes. There can be no other explanation for the tremendous increase in table grape purchases by the Department of Defense. This government's delib- erate attempt to crush the aspirations of the disgracefully housed, ill cared for, and lowest paid workers in the United States only serves to clear away the illusion that this government Avants to do anything constructive for the poor of this nation.
The government sham program of small handouts and "food stamps" that some people are too poor to buy doesn't fool the poor. When a salary increase for the President and Congres.s is passed within a few days and hearings on "Migra*^ory Labor" are held literally for years, with little or no effective legislation pro- duced, the position of this government becomes crystal clear ^o the people fighting for justice in the fields and elsewhere. The only people that accept the rhetoric and stalling of . . . [some] . . . Senators are the well fed, overweight and oftentimes subsidized people that put thera in office.
Actually, I'm not sure why I'm writing this letter. You are well aware of the conditions under which the farm laborers, in the United States live. I am equally sure you know what the government is attempting in its purchasing of scab table grapes. I'm sure you know more than I about the inner working of the govern- ment and its agencies, about conglomerates in California food industry, illegal Mexican immigrants, subsidized water and svibsidized companies such as J. G. Boswell Co. ; in other words I'm sure you have a full understanding of the situa- tion in California and United States agriculture. Therefore, what I. as a citizen, am asking of you, is to take action.
I really don't expect any credible response or any response at all for that matter. However, it would be quite a surprise to hear that action is being taken — in behalf of the Farmworkers ! Sincerely,
James Robert Hard,
and 13 cosigners.
P.S. Some of my family and friends, who have the same sentiment have endorsed this letter.
609
July 12, 1969. Dear Senator Mondale: As a friend of the farm workers and a supporter of the grape boycott. I feel strongly for their just due.
It disturbed nie greatly to know the many efforts placed in the Boycott — as well as, the War on Poverty — were being met and challenged by the Defense Depart- ment's buying of scab grapes. Even this doubled in the last year !
As a teacher. I encourage students to support our fighting men. The many letters received proves the sincere and honest trust for basic rights. Is this to be done by only citizens and not by the very i>eople who should be the support and protection of the peoples? Why feed our fighting men from our fields of fighting for dignity and a living wage? Is the price of graiies more valuable th.nn lives? As you see, to educate in justice is a marked challenge. Please let me know what can be done to stop the Government and the Defense Department from buying up table grapes. Until this is done, we will be defeating the cau.ses for which we fight.
Sincerely,
Catherine Fay Popoczy,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Cutler, Calif., Jiily 1, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Hon. Walter Mondale : Our men in the Armed forces and their parents are not enemies of the Defense Department or of the United States, therefore the Defense Department is committing treason by buying "Scab Grapes" from farms where our workers are on strike ! !
Our soldiers are fighting an undecided war !, and our farm workers are fighting for decency, equal rights, and self-support ! !. They no longer want to deal with public assistance !. They are ashamed and hurt to the point where they will not permit the giant to step on their necks.
Democracy as a whole will move forward, therefore as concerned citizens and parents we will not vote for legislators whom are not doing justice to the true meaning of War-On-Poverty.
Please Honorable Walter Mondale, its outrageous for farm workers to know that our soldiers are being fed with "Scab Grapes", please alert the Defense Department not to buy those grapes.
God bless you and may you find the way to the heart of the rich and the poor, we will appreciate the good effort you make in this matter.
As true friend of all ijersonnel Government duties, I remain to you, Sincerely yours,
Elisa Aguilera.
Philadelphia, Pa., Jtily 8, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, Old Senate Office Building. Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator: It has come to my attention that your committee will soon be holding public hearings concerning farm workers and their attempts to organize.
One very important aspect of this problem which should be aired is the role of government. Too often in the past government at all levels has taken the side of the people with positions of power without concern for the justice of the situation.
The consistency with which government aligns itself with the monied interests adds increasing credence to the radicals claim that our government is a "demo- cratic sham" and should be overturned.
From what I have read and heard of the California grape workers' strike, it has; to this point held itself to democratic and nonviolent means of struggle. Some government bodies have upheld the rights of the strikers and some have even helped with the boycott. Yet others, such as Gov. Reagan and now the Defense Department, have come to the aid of the rich and unreasonable grai)e growers.
If we are to have democratic and nonviolent protests rather than violence and
610
rioting, we must have a government which will to some extent listen to the demands of justice. A start which your committee can make in this direction is to fully and publicly investigate and question the Defense Department's decision to greatly increase its purchase of grapes this year. Thank you,
Yours for a better America,
Glen F. Nixon.
The Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., July 10, 1969.
[Translation (Spanish)]
Senate Migratory Labor Subcommittee.
Dear Senator Mondale: My name is Gabino Hernandez, as a farm worker, member of the UFWOG, striker, sympathetic to the cause, one who supports the boycott. My son, Manuel Hernandez, is right now in the service of the armed forces, serving with the United States Government and fighting for his country in Vietnam.
I protest the large increase in grape purchases by the Defense Department, above all, the large military and private shipments to Vietnam. For these ship- ments of grapes couldn't be made without President Nixon's approval. How is it possible for the government to be sincere in carrying on the "War Against Pov- erty" while it is trying to break the non-violent efforts of the field workers in their fight for justice, by buying the "scab" grapes which the farmers can't sell to the public.
This is an outrage and is discouraging to thousands of field workers who are fighting for justice in the ranks only to learn that "scab" grapes are going to their sons who are fighting in foreign lands.
Why does the government want to break the grape boycott which so many Americans support? Senator Mondale, what can one do to stop the purchasing of grapes by the government and the Defense Department? Yours truly,
Gabino HernAndez,
Westley, Calif.
Translated by Wesley Kerney.
10 DE Julio de 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Stihcommittee on Migratory Lahor. Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
EsTiMADO Senadob Mondale : Mi nombre es Gabino Hernandez, como traba- jador agricola, miembro del UFWOC, huelguista, simpatizante con la causa, uno que apoya el boicoteo. Mi hijo Manuel Hernandez se encuentra ahorita en el servicio de las fuerzas armadas, sirviendo con el govierno de los Estados Unidos, ypeleando por su patria en Vietnam.
Protesto sobre el gran aumento de compras de uva por parte del Depto. de Defensa, sobre todo sobre los grandes envios militares y privados de uvas fres- cas a Vietnam.
Como es que estos envios de uvas no jwdrian ser sin la aprobacion del Presi- dente Nixon. Como es posible que el gobierno este sincero en llevar una "Guerra contra la Pobreza" mientras que intenta quebrar los esfuerzos no-violentos de los trabajadores campesinos en su lucha por la justicia, comprando las uvas es- quirolas que los rancheros no pueden vender al publico.
Esto es un atroz y desanimador por miles de trabajadores campesinos que lu- chan por la justicia en los files saber que las uvas esquiroles van a sus hijos que luchan en tierras extranjeras.
Como es que el Govierno quiere quebrar el boicoteo de las uvas lo que apoyan tantos Americanos. Seiior Senador Mondale, que puede uno hacer para acabar con las compras de uva por el Gobierno y el Depto. de Defensa. Su Atto. y S.S.,
Gabino Hernandez.
611
United Farm Workers Organizing Commission,
AFL-CIO, Kansas City, Mo.
Dear Senator Mondale : My name is Mrs. Ramon Pasillas, I am the mother of three children. I am a farmworker and also a wife of a farmworker who is representing the grape boycott in Kansas City, Mo.
I was born in California and have been a farmworker ever since I can remem- ber. Helping my father and mother on piece-work and by the hour on miserable wages. For me these scars are still wounds. I remember since, we use to live in tents and sleeping beside the road with insects crawling all over us, from spiders to snakes.
I remember my mother making coffee in a cofifeecan in a stove made by oil drum can.
Moving from Imperial Valley to San Joaquin Valley to make our living, at times my father and brother working only to support us. My oldest sister went only to the 4th grade.
Then my brother passed away. I remember my father didn't have money for the funeral. He had to work picking cotton by day and irrigating at night.
I remember helping my mother collecting money in town in order to give my brother a funeral, for the same reason of poverty and wages. My brother couldn't go soon to a hospital because of no money and after so many questions and to late he was admitted to the county ho.spital.
The next day, he died, things haven't changed much.
We couldn't go to school in one place for five months, because of being a farmworker.
Me, my sister and my other brother had to change school every time and pretty often, because my dad had to look for a job.
I married and I had three children. I married a working man from pea-picker to grape picker but still the wages haven't changed, much. It seems like we're still in the 30's, and still much discrimination. We are on our fourth year fighting for decent living, better wages we are American citizens and want to be treated as Americans.
We want to enjoy the benefits that union people do in America. My husband marched in the Korean war and he hasn't stopped marching for justice. When we left our hometown in Calif, to join the boycott.
It was a decision we had to make to stay and crawl or join and strike. I blessed my whole family to get some day to K.C., Mo. & hoping to return back home soon and safe.
We're still here, hoping to get coverage under a legislation. Some of us have been sick during the boycott and even in the hospital.
We still keep on trying, I thank Mrs. Dolores Huerta, mother of a family, and also our leader Cesar Chavez, father of a family.
Cesar Chavez has been a good leader on the nonviolent struggle, God bless him for what he's gone through, including his 25 day fast, because he ruined his health.
Senator Mondale I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart, because I know that like us you have been going through alot. Also Senator Kennedy, and O'Haira, Yarborough, and Senator Williams just to get justice for us.
Like Senator Kennedy, he like all of you, risked his life and died. But he will be in our hearts as in history for the rest of our lives. We will die together for a cau.se.
We have to change this system, we're tired, we don't need violence to win our cause, we have faith and we're going to try to do it the right way. Cause that's our destiny and justice will be achieved. We will win.
Viva La Causa.
Viva La Haelga.
Paula Pasillas. [Translation ( Spanish ) ]
The Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service,
Washington, B.C., July 10, 1969. Dear Senator Mondale: My name is Guadalupe Davila, as a farm worker, member of the UFAVOC, sympathetic to the cause, one who supports the boycott, I protest the large increase in grape purchases by the Defense Department, above
612
all, the large military and private shipments of fresh grapes to Vietnam. These shipments couldn't be made without President Nixon's approval.
How is it ix)ssible for the government to be sincere in carrying on the "War Against Poverty" while it is trying to break the non-violent efforts of the field workers in their struggle for justice, by buying the "scab" grapes which the farmers can't sell to the public.
This is an outrage and is discouraging to thousands of field workers who are fighting for justice in the ranks only to learn that "scab" grapes are going to their sons who are fighting in foreign lands.
Why does the government want to break the grape boycott which so many Americans support'? How can it be that the government wants to break the efforts of the field workers who are struggling for justice, while many of them have sons in the armed forces fighting in Vietnam for the government, while this latter is trying to undo what these boys' fathers have been struggling for with so much sweat of their brow and efforts.
Senator Mondale, what can be done to stop the purchasing of grapes by the government and the Defense Department? Yours truly,
Guadalupe Davila.
Translated by Wesley Kerney cab.
10 DE Julio de 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Migratwy Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
EsTiMADO Senadob Mondale : Mi nombre es Guadalupe Davila, como trabajador agricola, miembro del UFWOC, simpatizante con la causa, uno que apoya el boicoteo.
Protesto sobre el gran aumento de compras de uva jwr parte del Depto. de Defensa, sobre todo sobre los grandes envios militares y privados de uvas freseas a Vietnam. Estos envios de uvas no iwdriiln ser sin la aprobaclon del Presidente Nixon.
Como es posible que el gobierno este sincero en llevar una "Guerra contra la Pobreza" mientras que intenta quebrar los esfuerzos no-^iolentos de los tra- bajadores campesinos en su luchan por la ju.sticia, comprando las uvas esquirolas que los rancheros no pueden vender al publico.
Esto es un atroz y desanimador por miles de trabajadores campesinos que luchan por la justicia en los files saber que las uvas esquirolas van a sus hijos que luvhan en tierras entranjeras.
Por que es que el gobierno quiere quebrar el boicoteo de las uvas loque tantos Americanos apoyan. Como puede ser que el gobierno quiere quebrar los esfuerzos de los trabajadores campesinos estan luchando por la justicias, mientras que muchos de ellos tienen sus hijos en las fuerzas armadas i>eleando en Vietnam por el Gobierno, mientras que este esta tratando de quebrar los que los padres do estos muchaohos ban estado luchando con tanto sudor de frente y esfuerzos.
Senor Senador Mondale, que se puede hacer para acabar con las compras de uva por el Gobierno y el Depto. de Defensa. Su Atto. y S.S.,
Guadalupe Davila. [Translation (Spanish)]
The Library of Congress. Legislative REFEaiENCE Sbxrvice,
Washington, D. C, July 10, 19G9.
Dear Senator Mondale: My name is Antonio Cantfl, a farm worker, member of the UFWOC, .striker, sympathizer with the cause, supporter of the boycott. My son-in-law Teodoro Rodriguez is serving in the armed forces in Vietnam.
I protest the large increa.se in grape purchases by the Defense Department, above all, the large military and private shipments of fresh grapes to Vietnam. For these grape shipment.^ couldn't be made without President Nixon's approval.
How is it possible for the government to be sincere in carrying on the "War Against Poverty", while it is trying to undo the non-violent efforts of the field workers in their struggle for justice, by buying the "scab" grapes which the farmers can't sell to the public?
This is an outrage and is discouraging to thousands of field workers who are struggling for justice in the fields only to learn that "scab" grapes are going to their sons who are fighting in foreign lands.
613
Why does the government want to break the grape boycott which so many Americans are supporting?
How is it that our sons can go to fight and serA^e when it is trying to imdo the non-violent efforts of the field-worker fathers of these boys who are serving the government.
What can be done, Senator, to stop these purchases of grapes by the govern- ment and the Defense Department? Yours truly,
Antonio CantTj.
Translated by Wesley Kerney cab.
10 DE Julio de 1969. Senator Walter Mondale. Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washimgton D.C. 20510
EsTiMADO Senador Mondale : Me llamo Antonio Cantii, trabajador agricola. miembro del UFWOC, huelguista, simpatizante con la cau.sa, uno que apoya el boicoteo. Mi yerno Teodoro Rodriguez, se encuentra en sirviendo en las fuerzas armadas en Vietnam.
Protesto sobre el gran aumento de compras de uva por parte del Depto. de Defensa. sobre todo sobre los grandes envios militares y privados de uvas frescas a Vietnam. Como es que estos envios de uvas no podrian ser sin la aprobacion del presidente Nixon.
;.Come es posible que el gobierno este sincero en llevar una "Guerra contra la Pobreza" mientras que intenta quebrar los esfuerzos no-violentos de los tra- bajadores cami>e.sinos en su lucha por la justicia, comprando las uvas csquirolas (jue los rancheros no inieden vender al publico?
Esto es un atroz y de.sanimador por miles de trabajadores campesinos que luchan isor las justicia en los files saber que las uvas esquirolas van a sus hijos que luchan en tierras extranjera.s.
Porque es que el gobierno quiere quebrar el boicoteo de las uvas lo que apoyan tantos los Americanos.
;. Como es que nucstros hijos si pueden ir a pelear y servirle al gobierno cuando este e.sta tratando de quebrar los esfuerzos no-violentos de los padres trabajadores campesinos, de estos muchachos que estan sirviendo al gobierno.
;. Que se puede hacer. Senor Senador, para acabar eon las compras de uvas por el gobierno y el Depto. de Defensa? Su Atto. y S.S.,
An'^-onio Cantu.
HiNGHAM, Mass., Jiily H, 1969.
Dear Senator Monoale : For nearly four years, grape workers in Delano, California, have been on strike against their employers in an effort to have their union, headed by Cesar Chavez, acknowledged as their legal bargaining agent with the growers. Opposition to their efforts has been considerable and extends from the local Delano Civic organizations to the governor of California to the Federal Government and its Departments of Defense, Justice and Labor. In spite of these formidable obstacles, the United Farm Workers have main- tained a code of non-violence strengthened by their determination to win and acknowledge that their goals are just.
Support continues to grow nationwide for their cause and citizens throughout this country are showing their support by the consumer boycott. While the boycott has proved effective, thoughtful citizens know that they only hope for agricultural workers is legislation written to protect a newly-formed and strug- gling union. The original provisions of the National Labor Relations Act written by Senator Wagner in 1935 gave adequate protection to employees forming a union. These same provisions must be included in legislatioTi written for agri- cultural workers. The amendments placed on the N.L.R.A. by the Taft-Hartley in l!)i7 and Landrum-Griflfin in 1950 restrict union activity to such an extent that it woudl kill the efforts of a union like the United Farm Workers who do not have the legal and financial support to be dissipated in federal law suits.
One of the methods used by the growers to break the strike is to import Mexicans to work in the fields. Green cards workers (aliens who commute to the U.S. for work) should not be allowed to work in an area where there is a certified labor dispute. The Immigration Department has not enforced this regulation, therefore, legislation must include a solution to the green card problem.
614
Thirdly, the Defense Department in its shipping of grapes to Vietnam last year has knowingly conspired ■with the growers. News items report that purchases of grapes to Vietnam were estimated to be $500,000 or 8 pounds of table grapes per man. The excessive amounts of grai^es to this small country is an indirect support of the growers and works against the farm workers. This must stop.
We strongly urge your oflSce to make these views known to the appropriate agencies and to consider carefully whether proposed legislation for agricultural workers truly protects them. Yours truly,
Rosemary D. Jeannero.
Lakewood, Ohio, July 11, 1969. Walter Mondale, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
Do not support purchase of California grapes by Pentagon. Please investigate and curb this practice.
Mr. Scott A. Fisher.
Canoga Park, Calif., July 11, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
As a businessman, head of a corporation, I am very much in favor of free enterprise and in sympathy with todays businessman in his quest for profits suflScient to survive. Nevertheless, as this will never be achieved by exploiting the workers, I most vigorously support the United Farm Workers in their efforts to peacefully achieve equitable working conditions. In my opinion the Government does us all a disservice by continuing to support the growers by buying their grapes.
John L. Chase, President, Topanga Plaza Cameras Inc.
Chatsworth, Calif., July 16 1969. Senator Walter E. Mondale, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
Purchase of California table grapes by Defense Department discriminatory and un-American. It must stop.
Mildred R. Stricklin.
Van Nuys, Calif., July 16, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Lahor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
As a taxpayer I demand that the United States Government stop buying grapes.
Mrs. Harvey Bratman.
Canoga Park, Calif., July 16, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
Stop the American Government from breaking American citizens grape boy- cott by buying excess grapes.
Sharon Stevenson.
Great Neck, N.Y., July 15, 1969. Senator Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
The New Democratic Coalition of Long Island urges your committee to protest the purchase of table grapes by the Defense Dept. These purchases materially
615
benefit the grape growers whose exploitation of migratory workers perpetuates their conditions of extreme poverty and makes a travesty of all Government efforts to fight poverty on all levels.
Don Shaffer, Chairman, New Democratic Coalition, Long Island, N.Y.
New London, Conn., July 16, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
Sir, as member of Connecticut Boycott Committee I protest Government inter- vention in migratory labor dispute. As taxpayer I protest step-up of Govern- ment spending for grai>es to mitigate effects of boycott thus prolonging poverty conditions in the United States.
Carol J. Sutera.
Westbuby, N.Y., July 15, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, B.C.:
We are outraged by Department of Defense ever increasing purchases of scab grapes. Citizens-voters of Long Island have refused to buy grapes thereby keep- ing them out of all supermarkets. DOD negotiating will of consumers and under- mining the non-violence cause of farm workers.
Gbetchen Hayne, Long Island Coordinator, Boycott Grapes Committee.
New York, N.Y., July l-'t, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator: I am one of the many Americans who actively support the Cali- fornia grar>e pickers in their struggle to obtain the dignity and rights that all human beings "must" have. These are truly inalienable rights and should not be the privilege of a government to give or withhold. By not, at least enforcing existing labor laws and by buying up surplus grapes this government acts as an accomplice in a most heinous crime. Each day I grow more ashamed of my country.
Respectfully yours,
Mrs. Sylvia Gasoi.
New York, N.Y., July 15, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, B.C.:
This is to protest the purchase by the Armed Forces of large quantities of Cali- fornia grai>es at the time when the grape workers are fighting for dignity and justice in our economic structure.
Charles Englash, Michael WrrTENBEBG, Charles Peshkin, Stephen Leieoh.
Minneapolis, Minn., July 15, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C:
With the public hearings near on migratory labor we feel our questions must be answered. Why does the Government undermine a just strike by buying scab grapes? Why does our Government try to break a strike millions of taxpayers support? If our Government is "for the people and by the people" when will they start practicing it. Do our combat troops know the moral issue involved in the grapes they eat? We think not. Please Senator Mondale get answers for we are not alone in asking these questions.
Mr. and Mrs. William B. Wolneb.
616
New Haven, Conn., July li, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Miyratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
We the Connecticut Grape Boycott Committee representing over 30 statewide committees hereby formally protest the purchase of California and Arizona table grapes by the Department of Defense. It is a flagrant exami)le demonstrat- ing the ipersisent attempts of the Government to break the nationwide boycott. It seems fairly evident that this maneuver is part of a Governmental conspiracy to stymie the unionization efforts of the United Farmworkers Organizing Com- mittee, "niis committee and its representative will continue in our efforts to provide justice to farmworker, despite the overwhelming pressures of the military-industrial-complex.
Connecticut Grape Boycott Committee.
Pasco, Wash., July II,, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labo-r, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir : We as Democrats long since supporters of the UFWOC efforts to have their union recognized by the grape growers of Arizona and California, and also their efforts to bargain for better pay and conditions and better enforced health standards for the farm workers, are appalled that our federal government has been buying scab graijes, much less increasing their buying of grapes enor- mously. Thus we do not believe could be done with the approval of President Nixon.
The Government cannot sincerely be waging a War on Povei-ty and permit this. So we demand that the federal government stop being a strikebreaker and really show us that its a government of all the people and sincere in helping the poor. Sincerely.
Darrell D. Beers, President.
The Indiana Committee to Aid Farm Labor,
Indianapolis, Ind., July 14, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Hon. Senator Mondale : It has come to our attention that your subcommittee will be holding hearings Julj^ 15-16 on the problems of organizing farm labor in the United States.
As a committee working both with local migrant labor and the national grape boycott in support of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee's (UFWOC. AFL-CIO) attempt to organize farm workers in the West, we have great interest and hope in the possibilities that your conunittee hearings afford both present and future attempts at organizing farm labor.
As you know, UFWOC, AFL-CIO attempts to this date to organize the farm workers have been relatively successful : eleven contracts have been negotiated between 1965-19G8 (primarily with the wine-grape industry). In addition, after a long four year struggle to organize the workers in the table-grape industry, ne- gotiations between ten growers (with two more joining later) and UFWOC be- gan in June. 1069. These succes.ses are due to both the efforts of the strikers and the nationwide boycott. Now, however, these efforts are being jeopardized. Table- grape procurement by the United States Department of Defense has increased rapidly in the past year; from 6.9 million pounds in 1968 to 8.0 million pounds in just the first half of 1969. Moreover, shipment of table-grapes to United States military in.stallations in Viet Nam have increa.sed almost five-fold in the past jear (from 555,000 lbs., in 1969 to 2.047.695 lbs. in the first of 19li9). This means that the total grape purchases for 1969, will, if continued at the present rate, ex- ceed the purchases of 1968 by more than 110%.
We must then view this policy of DOD as performing the function, regardless of the intent, of a strikebreaker. It is tragic that the government of the United States should be responsible for thwarting the farm workers fight for justice in the fields.
617
Even more regrettable is the obvious, silent approval given to the Department of Defense's procurement of grapes by President Nixon. As long as table grapes continue to be purchased during the strike and boycott, we must question the sincerity of the government in attempting to end poverty in the United States. Will our government allow, cnconruffc, and aid the nonviolent, legal efforts of the farm workers to gain contracts insuring just wages and secure jobs, ending indiscriminate use of i)esticides, and guaranteeing safe, sanitary working con- ditions ; or will the farm workers be placed in the position where these, needs and rights can only be gained through lawlessness and violence. When viewing the efforts of those attempting to stop the farm workers from organizing to bargain collectively, we are reminded of something former President Kennedy once said : •'Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violejit revolution inevitable."
It is our hoi>e and request that your subcommittee will aid the efforts of or- ganizing farm labor and in stopping the procurement of table grapes by the Department of Defense. Respectfully,
W1LX.IAM Harriff,
Staff Coordinator.
Falls Church, Va., July 13, 1969.
Dear Senator Mondale : There are fifteen million people in this country, in the United States of America, without a voice. They have no voice in local affairs that concern them, in affairs of state legislation and no voice in the Federal government. There are other voices which tend to drown them out so they cannot be heard. They are virtually unknown, uncared for, and unwanted.
These people are the hungry of the United States. It is hard to believe, but it is hard fact. They have no political voice in the affairs with which they are directly concerned. Big businesses, governments, and political leaders either keep them quiet or drown them out. They cannot be heard.
The Federal government turns its back on these people. They listen to the big businesses and the political leaders. Neither are poor or hungry. The poor, hungry man is without a voice and without an ear to listen.
The "huelga" has been in effect in California now for over thirty months. Grapes have been boycotted and stores picketted around the country. Grapes have been refused at foreign ports and Sweden dockworkers are supporting the boycott. Some, but only some, grape owners have agreed to negotiations with the strikers. It seems that the ix)or man has finally won a voice.
But, the Federal government is deaf to their plea. The Department of Defense saves the grape growers and sends enough grapes to Vietnam that will no longer need bullets. Thev can throw grapes. (Eight pounds per serviceman in Vietnam.)
Once again, the Federal government has supported big business and the politicians. The poor man is losing his voice. His plea has finally fallen onto listening ears, but it may be too late. It may be too late, it may a awhile before he si>eaks up again. Sincerely,
Michael Kuhn.
Attention : Senator Walter Mondale and the members of the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor.
Migratory Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and
Public Welfare
Washington, D.C, Juli/ Ui, 1969.
The Southern California Kennedy Action Corps was pleased to hear that the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor is holding hearings on the farm work- ers struggle to organize. Presently, repression seems to be the answer of many to the cries of the forgotten in our society. Thus, your courage in publicly explor- ing the farm workers pursuit of justice is to be commended.
Almost from its inception, the Kennedy Action Corps has been concerned with "La Causa". Growing out of the Students for Kennedy, we began after the assassination in June 1968 with a petition drive for more effective gun control. Turning heartache to action, over 800.000 .signatures were gathered and Kennedy Action Corps members testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Wash- ington and the California Asembly Committee of Criminal Procedure.
618
Even before the conclusion of the gun control drive, during the summer of 1968 the Corps began to take action to aid the farm workers. With Robert Kennedy's compassionate support of the United Farm Workers in mind, Corps members and chapters throughout Southern California heli>ed organize store boycotts, food and clothing drives, and supported trips to Delano to help the farmworkers. Many of our members have seen firsthand the problems these courageous people face.
It is amazing to us that this forgotten group, even when faced by the most powerful in our culture, the mititary-industrial complex, only strive for peaceful change. We hope that prolonged frustration won't bring with it more violent ways.
Over the last two years the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee has continuely complained that the U.S. Defense Dept. has been purchasing huge amounts of California grapes in an attempt to break the union's boycott. In information recently released by the Defense Dept. to the Los Angeles Times, the Farm Workers charges were proven to be true.
In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, United States taxpayers paid for 468,000 pounds of grapess purchased by the Defense Dept. and shipped to Vietnam. For the first half of this year U.S. grape shipments to Vietnam have increased 2,000,- 000 pounds. Defense Dept. officials a^mit that purchases of scab grapes were ex- pected to top 4,000,000 pounds this year. Also, the Defense Dept. stated that overall purchase of grapes for the entire armed forces was expected to top 16 million pounds this year, twice the amount purchased last year. Spokesmen for the farm workers charge that the tremendous increase in grape purchases can only be explained by the fact that the Defense Dept. is purposely trying to "break down" the Farm Workers Union.
Federal interference in the farm workers attempt to achieve union representa- tion is a sad chapter in the history of the farm workers struggles. In a country which has suppo.sedly dedicated itself to a War on Poverty, the subversion of the non violent efforts of the farm workers to gain justice and decency is a black mark on the land of "freedom and justice for all".
Unlike many Americans who have fought and succeeded in obtaining at least a modicum share of our high standard of living, the farm workers have not had the economic power, geographical roots, organization or political influence neces- sary to achieve the legal rights which nearly all other members of our labor force have had for over three decades and now take for granted. The farm workers have no legal minimum wage. Don't they have a right to a recognized union or to bargain freely and collectivey with their employers or to make their just grievances heard as do the teamsters who haul the grapes the workers pick to the market place? How can they combat the wealthy corporate growers when they hire "green card" and illegal Mexican workers who go back to Mexico to live on their earnings in an economy with a much lower cost of living than ours?
The farm workers have but a few weeks out of the year to earn the money to supix)rt their families for the entire year, and they must earn adequate wages during this time to prevent the painful poverty which they have known for too long.
More than any other worker in our country the farm worker needs the protec- tion and support of laws enacted by Congress to protect him from the multi- million dollar agriculture businessman who seeks only cheap labor at any human cost. It is shameful when in the wealthiest nation in the world the farm worker has no protection from such exploitation. It is time Congress gave them the same rights that other American workers have had for two generations. Yours respectfully,
Robert E. Thomson, Chairman, Southern California Kennedy' Action Corps.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Department of Humanities, Cambridge, Mass., July 13, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Suhcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Mondale : The Defense Department has, in the past year, nearly doubled its purchase of grapes for shipment to cmr troops in Vietnam. I find this particular escalation, coming at a trying moment in the struggle of farm workers to win recognition that they too are human beings, entitled at least to
619
the minimal decencies most of us take for granted, deeply offensive and scandal- ous. The effect of this brazen action can only be to weaken the national boycott of table grapes organized by the Farm Workers Union, and surely oflScials of the Defense Department, despite their protestations of innocence and neutrality, are aware of this. The boycott has broad national support, and has even won the adherence of a nvunber of municipal and metropolitan governments. It is out- rageous in the extreme that the national government should act so as to weaken the farm workers in their fight for justice. The tender proclamations in favor of economic and social justice mouthed by the present administration seem more hoillow than ever, and the effect will be to increase the political cynicism and apathy that is one of our growing national afflictions. I urge you to publicize this matter thoroughly during the public hearings your subcommittee will soon hold on the problems of farm workers. It is enough that our farm laborers should have to fight incessantly the greed and power of the growers ; it is intolerable that they should be weakened in this struggle by either the indifference or the political cynicism of the national government. Sincerely yours,
Arthur D. Kaledin, Associate Professor of History.
Canoga Park, Calif., July 12, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, Senate Subcommittee, on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, B.C.
Dear Senator Mondale: I understand that you are one of the few senators in Washington who are truly sympathetic to the plight of the farm workers. I am certain that you are fully aware that while several weeks ago there was great hope that some of the growers would reach an agreement with the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, negotiations have reached a stalemate. In the meantime men, wonien and children who, by misfortune, happen to be agri- cultural workers are continuing to suffer from all types of deprivation. Can these people continue believing that the Democratic Process will operate in their favor when they see clearly that the government is not responsive to their needs? Can these people continue to have faith in a system which grants huge subsidies to their employers as well as to all large corporations but which fails to give them the same rights of collective bargaining granted to all other workers? I personally feel that people are more aware than ever of the glaring injustices within our system and are not prepared to sit idly by and let these injustices continue uncorrected.
Senator, I urge you to inform the Congress about the true mood of the peopie. We are fully aware that the U.S. Armed Forces are now the third largest pur- chaser of California grapes. While i^eople of good will everywhere are boycotting grapes because they are aware that the boycott has been the only weapon that the UFWOC could employ, the U.S. government is buying grapes with oiu* tax money. We who cannot employ any "loopholes" to avoid paying income taxes as the large corporations can, feel a sense of impotent rage at this development.
The situation as it pertains to the farm workers must be corrected ! The agri- cultural workers must be included under the National Labor Relations Act and soon ! This is my feeling and I know that my thinking reflects the thinking of a good many i)eople of good will. I hope that, somehow, you will be able to voice my sentiments in Congress. Respectfully,
Joseph DeAnda, Assistant Professor, Valley College.
Pawtucket, R.I., July 12, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, U.S. Senate, Washington, B.C.
Deiar Senator Mondale : I imderstand you will be holding hearings next week on the problems farm workers face in their efforts to unionize.
I have done some work with the UFWOC grape boycott, and I was shocked to learn that the Department of Defense has been undermining this "boycott by sending vast shipments of grapes to military men in Viet Nam.
Such action by the Pentagon manifests at its best a great insensitivity to the social injustice that burdens the farm workers ; and at its worst it may show a conspiracy to continue this social injustice.
620
It is my sincere hope that you and your subcommittee will be able to do some- thing to put a stop to these outrageous shipments of grapes to Viet Nam.
If rx)sisible, I would like my remarks to be read into the record of your hearings.
Sincerely,
David R. Carlin, Jr., Lecturer in Philosophy,
Providence College.
The United Christian Missionary Society,
Indianapolis, Ind., July 9, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale, U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Mondale : I understand the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor will be holding public hearings on July 15 and 16. As chairman of the subcommit- tee, I urge you to expose to the x\merican public the fact that the Defense De- partment is a No. 1 strike breaker in the struggle of the California farm workers for jiLstice and dignity. The farm workers are at great odds with agri-buisiness as well as the lax enforcement of the Green Card regulations on the border. They are using the consumer boycott as a last resort to gain their legal right to belong to a union. The large agri-business corporations who are table grape growers have been unwilling even to hold elections to see if their workers wish to join a union.
The Defense Department in 1967 shipped 468 pounds of graims to South Viet- nam and it is estimated that they will send 4 mi,llion pounds of of grapes in 1969. The private commercial shipments of grai>es to South Vietnam in 1965 were 244.952 ix)unds of grapes and in 1968 it rose to over 2,850,000 ix)undis of grapes.
Many questions are raised by the U.S. Department of Defense buying grapes from California. Are non-union California grapes being exported to South Viet- nam imder U.S. government programs? Are grai^es being imported to South Viet- nam and sold in U.S. government commissaries? To put the question very simply, who is eating all the grapes being shipped to Vietnam? Grai^es are in need of refrigeration in order to stay fresh and I cannot jx^rceive of them being used by soldiers on the battlefields. Another question is what growers are providing the grapes that the Pentagon is buying?
The Nixon administration seems lax in its concern of legal enforcement of Green Carders, certification of the .labor disputes in California, and its inability to see that large volume buying, by Defense Department is not in the best interest of our nation. California farm workers are asking for their rights. If the govern- ment is not willing to live by its own laws then the total society suffers from the consequences.
I have always appreciated your efforts pointing out the plight of the farm worker and hope that you will continue in your very urgent fight to bring about farm labor inclusion into the National Labor Relations Act. Yours in Peace,
David Batzka, Acting Director, Christian Citizenship.
Tuesday, July 8, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Lahor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Mondale : We, the Kansas City Friends of the Farm Workers, are appalled by the attitude taken by our Federal Government in regard to the California grai>e .strike and boycott.
We have watched the heroic agricultural-labor struggle being waged against overwhelming odds by the courageous efforts of Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers Organizing Conmiittee, AFL-OIO for many years.
We support their cause most enthusiastically. We are prompted to write this letter becau.se we are fearful that the government has taken measure.^ to in.saire for the destruction of the United Farm Workers.
■Tnasmucli as our Federal Government has declared a "War on Poverty", it seems totally illogical that it should be against the efforts of the farm workers. The government's hostile and pugnacious attitude toward the UFWOC is
021
clearly indicated by the sharp increase in the Department of Defense grai)e buy- ing, and especially the huge military and private shipments of table grapes to Vietnam.
iWe would very much like to know what action can be taken to stop the Defense Department and Federal Grovernment from purchasing table grapes. Thanking you for your courteous attention, I remain Sincerely,
Edward Hurtado, Cochairman, Kansas City Friends of the Farmworkers.
Mexican-American Organization for Progress,
Kansas City, Mo., July 8, 1969. Senator Walter Mondale,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Mondale : I am writing this letter in behalf of the Mexican- American Organization for Progress (MAOP) to register our concern in regard to the attitude that the Federal Government has taken towards the United Farm Workers in California, many of whom are Mexican-Americans.
We have watched the heroic agriculture-labor struggle being waged against overwelming odds by the courageous efforts of Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-OIO for many years now. We support their cause most enthusiastically.
We are prompted to write this letter because we are fearful that the govern- ment has taken measures to destroy the United Farm Workers. Inasmuch as our Federal Government has declared a "War on Poverty", it seems totally illogical that it should be against the efforts of the farm workers. The government's hos- tile and pugnacious attitude towards the UFWOC is clearly indicated by the sharp increase in the Department of Defense grape buying, and esi)ecially the huge military and private shipments of table grapes to Vietnam.
We would very much like to know what action can be taken to stop the De- fense Department and Federal Government from purchasing table grapes.
Anxiously awaiting your reply, I remain Sincerely,
Marciano Morales,
President.
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union,
Portland, Oreg., July 16, 1969. Hon. Walter F. Mondale, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Mondale : Our union council is deeply disturbed over reports a department of the Government is being used to break a farm workers' .strike. Ac- cording to information released to various newspapers by the Department of Defense, the department is shipping eight times as many grapes to the armed forces in Vietnam as in any previous year. Prior to fiscal 1967 there is no record any grapes at all were .shipped. The purchases and shipments began about the time a consumer boycott was invoked to aid the grape workers who do not have the same recourse and aid in organizing other workers have in the National Labor Relations Act.
We feel the Department of Defense is following a highly improper course of action, and the Government .should put a stop to it. Government should be for the people — all the people, and this includes the under paid, forgotten farm workers of California. By stepping up its purchases of grai>es, the Department of Defen.se is aiding only a small section of the i>eople — agribusiness.
The economy of a region benefits when workers are organized. Purchasing power increases and many people, not just the workers themselves, are helped. Farm workers are no exception, as shown by living .standards in Hawaii, \vtiere sugar and pineapple workers belong to the ILWU. It is very poor public policy for our government to pennit a department of the government to act in the way the Defen.se Department is acting.
We are happy to learn you have instigated hearings into the above subject. Sincerely,
A. F. Stoneburg, Secretary.
6212
Brookline, Mass. August 8, 1969. Senator Wai.ter Mondale,
Chairman, Sennte Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Mondale : Although I am frequently upset by the actions of this my government, few actions have aroused me enough to make me actually write a letter. The doubling of Defense Department purchases of grax>es in the midst of the grape-pickers strike is such an action.
I understand ail about essentials of war : ABMs, MIRVs, napalm ; but GRAPES? Perhaps we are trading wine for moonshine. I could easily under- stand the Defense Department's decision not to join in the nationwide boycott of grapes, although I really think it should — but to act as a strike-breaker?
It seems to me that this is just one more example of the way the Defense De- partment can influence, or even carve out national policy without the advice of Congress or the people. Such underhanded dealing must be stopped.
Lest you think that I am a wild-eyed radical, let me assure you that I am a graduate student at Harvard, wliere in the course of my work as a Teaching Fel- low last spring, I cro.sised picket lines to teach my class. I don't smoke anything, and the only drug I'm on is Excedrin which should probably be charged to the Defense Department. Thank you,
Anne G. Lapidus.
Senator Cranston, I would like to ask one question that follows up on your line of questioning, Mr. Chairman.
There has just been a court decision in California stating that some- body receiving unemployment insurance need not accept farinwork where there are violations of the law in regard to sanitation facilities and so forth and so on.
It seems to me this would relate to the compliance responsibility that the Department of Agriculture has nationwide in regard to purchase of farm commodities.
Have you complained formally to the Department of Agriculture concerning purchases by Government agencies of farm commodities from growers who do not comply ?
Mrs. HuERTA. I am not sure that that would do any good, Senator. We have placed in the record a copy of that press clipping that re- ports that decision you were referring to.
I think I testified a little while ago that we went to the Agricultural Commission to try to get the records of the pesticides that were used, and we were refused the information. They notified the growers that we were trying to get infonnation. The growers got a restraining order to prevent us from that.
Senator Cranston. I am talking about the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Mrs. HuERTA. I don't think we have complained to them as of yet. Again, I just doubt whether that would do any good. We have diffi- culty in getting cooperation from the Department of Labor — the Department of Justice — I doubt very much if we would get very much cooperation from the Department of Agriculture. I am going by our history. I think it is erroneous for any of us to think we are going to get help from any governmental agency.
In fact, it is the other way around. We can expect that the govern- mental agencies will do all they can to help the employers, simply because they have the political power, and the farmworkers do not. I think we have to be realistic.
623
Senator Cranston. When there is a sj)ecific requirement that the Department of Agriculture should see to it that the law is observed, and when it is their specific responsibility, for example, to deal with discriminatory hiring practices, it seems to me you place the burden on them if you make a request on those matters,
Mrs. HuERTA. What happens after that, we place the burden on the Federal Immigration Service because they don't enforce the law on hiring illegals, and we have to place the violation of child labor laws on the Department of Labor,
Where do you go? We take all of the ills to the proper agencies, and then nothing is done about them, so this is an exercise in futility. This is why the boycott exists.
I am not saying that we won't take a suggestion. We will do it. 1 am saying we don't expect anything to happen.
Senator Cranston, Let's try it and see what happens.
Mrs. HuERTA, The Food and Drug Administration refuses to en- force laws on labeling.
Is there any willingness to enforce anywhere?
Senator Cranston. Where you have filed a formal complaint, this committee can explore with the executive branch why they do not enforce the laws. If you file a complaint, give the committee a copy of the complaint,
Mrs, Huerta. We would like the committee to investigate the use of the green carders in the field right now. That is a good startoff point.
Senator Mondale. A few months ago, the Attorney General of the United States wrote the Secretary of the Agriculture and set forth in the letter that there was widespread discriminaion in Agriculture De- I^artment offices, particularly in the South, and asked the Secretary of Agriculture what he proposed to do to bring them in compliance with the laws prohibiting discrimination.
The Secretary of Agriculture testified before the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, and we asked him to respond and tell us what steps he continued to take. That was 2 months ago. Neither the committee, nor myself, nor anyone else has even been able to get an answer out of the Secretary of Agriculture. Maybe somebody in this rooni knows how the U.S. Senate can get an answer to that question.
Mrs. Htjerta. I might mention one other violation of law, which is the violation of the minimum wage law. The enforcement agencies are so hampered in terms of lack of staff that there is no way they can actually enforce the law that is supposed to be in effect. There is a Federal minimum wage in agriculture of $1.30 an hour. My daughter went out and picked cucumbers last week and was paid $2.40 for the day. Another daughter went out and picked oranges, and made 47 cents an hour on piecework.
These are typical of the everyday violations that are occurring in the fields.
Senator Mondale. Thank you very much, Mrs. Huerta.
Our next witness is Mr. Dale Babione, Deputy Executive Director, Procurement and Production, of the Defense Supply Agency, here in Washington.
Mr. Babione, will you and your staff please come to the witness stand.
36-513 O - 70 - Dt. 3A - 6
624
STATEMENT OF DALE R. BABIONE, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PROCUREMENT AND PRODUCTION, DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. JAMES A. WARREN, SC, U.S. NAVY, DI- RECTOR FOR FOOD SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRE- TARY OF DEFENSE, INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS; AND LT. COL. WILLIAM H. MASON, U.S. ARMY, CHIEF, SUBSISTENCE PURCHASING DIVISION, DEFENSE PERSONNEL SUPPORT CENTER, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Mr. Babione. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read my prepared statement, and also read it in the record.
Senator Mondale. You may proceed. We will print your statement in full.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Babione follows:)
Prepared Statement of Dale R. Babione, Deputy Executive Director, Procurement and Production, Defense Supply Agency, Department of Defense
Mr. Chairman, my name is Dale R. Babione. I am the Deputy Executive Director, Procurement and Production, Defense Supply Agency, i have been designated to represent the Department of Defense today before your Com- mittee. I am accompanied by Captain James A. Warren, SC. USN, Director for Food Services, Office of the Assisitant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics). Captain Warren heads a relatively new Directorate at the Defense Department level that concerns itself with, among other things, the development of master menus for use by all of the Armed Forces and determining the nutri- tional value of foods available for the feeding of our men in the Armed Forces. I am also accompanied by Lt Colonel William H. Mason, USA, who is the Chief, Subsistence Purchasing Division, Defense Personnel Support Center, Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania, a field activity of the Defense Supply Agency.
First, I should like to emphasize that the DoD endeavors to provide for military personnel the most acceptable and nutritious food possible including adequate quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables. With particular respect to the troops in Vietnam, extensive efforts have been made to make available to them, to the extent feasible, the same foods available to military personnel elsewhere. New methods of containerization and shipment have made possible the furnishing to the troops in Vietnam a greater quantity of fresh fruits and vegetables.
It is my understanding the purpose of my testimony is to describe to the Committee the policies and procedures used to purchase table graiies by the Department of Defense. I would like to discuss the manner in which our require- ments are developed. Table graiie purchases are made by the Defense Supply Agency in response to requisitions from the Military Services for troop issue and commissary re.sale. Requisitions for troop issue are based on planned menus which reflect numerous factors, among them, hcing troop acccptaMUty : nutri- tional requirements; variety; and item availability, perishability, and cost. There can be subsititutions for menu items. The Defense Supply Agency recommends .substitutes where a food item requisitioned may not currentl.v be available. Alternative substitutes are recommended wherever possible to give the customer a choice of selection. Final decision, however, to accept or re.1ect substitute items rests with the requisitioner.
The Defense Supply Agency is the Defense Department purchasing agent for all subsistence. The DSA food procurement program is carried out in seven Regional Subsistence Headquarters located throughout the United States. Gen- erally, food buying conforms to the methods employed by the large food chains and institutional feeders. For less than car lot purchasers of fresh fruits and vegetables, DSA buyers go into the terminal markets in the early morning hours and buy the requirements for military installations in that region. Car lot quan- tities of fresh provisions are either bought in the growing areas by field Iniyers or by a special purchasing procedure known as the Notice of Intent to I'urchase (NIP). This method of procurement recognizes the nature of the subsistence
|
Million |
Milllou |
|
pounds |
dollars |
|
7.5 |
1.04 |
|
8.3 |
1.25 |
|
6.9 |
1.32 |
|
9.69 |
1.76 |
e25
industry and the necessity for placing short time limits on offers while providing maximum competition. Table grapes are purchased in all of our Subsistence Regions. However, the majority of our table grape purchases are made by our Los Angeles Subsistence Regional Headquarters.
To plac-e our purcha.ses of table grapes in proper i^erspective, data concerning DSA's total subsistence purchases are provided in order to establish the order of magnitude. In Fiscal Year 1968, DSA purchased a total of $1.2 billion dollars worth of subsistence for the Services. Of this total, $731 million was spent for peri.shable subsistence. Fresh fruits and vegetables amounted to $77 million and table grape purchases were $1.3 million of this total. Purchases of table grapes for the past four years were as follows :
Fiscal year: 1966.... 1967... . 1968.... 1969....
While our purchases are substantial, both in dollar amount and quantity, in each of the years portrayed DSA's purchases were less than one percent of the United States annual production of table grapes.
We are aware of Committee intere.st in DoD jiolicy in awarding contracts where labor disputes exist. The basic policy of the Department of Defense with regard to awarding defense contracts to contractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to Defense procurement needs to main- tain a sound working relationship with both labor and management. The resolu- tion of labor disputes involves complex and delicate areas of judgment and interi>retation for which the responsibility has been vested in other agencies of the Government.
The General Acc-ounting Office has stated that it is only to the extent that a contractor's labor practices interfere with the potential performance of a con- tract that a contracting officer may consider the labor practices of a contractor (43 Comp Gen 323 (1963) ). Also, the Comptroller General has ruled that there is no authority to reject bids on the basis that an employer does not employ union labor (31 Comp Gen 561).
Mr. Chairman, as you may know the Department of Defense did not receive your letter and attached questions until 7 July 15)69. The questions were in con- siderable detail and, of neces.sity, recjuired thorough research before preparing a response. I have, to the extent time i^ermitted, prepared answers to those ques- tions where information was readily available. I am submitting these as an attachment to this statement. I regret that we have not been able to provide all the information you requested. I am prepared to answer questions that you may wish to ask concerning the purchase of table grai>es by the Department of Defense.
Mr. Babione. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dale E. Babione. I am the Deputy Executive Director, Procurement and Production, Defense Supply Agency. I have been designated to represent the Department of Defense today before your committee. I am accompanied by Capt, James A. Warren, SC, U.S. Navy, Director for Food Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics). Captain Warren heads a relatively new directorate at the Defense De- ])artment leve^ that concerns itself with, among other things, the devel- opment of master menus for use by all of the Armed Forces and determining the nutritional value of foods available for the feeding of our men in the Armed Forces.
I am also accompanied by Lt. Col. William H. Mason, U.S. Army, who is the chief, Subsistence Purchasing Division, Defense Personnel
626
Support Center, Philadelphia, Pa., a field activity of the Defense Supply Agency.
First, I should like to emphasize that the Department of Defense endeavors to provide for military personnel the most acceptable and nutritious food j^ossible including adequate quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables. With particular respect to the troops in Vietnam, exten- sive efforts have been made to make available to them, to the extent feasible, the same foods available to military personnel elsewhere. New methods of containerization and shipment have made possible the furnishing to the troops in Vietnam a gi'eater quantity of fresh fruits and vegetables.
It is my understanding the purpose of my testimony is to describe to the committee the policies and procedures used to purchase table grapes by the Department of Defense. I would like to discuss the manner in which our requirements are developed.
Table grape purchases are made by the Defense Supply Agency in response to requisitions from the military services for trooj) issue and commissary resale. Requestions for troop issue are based on planned menus which reflect numerous factors, among them being troop accept- ability; nutritional requirements; variety; and item availability, perishability, and cost.
There can be substitutions for menu items. The Defense Supply Agency recommends substitutes where a food item requisitioned may not currently be available. i\.lternative substitutes are recommended wherever possible to give the customer a choice of selection.
Final decision, however, to accept or reject substitute items rests with the requisitioner.
The Defense Supply Agency is the Defense Department purchasing agent for all subsistence. The DSA food procurement program is car- ried out in seven regional subsistence headquarters located throughout the United States.
Generally, food buying conforms to the methods employed by the large food chains and institutional feeders. For less than car lot pur- chases of fresh fruits and vegetables, DSA buyers go into the terminal markets in the early morning hours and buy the requirements for military installations in that region.
Car lot quantities of fresb provisions are either bought in the grow- ing areas by field buyers or by a special purchasing procedure known as the notice of intent to purchase (MIP) . This method of procurement recognizes the nature of the subsistence industry and the necessity for placing short-time limits on offers while providing maximum competition.
Table grapes are purchased in all of our subsistence regions. How- ever, the majority of our table grape purchases are made by our Los Angeles subsistence regional headquarters.
To place our purchases of table grapes in proper perspective, data concerning DSA's total subsistence purchases are j^rovided in order to establish the order of magnitude. In fiscal year 1968, DSA pur- chased a total of $1.2 billion worth of subsistence for the Services. Of this total, $731 million was spent for perishable subsistence. Fresh fruits and vegetables amounted to $77 million and table grape pur- chases were $1.3 million of this total. Purchases of table grapes for the past 4 years were as follows :
627
|
Million pounds |
Million dollars |
|
|
Fiscal year: 1966 |
7.5 |
1.04 |
|
1967 |
8.3 |
1.25 |
|
1968- |
6.9 |
1.32 |
|
1969..- . |
9.69 |
1.76 |
Wliile our purchases are substantial, both in dollar amount and quantity, in each of the years portrayed DSA's purchases were less than 1 percent of the U.S. annual production of table grapes. This statistic seems to be in doubt before this committee, and I would like to give you our frame of reference.
Our reference is an agricultural publication dated May 1969, "Fruits, Non-Citrus, by States, 1967-68.'' On page 11, it gives the total U.S. production of fresh grapes as 552,863 tons, which multiplies out to a little over a billion pounds.
Senator Mondale. Does the witness know whether that figure in- cludes raisin and wine grapes ?
Mr. Babione. According to our check with the Agriculture Depart- ment, this was only table grapes, for consumption as fresh grapes.
Senator Mondale. You have checked with the Department of Agri- culture on that?
Mr. Babione. Yes.
Senator Mondale. When did you do that ?
Mr. Babione. Thursday or Friday.
Senator Mondale. Thank you.
Mr. Babione. We are aware of committee interest in Department of Defense policy in awarding contracts where labor disputes exist. The basic policy of the Department of Defense with regard to awarding defense contracts to contractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to Defense procurement needs to maintain a sound working relationship with both labor and man- agement. The resolution of labor disputes involves complex and deli- cate areas of judgment and interpretation for which the responsibility has been vested in other agencies of the Government.
The General Accounting Office has stated that it is only to the extent that a contractor's labor practices interfere with the potential perform- ance of a contract that a contracting officer may consider the labor prac- tices of a contractor (43 Comp. Gen. 323 (1963) ) . Also, the Comptroller General has ruled that there is no authority to reject bids on the basis that an employer does not employ union labor (31 Comp. Gen. 561) .
Mr. Chairman, as you may know, the Department of Defense did not receive your letter and attached questions until July 7, 1969. The ques- tions were in considerable detail and, of necessity, required thorough research before preparing a response.
I have, to the extent time permitted, prepared answers to those questions where information was readily available.^ I am submitting these as an attachment to this statement. I regret that we have not been able to provide all the information you requested. I am prepared to
^ The material referred to appears at the end of the testimony of July 15, 1969.
628
answer questions that you may wish to ask concerning the purchase of table grapes by the Department of Defense.
Senator Mondale. Let me say, Mr. Babione, that we are grateful to you and your assistants in moving as quickly as you did in respond- ing to these rather detailed questions.
We may have some followup questions in writing, and we would hope that you might respond as well to those questions.
On June 30, 1969, Secretary Laird issued a memorandum directed, I gather, to the entire Defense Establisliment, which he referred to as "A Call for Social Consciousness."
His fourth point is that, "It is my hope that as a result of this pro- gram, all Department of Defense personnel will come to consider the domestic action applications of the daily decisions as a matter of habit."
Are you aware of that memorandum ?
Mr. Babione. I have not seen it.
Senator Mondale. I would ask that these so-called guidelines for domestic action programs be made a part of the record at this point.
(The document follow^s:)
The Secretary of Defense, Washington, B.C., June 30 1969.
Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, Chairman of the .Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Assist- ant Secretaries of Defense, Assistants to the Secretary of Defense, Directors of the Defense Agencies.
Subject : Support of the Department of Defense Domestic Action Programs
On April 28, 1969 I established the Department of Defense Domestic Action Council with the expressed belief that DoD could and should make a significant contribution in helping to solve some of the problems that afflict our urban areas.
It is realize that the job facing the Domestic Action Council cannot be done alone. The past record of voluntary support of domestic action programs by DoD personnel — civilian and military— is impressive and illustrates that our people care about all aspects of their country's future.
Therefore, I ask that each of you not only lend your continued support, but actively participate in the direction of this effort. This cooperation may take various forms. It may be in support of activities that draw upon the voluntary donation of off-duty time or the contribution of special talents of our military and civilian personnel. It may take the form of providing activities which draw upon the special capabilities of DoD to include those related to systems and man- agement Also, activities which interact with other Federal agencies may be viewed with the idea of supporting the domestic action program. The closest possible coordination will be maintained with the President's Urban Affairs Council.
This call to social consciousness will be accomplished without impairing our primary mission of military readiness. It is my hope that as a result of this pro- gram all Department of Defense i)ersonnel will come to consider the domestic action implications of their daily decisions as a mater of habit.
Mel Laibd
Guidelines for Domestic Action Programs From the Department of
Defense
The Department of Defense has the opportunity, through the use of its exten- sive resources and human skills, to join other government agencies and private institutions in their efforts to overcome some of the serious domestic problems which face our Nation today. By meeting this challenge, the Department will enhance its ability to provide total national security. Initiative, coupled with the strongest sense of purpose, will enable the Department to fulfill this responsi- bility without compromising our military effectiveness.
DOD is determined to provide equal opportunity for all of its military and civilian members, and to do business only with those committed to a similar objec- tive. Its experiences and skills in this area should be used in ways that will accelerate the opportunities for members of minority groups.
629
The greatest resource of the Department of Defense is its personnel, both military and civilian. Commanders are encouraged to commit their commands' energies to these programs in accord with the Department's policies. Individuals are encouraged to voluntarily participate in these efforts during off-duty hours.
The physical resources of the Department of Defense (equipment, facilities, services, proi)erty, etc.) should be used to the maximum extent practical. When they are not employed in their primary military mission, it is desirable to con- sider using them for approved Domestic Action programs. The employment of such resources should be on a reimbursable basis where it is feasible to do so and, of course, whenever it is legally required.
Often in the course of performing traditional DOD tasks, know-how is acquired and results are obtained that would benefit other government agencies as well as the private sector. Domestic Action in such areas is encouraged.
Only these activities should be undertaken that can be accomplished more effectively or efficiently by DOD, by reason of its experience and resources, than by another agency.
A close relationship will be maintained with the President's Urban Affairs Council to insure coordination of Domestic Action activities within the Federal government. Where these actions are implemented in collaboration with other agencies of the Federal government and additional costs are involved, such costs should be determined and reimbursement requested from the other agencies involved.
Wherever possible, activities should be structured to provide measurable bene- fits within specific time limits.
Most Domestic Action programs that are undertaken can be ijerformed with the resources regularly available within DOD. Programs that will provide unique or substantial benefits, and whose scope requires special legislation or budgetary consideration, will be submitted to the Secretary of Defense for approval follow- ing consideration by the Domestic Action Council.
Senator Mondale. The response to our question about labor dis- putes drew the answer from you that the DOD position in labor dis- putes is to remain completely neutral in such matters, and you say that the basic policy of the DOD is to refrain from taking sides on the merits of any labor dispute.
Mr. Babione. That is correct.
Senator Mondale. And you indicated that you were aware of the labor dispute in the California table grape industry.
Let's take the first grower mentioned in your long list of growers from whom you purchase table grapes, Mr. Giumarra.
Did you know Mr. Giumarra has been leading the fight against the farmworkers. He is one of the largest growers, if not the largest, in the San Juaquin, California Valley, and has been leading the fight to frustrate the boycott.
Xow, with your policy of neutrality, how did you approach pur- cliasing grapes from Mr. Giumarra ?
Mr. Babione. He was treated no different.
Senator Mondale. What did your policy of neutrality mean to Mr. Giumarra? How was he affected by your policy? When you negotiated with him, in what way would you deal with him differently because there was a labor dispute ?
Mr. Babione. There would be no difference, provided the contrac- tor could continue to perform in accordance with temis and conditions contemplated in any future contract.
Senator Mondale. In what way would you be affecting the boycott if you bought grapes from Mr. Giumarra?
Mr. Babione. I don't believe that we would be in a position to know to what extent we are affecting the boycott by purchasing grapes from one offerer.
630
Senator Mondale. Do you think the farmworkers would be unfair if they said that present DOD policy of neutrality has resulted in profits to the leader of the antiboycott and antiunion movement, and has resulted in that grower selling grapes that he might not other- wise be able to sell because of the boycott, and thus whatever the professed official position of the Department of Defense is, DOD actually works to the benefit of those ti*ying to break the strike?
Mr. Babione. I think it is up to the United Farmworkers to describe what effect our procurement does or does not have. The position that we have tried to make clear is that we are purchasing grapes based on a master menu that has been prepared, usually approximately 18 months in advance, plus the fact that the requisitioner, the customer is permitted to substitute other fresh fruits and vegetables from his master menu.
There was a shortage of export quality type oranges between Sep- tember and November of last year.
We asked the customer at that time if he chose to accept grapes as a substitute. They chose to accept grapes.
The same thing could happen throughout the United States, whether you are talking about strawberries, cherries, plums, apples, or any- thing else. This is the normal suppl}' requisitioning system used by the Department of Defense, and if at that time there happens to be a labor dispute involving any one of these commodities, we would still follow our normal supply procedures.
Senator Mondale. Let me be sure I have some of these figures straight.
According to your testimony, in fiscal year 1968, the Defense De- partment purchased 6.9 million pounds of fresh table grapes.
Mr. Babione. That sounds right.
Senator Mondale. Is that correct ?
Mr. Babione. Yes. Tlie answer to question No. 9 was that the total procurement of table grapes in fiscal year 1967 was 8.3 million
Senator Mondale. I asked fiscal year 1968.
Mr. Babione. Fiscal year 1968 is 6.9.
Senator Mondale, Right. In fiscal year 1969, how many did you buy?
Mr. Babione. As far as we can determine at this time, it looks like about 9.69 million.
Senator Mondale. What percentage increase is that?
Mr. Babione. It looks like approximately 30 percent.
Senator Mondale. Our calculation is 40 percent.
Mr. Bap^ione. That sounds right, we didn't calculate the percentage.
Senator Mondale. A 40-percent increase. Do you think that that sharp an increase in purchases could be fairly detennined as a neutral response on your part to the labor dispute which exists?
Mr. Babione. Yes, I do, because if you will look at fiscal year 1967, it will show that we bought 8.3 million. Purchases will fluctuate from year to year.
Senator Mondale. Let me ask you tliis : Has there ever been a year in the history of the Defense Department when more table grapes were being purchased than in the present year that we are now discussing, fiscal year 1969 ?
Mr. Babione. I don't have figures on that.
e3i
Senator Mondale. Wliat do you think ? Do you know of any year in which you bought more table grapes than you are buying now?
Mr. Babione. I doubt that there has been ; we don't have any figures prior to 1965.
Senator Mondale. Are you testifying that this is just a fortuity that we should have this searing, heartbreaking labor dispute, which has attracted national attention, that you would increase the purchase of fresh table grapes by 40 percent? As far as we know today, you have broken all known records in the purchase of table grapes, and yet you say it has no relevance to the boycott ?
Mr. Babione. I would say that the consumption of grapes by the Armed Forces in fiscal year 1969 was not influenced one way or the other by the current labor dispute. I have looked into the matter, within the time available, and I have talked to the people in a position to know.
Senator Mondale. Who have you talked to ? Give us the names of those you have talked to. Tell us about it. Who have you talked to representing the Farmworkers Union about this ?
Mr. Babione. They wouldn't be the people who would make the de- cision to account for the increase, would they ?
The people who would accoimt for the increase would be the people who requisition the product.
Senator Mondale. You say that your increased purchases have no relevance to the strike. Wlio have you discussed this with representing the strikers?
Mr. Babione. We have looked at it in a couple of ways, in terms of the master menu, in terms of changes in the master menu which could account for the increase, and what is the consumption per man, DOD-wide, versus the national average.
Senator Mondale. You indicated you talked to people in a position to know. Who did you talk to ?
Mr. Babione. We have talked to the Defense Personnel Support Center. The subsistence division is headed up by Colonel Mason. Colonel Mason who is in a position to know. Under him are the seven regions we talked about. He contacted our regional people.
Senator Mondale. What did they tell you — that your purchases had no relationship to the boycott ?
Mr. Babione. Absolutely, and there is no written correspondence, or any other communication, that I could find within the time avail- able other than the nornial procedure I previously mentioned where we did advise all overseas activities during the September-November time frame that grapes were available.
Senator Mondale. They didn't talk to anybody associated with the farmworkers?
Mr. Babione. No, because, as I understood your question, you asked me what evidence was there, that would account for the increase.
The increase in the consumption would not be a responsibility of the United Farmworkers.
Senator Mondale. I asked what relation this sharp increase in grape purchases might have to the grape boycott, and you said none, and I said, "How did you make that determination?" You said that you talked to the people who were in a position to know, and I asked, "who did you talk to?"
632
Mr. Babione. Maybe I misunderstood the question. I thought the question was what effect did the boycott have on our procurement, and I said none.
To the extent our procurement had an effect on the boycott I thought my response was that I wasn't in a position to determine it.
Senator Mondale. How many pounds of table grapes were sent to Vietnam in fiscal year 1968 ?
Mr. Babione. 555,000 pounds.
Senator Mondale. And in fiscal year 1969 ?
Mr. Babione. The best information now is about 2,500,000 pounds.
Senator Mondale. By how much have you increased, percentage- wise. Defense Department use of table grapes in Vietnam ?
Mr. Babione. 350 percent.
Senator Mondale. Would you regard that as a neutral response to the labor dispute in southern California ?
Mr. Babione. Yes, I would. I know the reasons for it.
Senator Mondale. By how^ big a percentage would you have to increase the use of grapes in Vietnam to involve yourself in the labor dispute? One thousand percent? Do you have an outside perimeter at which you would determine that the Defense Department policy is affecting that dispute ?
Mr, Babione. I don't think you can make any judgment as to whether DOD is neutral or not, judging solely on the basis of per- centage increase or decrease. You have to look at what are the reasons that caused the increase, and I am prepared to give them if this com- mittee is interested.
We have been all along trying to improve the supply of fresh fruits and A-egetables to Vietnam. During this time period, there has been a steady improvement in our facilities overseas to store and handle re- frigerated products. We have also changed our methods of shipping from reefer ships to containerized vans which are loaded in the termi- nals and sealed and put in the ship and never touched until they are opened at destination.
According to the information we have, the number of vans that are available for this type of shipment has increased by about 1,000 percent.
Grapes happen to be a pretty good shipper for a perishable item. There are still some items which we cannot ship, strawberries, and so forth, so to the extent that we can ship fresh fruits and vegetables, we do ship them, and the increase is due solely to two things. One is our increased capability, both in-country and from this country to Vietnam, and secondly, because the troops over there have expressed a desire for grapes, and there would be no purpose increasing oranges, apples, and other items which they already have. As grapes could be readily in- creased, they wei-e increased.
Senator Mondale. You say they asked for the grapes ?
Mr. Babione. What happens is, any time there is a shortage of any item, such as export oranges during the period September-November 1968, all overseas customers are advised we will not be able to fill requisitions during this time period. We also advise them of other products that are available. They choose from those items. We do not force-ship any particular item. They pick from the master menu and requisition on us.
633
Senator Mondale. In your response to our question 16, you say that all requisitioners in the Far East were asked to consider grapes as a substitute.
Mr. Babione. That is right.
Senator Mondale. What do you mean by that ?
Mr. Babione. We tell them what is available. Grapes were avail- able. They couldn't ask for grapes unless we told them they were available.
Senator Mondale. You say one of the things you consider is troop acceptability of all fruit shipped to Vietnam. I think it would be fair to say that it would be illegal for the sons of grape workers to have boycott signs in Vietnam, would it not ?
Mr. Babione. What we mean by acceptability is that the troops like the taste of the product, and when it is served, by and large the majority consume it, instead of throwing it away.
Senator Mondale. In other words, you don't consider the fact that a young serviceman in Vietnam who might be the son of a grape worker, or sympathetic to the objectives of the grape worker, might be offended by the fact that the Defense Department is distributing grapes at public expense in South Vietnam, contrary to the interests of the grape workers. That would not be one of the things you would consider ; would that be correct ?
Mr. Babione. Well, I think it is something to be considered, but I think we have to consider the majority of the people over there, and certainly he does not have to eat them, and if there were enough of them over there that didn't eat them, we wouldn't order them.
Senator Mondale. You say you considered that. How did you de- cide to reject the interests of Mexican-Americans and others who might be interested in the strike ? How did you decide that ?
Mr. Babione. I said it was taken into consideration, in view of all ot the people there, and if there were enough people there who would not consume the grapes, they would not order the grapes.
Our job is satisfaction of the majority of the troops.
Senator Mondale. When you say that you are neutral, do you mean that your purchases are neutral, or do you mean neutral in the sense that it doesn't affect your operation ?
Define what you mean by neutrality.
Mr. Babione. We buy according to the laws and regulations laid down by Congress, the Department of Defense, which do not permit us in any labor dispute, to simply make a change in the practice of what we are buying because of the existence of such a dispute, only to the extent that such a labor dispute would advereely affect the ability of the contractor to perform are we permitted to take that into consideraion in our normal procurement of supplies.
Senator Mondale. So, the position of the Defense Department in terms of defining what you mean by neutrality, is that you will con- tinue to buy grapes unless the strike causes stoppages that make it diffi- cult to buy them ; is that correct ?
Mr. Babione. A contractor may not be able to perform for many reasons. A labor dispute might be one of them.
Senator Mondale. Let's dwell on that, since that is my question.
Mr. Babione. To the extent it is our job to see the soldier gets the food, obviously, if the contractor cannot deliver it, for whatever rea-
634
sons, we are going to have to take alternative actions, because we still need the food.
Senator Mondale. When you talk about labor dispute neutrality, you mean that you will continue to buy grapes from grape growers who are involved in a labor dispute, contrary to the advice of the farmworkers who are trying to establish an eifective grape boycott, so long as the ability of the growers to deliver those grapes is main- tained. That is the end of your concern about the labor dispute ?
Mr. Babione. That is correct.
Senator Mondale. Senator Cranston ?
Senator Cranston. Has it been essential from a nutritional point of view to increase the purchase of grapes to the degree that that has been done?
Mr. Babione. No.
Senator Cranston. This whole discussion of neutrality sort of re- minds me of a debate that was in Congress awhile back on foreign aid, and one member of the Congress asked a question which was, "Which side are the neutrals on, any how ?"
You have given your definition of neutrality. How would you define nonneutrality ?
Mr. Babione. I suppose in the instant case, it would be either a tre- mendous decrease or a tremendous increase that was done for the sole purpose of affecting the labor dispute. We have done neither, and I believe the answers to your questions will show that we have done neither.
Senator Cranston. In fulfilling Secretary Laird's memorandum which was not called to your attention, about considering the do- mestic impact of decisions made by people with responsibilities in the Department of Defense, I would think that you would have to take into account appearances, as well as w^hatever the actual facts may be.
Had you gone the other way and, right after the boycott began, there had been a 40-percent decrease in the purchase of grapes, wouldn't you expect that the growers would have felt that you were being non- neutral against them ?
Mr. Babione. I cannot be responsible for the reasons they think certain things took place, as long as there is an explanation that satis- fies us that it was not done for that specific purpose alone.
It would be unfortunate, if the growers interpreted our action in that light and I would be in the same situation that I am in now.
Senator Cranston. If you really wished to satisfy the people in the country that you were being neutral, wouldn't it perhaps be wiser when a dispute like this begins to freeze your purchases at the level they were when the dispute arose?
Mr. Babione. No, I don't think that is a neutral act. We do not dictate consumption to the troops. We do not ^et a figure at head- quarters in Washington and say, "We will buy this many grapes."
The local commanders determine what is consumed. Does this com- mittee suggest that everytime there is a labor dispute involving the contractor of the supplies of the Department of Defense that we would take any other type action ? Let's talk about other things besides grapes. Everything would come to a screeching halt.
Senator Cranston. Are you making purchases now of any other products involved in a boyc()tt, to your knowledge ?
635
Mr. Babione. Maybe not a boycott, but certainly where there are labor disputes.
Senator Cranston. I don't think there is any question but that the end result of the action has been to give people the impression that they are not taking a strictly neutral position. I understand that you are under orders from the General Accounting Office not to take sides in labor disputes, and I can understand that you don't for example, have the authority, as you stated, to reject bids on the basis that the em- ployer does not employ union labor.
Do you concern yourself with whether a supplier is observing or violating the law when you make purchases ?
Mr. Babione. Which law?
Senator Cranston. Any law of the land, health laws, discriminatory hiring practices, sanitaiy laws.
Mr. Babione. It would depend on who is responsible for enforcing these laws. Most of the laws are the responsibility of the Labor Depart- ment or some other Federal or State agency. To the extent discrimina- tory practices, equal opportunity, which was mentioned a little earlier, we do have responsibility for administering that particular Executive order.
Senator Cranston. If it is brought to your attention that a specific contractor or supplier is violating discriminatory hiring practice laws, do you tlien not purchase from that sourc-e ?
Mr. Babione. The procedure for not doing business with a contrac- tor that has violated a law is laid out in ASPR regulation, where there is a debarment or suspension procedure. This procedure is independ- ent of whether the contractor is found guilty of violation of any law. It is not automatic.
The debarment is not a punitive action. It is an action to protect the best interests of the Government and based on the nature of the conviction or the offense, we would then make a judgment whether the Department of Defense, should do business with them.
There are some exceptions to that. The General Accounting Office or the Secretary of Labor could debar a contractor, and there are others. Without going into all the details, that is the machinery.
Senator Cranston. Can you conceive of any circumstances where it would be in tlie national interest for the Department of Defense to purchase anything from any supplier who was in violation of the law?
Mr. Babione. Yes, I can foresee a situation where a contractor should be debarred, and there have been some.
Senator Cranston. Can you not conceive of a situation where it would be in the national interest to purchase from a violator of the law?
Mr. Babione. Would you say that once more ? I apparently misun- derstand your previous question.
Senator Cranston. If a supplier of food or anything else is in sub- stantial violation of the law, are there any circumstances where you would feel that it would be in the national interest to make purchases from that source?
Mr. Babione. Yes.
Senator Cranston. What circumstances?
Mr. Babione. Suppose he is the only one who can supply an item needed for the national defense ?
636
Senator Cranston. Is that true in the case of grapes ?
Mr. Babione. No. You have to look at each case individually. You cannot <):eneralize on them.
Senator Cranston. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that officials with the responsibilities in other places in the Government have the responsi- bilities for seeing that there is compliance with the law, and I suggest that you ask the Secretary of Agriculture to testify before this com- mittee to indicate whether or not he is abiding of violations of the law.
Senator Mondai.e. I w^ould be glad to do that. Maybe you could join in the letter. I haven't had any luck getting answers lately.
Senator Cranston. I would be glad to do that.
Senator Mondale. Senator Saxbe ?
Senator Saxbe. I am interested in the economic factors involved.
Suppose that your purchases are estabHshed on a budget, as I am sure they are, and the price of meat, or the price of some particular item is priced out of the market. Then how do you regulate so that you can cut down on those ]3urchases ?
Mr. Babione. Wlien the price of any particular product has a sud- den increase, we review whatever substitutes may be available — beef, chicken, poulti-y, whatever may be the case, whether it be diced, frozen, fresh, and we do inform the services that those substitutes are avail- able and the customer makes the decision.
Senator Saxbe. But there is a doPar consideration on that.
Mr. Babione. That is correct. We have a dollar limit per ration, which is the amount of food one man eats in a day.
Senator Saxbe. Wlien economic factors would make a real attractive buy, for instance, if the price of grapes was such that it was a real good buy, is there an effort to take advantage of that ?
Mr. Babione. Within the limits of acceptability. Obviously, if it is an economical buy, but people don't eat it, it is not a good buy.
Senator Saxbe. But, for instance, if a food such as melon, which is usually too expensive for the ordinary diet, becomes especially attrac- tive, then your requisitions would increase, would thev not, on that item, because they are trying to balance their per-man budget?
Mr. Babione. It could or could not. It would denend on what other foods they were serving, what is in season, and so forth.
Senator Saxbe. If the boycott were effective and the price of grapes went down, wouldn't that make it a more attractive requisition?
Mr. Babione. It might. The consumption of grapes by the Armed Forces, though, are well below the national consumption, if our total national production figures are correct.
Senator Saxbe. About 1 percent, I believe you testified, or less.
Mr. Babione. This is the percent we are of the total production, or market, but we use less than the 5 pounds per person which is the national average. We are well below that.
Senator Mondale. Senator Hughes ?
Senator Huohf^. Mr. Babione, how long have you been in your present capacity with the Department?
Mr. Babione. Four years.
Senator Huoiies. Senator Saxbe asked a question, and vou perhaps recall— I think it was in the late fall of 1966. Were you there at that time?
Mr. Babione. Yes.
637
Senator Hughes. I believe the Secretary of Agriculture and your agency made a decision in Vietnam or other areas of the world to ship meat at a time that there was a holding action going on in the country by the National Farmers Organization. They used surplus supplies of meat that had been in process, and there was a national issue and hue and cry raised at that point. Probably your Department wasn't in- volved in it, but certainly the Secretary of Agriculture was involved in it, because it was prior to the election.
Mr. Babione. I don't recall the incident.
Senator Hughes. You don't recall it ?
Mr. Babione. No.
Senator Hughes. Did the Secretary of Agriculture say to you, "Buy more grapes"?
Mr. Babione. No, not to my knowledge. Nor Avould you expect him to, because that isn't the way we have been doing it. As I indicated before, the consumption is based on subsitutes and so forth.
Senator Hughes. It was suggested in 1966 that the Secretary of Agriculture said to the Department of Defense to purchase X meat for X reasons. Of course, that was not taking into consideration the with- holding action of a national organization trying to improve their bargaining power plus their own price structure. This is the only instance that I can recall that this happened, and I am not saying it happened in this instance. I am just inquiring as to the possibility that it happened in this instance.
Mr. Babione. I don't recall it, and I don't think, therefore, that it happened.
Senator Hughes. Would you check on that and supply the infoiTnation to the committee ?
Mr. Babione. Yes.
(The requested information follows :)
DoD Food Purchase To Minimize Impact on Consumer Prices
During 1966, in response to several recommendations made by tlie Secretary of Agriculture. DoD did agree to take some actions to minimize tlie impact of the DoD food purchases on consumer prices. These actions included first ; procure pork and l)eef for European commissaries and nonappropriated fund activities from foreign sources to the extent that .such procurement can be made through barter for agricultural commodities to avoid any dollar outflow ; and .secondly, to reduce the number of servings of pork products from prime cuts, particularly bacon, in COXUS military in.stallations by at lea.st 50 percent over a 6-month period. These actions were implemented 17 February 1966 and were suspended 11 May 1966.
Senator Hughes. I take from your tone that you think the com- mittee is prejudiced here this morning.
Mr. Babione. lam sorry if T conveyed that attitude. I am trying to remain neutral [laughter].
Senator Hughes. That is the point of my question. I wonder if your neutrality is practiced this way always, as ours may seem to be to you. Obviously we are not conveying a position of neutrality to you, are we?
Mr. Babione. Some of the questions have been on both sides.
Senator Hughes. Did you have any general increase in manpower between 1968 and 1969, in your purchase of fruit procurements, or increase in both of them, perhaps?
Mr. Babione. Increase in manpower.
638
Senator Hughes. Yes, an increase that might have increased your procurement.
Mr. Babione. In total Department of Defense ?
Senator Hughes. Yes, the total Department of Defense.
Mr. Babione. Just a moment.
Senator Hughes. You may have answered that in this series of questions. I have not gone through these questions, and I apologize to you because I am not familiar with what we already have.
Mr. Babione. For 1968, fourth quarter, we provided an amendment to question 40, which gives — no, this is just Vietnam.
Senator Hughes. These purchases do relate to all of your manpower requirements ?
Mr. Babione. Right.
This shows 3.6 million in 1968 and 3.6 in 1969. A slight decrease.
Senator Hughes. You had a 100,000 decrease in manpower, and consumption was going up.
You related there were a shortage of oranges and other substitute type fruits.
Mr. Babione. During 1968, for export quality, there was.
Senator Hughes. Did this apply only to oranges, or to other substi- tute fruits ?
Mr. Babione. Just oranges.
Senator Hughes. You said your containerized shipment is a great improvement in refrigeration, thereby making it possible for you to get a fruit like grapes into the hands of troops in the field so they are edible. Would this apply to something like strawberries ?
Mr. Babione. No, sir. In the United States, we are able to use these other fruits, whereas, in Vietnam, these fruits would not be able to be shipped that way. They are just too perishable.
Senator Hughes. Is there any other fruit comparable to a grape, or does the grape happen to be the isolated instance, the unique thing developed at this particular time?
Mr. Babione. You mean that could have been shipped in lieu of grapes?
Senator Hughes. That could have been shipped, not in lieu of grapes, but with an equal sharing in the substitution of fruits.
Perhaps I misinterpret what you said, but let me read the sentence, because it seems pretty emphatic that you said, "Take a look at grapes."
Mr. Babione. Yes, because grapes is a good shipper.
Senator Hughes. Let's go back to my question again. Is there any other fruit comparable to grapes that comes in this category, or is that the isolated instance ? That was my question.
Mr. Babione. Right now, we can't think of any other one that would be, that hadn't already been supplied to Vietnam, that could be sup- plied by the use of this new technique.
Senator Hughes. Would you be kind enough to supply for the committee, if you haven't already done it, the nature of the other f riuts you are supplying to the troops ?
Mr. Babione. Yes, sir, we have that in the questions and answers.
Senator Hughes. All right. I would like to ask you if your procure- ment agents buy fruit in north Africa or the Orient.
Do you buy, for example, oranges and tangerines in the southern islands of Japan, do you buy in the Philippines, do you have exchange agreements going on, for example for lemons from Italy and Sicily ?
639
Mr. Babione. We have certain arrangements in certain geographic areas where local purchase is used to supply the troops. Usually, that is not in large quantities. It would depend on the country, on the fruit or A'egetable, on the time of the year.
Senator Hughes. What is your consideration on whether you would buy a large shipment of oranges or tangerines from Japan in lieu of buying them from American producers ?
Mr. Babione. The "Buy American" policy, the goldflow, policy for use offshore, and the fact that there is a berry amendment to the appropriation act prohibiting us from buying food or clothing from other than an American manufacturer.
Senator Hughes. Don't you manufacture some of the clothing our troops in Vietnam wear in other areas of the world ?
Mr. Babione. Very few clothing items are purchased from other than American manufacturers.
Senator Hughes. How about combat boots ?
Mr. Babione. None to my knowledge.
Senator Hughes. The ones I wore were made in Korea.
Mr. Babione. They must have been locally purchased as an excep- tion to our normal policies in the beginning of the large buildup in 1965.
Senator Hughes. The 100th Airborne was wearing the same type of boots.
Mr. Babione. When was it ?
Senator Hughes. In the fall of 1965, and it is not important. All I am trying to establish is, do you buy commodities from other areas.
Mr. Babione. To the extent that a particular fruit or vegetable would be grown in that locality, and because we could not supply be- cause of the distance from the United States for that time, to the extent that the balance of payments would be involved, gold flow, or hard or soft currency, and to the extent of the acceptability of that product by the troops, adjustments could be made.
There are adjustments and regulations controlling this. I can't say yes or no.
Senator Hughes. Do you have knowledge of the menus offered to the troops in Vietnam ?
Mr. Babione. Yes.
Senator Hughes. Do they get papaya ?
Mr. Babione. I doubt it.
The master menu is put out, but the local commander can substi- tute for the menu.
Senator Hughes. This is an honest question, because I am looking at the availability of the commodity. I am not trying to ask an unfriendly question.
Mr. Babione. If it was served, it was served as a substitute. It is not on the master menu.
Senator Hughes. Could you furnish us with a list of your foreign suppliers of fruits in Vietnam ?
Mr. Babione. Yes, we will supply that.
Senator Hughes. If there are any; I don't know if there are any or not. I am interested in knowing.
(The requested information follows :)
36-513 O— <70— p,t. 3A 7
640
Fruit Purchases in Vietnam
We have subsequently reviewed available records and have found that the following items of fruit are being purchased in Vietnam for both troop consump- tion and commissary resale :
Average monthly purchases Item (pounds)
Bananas, green 995, 491
Bananas, yellow 166
Papaya 10, 880
Watermelon 120, 050
Pineapples 106, 116
In addition, some quantities of limes are being procured for resale only. Iden- tification of foreign suppliers of fruits in Vietnam is not required in the present reporting system and any effort to acquire such a list by manual methods would be prohibitively expensive.
Mr. Babione. One of the questions indicated that we had no knowl- edge of any of them being supplied locally, but we will double check it. ■
Senator Hughes. I wish you would. And I wish you would get the Secretary of Agriculture to certify that this does not include wine or raisin or other qualities of grapes. That actually those figures you read into the record are in fact table grape figures which relate to the 1 percent factor that you were referring to.
Mr. Babione. All right.
(The requested information follows :)
Grape Production in the United States
A further contact with the Department of Agriculture resulted in the acquisi- tion of a May 1969 copy of the USDA Statistical Reporting Service, Crop Report- ing Board. Data extracted from page 10 reveals that total grape production in 1968 in the United States was 3,549,040 tons including all grapes ; wine, raisin, and table. Data extracted from page 11 shows that U.S. sales of fre.^h (table) grapes was 552,802 tons in 1968. This data was validated with Mr. Horace M. Mayes, Fruits, Nuts and Hops Section Head, Statistical Reporting Service, USDA.
Mr. Babione. Even if we were, say, 2i/2 percent, the only thing we are discussing is the difference between less than 1 percent.
Senator Mondale. We have farm programs in which we spend mil- lions and millions of dollars trying to affect the market by 1 percent, because with a 1-percent change in price, you can affect the market 3 or 4 percent. One percent can make a difference in winning or losing a strike. To argue that 1 percent is neutral is just not good economics. I just wanted to make that point.
Senator Hughes. I would like to ask about a situation that probably is not your responsibility, Mr. Babione, but I would like to inquire about it.
In buying commodities from other countries, you list six or seven qualifying conditions that, by law or regulation, you had to check to determme whether a purchase could be made or not.
Yet, when you relate making a contract with a supplier, you said that it was not primarily your obligation to make the determination if the contractor were in full compliance with our existing laws internally.
Mr. Babione. The distinction there was that the first situation about whether we would buy them locally is the decision we would
641
make as to what item would be supplied, what item would be considered.
The second goes to the point of whether the contractor in perform- ing under the contract has complied with State or other Federal regulations or law which is the responsibility of other agencies to police.
Senator Hughes. You have been in the room during the testimony this morning ?
Mr. Babione. Yes.
Senator Hughes. You have heard testimony that certain of your sup))liers are not in compliance with the law.
Mr. Babione. Yes, sir.
Senator Hughes. Would you make it your responsibility, then, to ferret out and determine whether they are or are not in compliance with the law, or contact the agency responsible for it and ask them to make that investigation for you. That is your responsibility ?
Mr. Babione. To the extent the name of the contractor was known, we would refer it to the appropriate Federal agency.
Senator Hughes. Would you notify the committee of their response to you?
Mr. Babione. Yes, but I would like to ask Mrs. Dolores Huerta to give us a specific list of the allegations, because there were several allegations, and I am not sure we got them all.
(The information subsequently supplied follows:)
Department of Defense Response on Allegations
Upon receipt of the names of specific vendors and the alleged violations we will refer them to the appropriate agencies for action. In addition, we will report back to the subcommittee all responses that are received having a relationship to these violations.
Senator Hughes. I certainly agree that you should be supplied. And I also agree that the fact that the allegations were made is not solid, hard evidence that the conditions exist. I am simply saying that if the allegations are made here, and you have heard them, and other agencies have the responsibility, that it is your obligation to satisfy yourself that they are in compliance with the law before you make such contracts.
Mr. Babione. Any time we become aware of such a situation, we would refer it to the appropriate Federal agencies.
Senator Hughes. I would hope you would, and I see your men making notes on both sides of you there, that you would refer back to the committee responses from those agencies if inquiries are made so that we might be informed, also, as to the circumstances that exist.
I would perhaps like to submit you questions at a later date after I have an opportunity to go through your writteji responses.
Mr. Babione. We would be glad to answer your questions.
Senator Hughes. I thank you very kindly. I do want to say to you that I have not interpreted your comments to indicate ill will regard- ing the purchase of grapes by the Department. But I would certainly have to say that it has been a very inopportune set of circumstances that is presented at this particular moment. I hope you will reexamine the policy carefullv to make sure that your endeavors to stay neutral have not been similar to some of our endeavors here this morning to stay neutral.
642
Thank you very much.
Mr, Babione. Thank you.
Senator Mondale. Senator Schweiker ?
Senator Schweiker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going back to grapes as a substitute for oranges, what was the nature of the directive there as to the suggestion that grapes were avaihxble in lieu of oranges ?
Mr. Babione. About July, of this year, we sent a TWX to all of our overseas customers, informing them that the best information avail- able was that the quality of export oranges would not be satisfactory for a period running through September, October, and the middle or late November, and we did offer to them grapes that were available as a substitute item.
Senator Schweiker. Did you offer them any strawberries, pine- apples
Mr. Babione. No ; because strawberries cannot be shipped overseas. Those troops in the United States did not have a problem. They could get strawberries.
Senator Schweiker. Cherries and apples, then I won't limit it to strawberries.
Mr. Babione. If you look at the answers to our questions, the figures will show on apples and other items, they were already consuming a large quantity and to offer more did not seem appropriate. Grapes were available, and they did not have many grapes prior to this, and we gave them the opportunity. We already knew apples were avail- able, because they were already ordering and eating apples, but they didn't know what was acceptable as a substitute for the oranges. OK ?
Senator Schweiker. They were also eating grapes ?
Mr. Babione. Yes.
Senator Schweiker. Why wouldn't you list apples as an alternative choice as well as grapes ?
Mr. Babione. If you look at the percentage figures — where is that ?
Unfortunately, when we made this up, we left out 1967-68 apples, and I have the information here. In 1968, it was 9 million pounds; 1967 was 7 million pounds, so you can see that there is quite a substan- tial amount of apples already available in Vietnam.
They did not have to be told that they could order apples in lieu of oranges. They know that. All we have to do is tell them what other items are available for that time period.
Senator Schweiker. There is one other factor relating to this. Is there any other food here at all in the list I have--tangerines, plums, pears, peaches, and apples — that increased in quantity anywhere near the rate by which grapes increased ?
Can you point to any other fruit that had a significant jump, whether you are talking about Vietnam or all your buying, that jumped as much as grapes?
Mr, Babione. You are talking Vietnam only, or total ?
Senator Schweiker. I will give you an out either way. It is your option.
Mr. Babione. No, there is not. but let me say this, to put things into perspective, to consume 21/2 million pounds of grapes in Vietnam
643
would mean that grapes would only have to be served 15 times in one year.
In other words, they were served grapes in lieu of an orange or an apple. Such a serving, in addition to quantities included in the master menu, only once a month would consume 21^ million pounds of grai^es.
So, while the increase is large in relationship to other items, by total consumption standards, it wasn't very much of an increase, be- cause they were actually underconsuming grapes in terms of the na- tional average of 5 pounds per person, or any other way you want to look at it.
Senator Schweiker. On this increased use of refrigerated shipping containers that was a factor here, I take it from what you said that tliis would apply to a number of the other fruits as well, would it not ?
In other words, that certainly wasn't limited just to grapes, was it?
Mr. Babione. Fresh peaches, in season, it doesn't apply to too many other things, because we have the spectrum of perishables that cannot be shipped no matter which method we use, the perishables that could be shipped with this method, to those that could be shipped in the reefers.
So, we have the spectrum of fresh peaches in season, and grapes. Most of the other fruits are hardy enough that thev could be shipped by the reefer method. That is why the other fresh fruit figures did not increase as much, because they were already hardy enough to be shipped by reefer, and were so shipped.
Senator Schweiker. In other words, peaches you could use.
Mr. Babione. Fresh, in season, as opposed to canned or frozen.
Senator Schweiker. The figures you have on peaches show there was only a slight increase.
Mr. Babione. That could be. We don't have frozen grapes.
Senator Schweiker. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mondale. Senator Cranston.
Senator Cranston. Have you considered nectarines as an alternative to grapes ?
Mr. Babione. The answer to that, I guess, is that it is a possibility, and it is somethin.t? that we are looking at still, and there probably would be some possibility in that area.
( Information subsequently supplied follows : )
Limited Use of Nectarines Explained
Subsequent investigation of this matter disclosed that nectarines are not often considered as substitutes because of limited production and a very short in- season availability. As a matter of fact, more than 70% of total' production is available only during July and August. Nectarines are authorized for troop i^ue, however, they have never been included on the master menu because of the reasons outlined above. Therefore, use of nectarines is limited to substitu- tion at the post, camp, or station level and procurement is accomplished on the local level. Extensive use of nectarines is also limited because the price is gen- erally considerably higher than other fruits. As an example, an 18 pound lug fo nectarines currently costs $4.00 Whereas a 20 pound lug of fresh peaches costs $2.50.
Senator Cranston. You said twice in response to Senator Hughes' questions that you would refer the matter to appropriate Govern- ment agencies when questions were raised on volations of laws by suppliers.
644
Mr. Babione. That is correct.
Senator Cranston. If the appropriate Government agency advised you that there was a viohition of law, would you stop buying gi^apes from that grower ?
Mr. Babione. Not necessarily. We would notify the appropriate Federal agency responsible for compliance, and then if the contractor were found guilty, then it would have to be reviewed as to the nature of the offense before we would debar him. Debarment is not a punitive action. It is a protection for the Government, and, therefore, it doesn't automatically follow.
Senator Hughes. Would the Senator yield on that for a moment ?
I would like to follow that just a little bit further.
What if, it comes to your attention that one of your contractors had no black employees actually working as farnn laborers in an area where, say, the black population was 10 to 20 percent? Would that be enough evidence of de facto discrimination for you to request an investigation? Do you consider it your responsibility to ever inquire?
Mr. Babione. On the equal opportunity program, we do have a re- sponsibility to implement the Executive order, and we do have an ac- tivity in the Defense Supply Agency that investigates all such alleged violations, and if the conclusion of that review was that they were, we would stop doing business with them.
Senator Hughes. If the Senator would further yield, are there legal actions that could be taken to stop you from purchasing these commodi- ties if, in fact, de facto segregation is evident, under an Executive order ?
Mr. Babione. I don't think I am qualified to answer that question.
Senator Hughes. All right. I will refer it to the legal representative.
I would. Senator Cranston, with your permission, like to point out that it has been suggested for a long time in this country that our mili- tary forces, and particularly our combat troops, are made up of a high percentage of black men in comparison with the total population of this Nation. Certainly, evidence of any sort of discrimination against the black man working in any area that the Department of Defense purchases supplies should be looked at very carefvdly.
Mr. Babione. I agree with that.
Senator Hughes. And I hope you will f ollov/ this through.
Mr. Babione. We will.
Senator Hughes. Thank you very kindly.
Senator Ckanston. You wouldn't be guided in making that deci- sion whether there was simply an inhibition against eating grapes by black troops in Vietnam ?
Mr. Babione. We would implement the policy regardless. We have some of the policing responsibility in the Executive order for nondis- crimination, and we do carry out appropriate action.
Senator Cranston. In regard to reports to you by the appropriate agencies regarding violation of law by suppliers, if it was reported to you that a grape grower Avas violating health and sanitary laws, taking- account of the fact that grapes cannot be washed very easily, would you then stop purchases of that sort?
Mr. Babione. Not unless he was put on the barred or suspended list.
Senator Cranston. I missed your answer to one question. I believe you were asked if the Secretary of Agriculture had suggested addi- tional purchases of grapes. Whiit was your reply to that question?
645
Mr. Babione. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Craxston. I would like to ask the gentleman on your right if you have any information that any Government officials have suggested additional purchases of grapes.
Captain Warren. Senator Cranston, we have no request from any other Government agency to purcliase grapes.
Senator Cranston. No request at any time from any official ?
Captain Warren. No.
Senator Cranston. Can DOD use counterpart funds to buy foods in foreign countries?
Mr. Babione. I believe they can, but I would rather provide that for tlie record.
(The information subsequently supplied follows:)
Counterpart Funds Used To Purchase Perishable Food in Foreign Countries
Non-perishable subsistence cannot be purchased off-shore because of the Berry Amendment to the Annual Appropriation Act. It is possible for DoD to use excess or near-excess United States o\^^led foreijni currencies to purchase perish- able food in foreign countries. However, the actual use of these funds for pro- curemenlt of food is extremely minimal.
Senator Cranston. I wouM like to ask you that you re-examine the basis of determining neutrality, taking into account Secretary Laird's memo. While you have sought to be totally neutral, the implications and impressions derived from your actions can be to the contraiy, and this you sliould take into account for the good of the Department of Defense and in consideration of your relationship with citizens gen- erally,
Mr. Babione. I agree it is unfortunate if an increase in the pro- curement of any product at any time is constiiied that it was done for a specihc purpose to affect a labor dispute, because I can assure you that to my knowledge, no such motivation was ever involved.
Senator Cil\nston. I am just suggesting that you consider what interpretations will be ta/ken of your actions, regardless of your moti- vations, that you cannot totally determine what is neutrality. You have to at least consider what others will consider to be intervention.
I would like to say, finally, Mr. Chairman, that I think we should consider whether there is room for legislation here concerning pur- chases from suppliers who stand in violation of the law, since there is considerable question in the Department as to how far they can go in thajt. area. Perhaps the law is not clear and not proper. I am not. certain, but I think we should look into that.
Senator Mondale. Senator Saxbe?
Senator Saxbe. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mondale. We appreciate you and your assistants coming here today. It may well be that the policy of the Defense Department is a neutral one, but it is a neutrality that obviously favors the growers in the labor dispute surrounding the grape strike today.
I think it is asking too much of the average farmworker to have him believe that the Defense Department is being neutral when it increases the purchase of table grapes 40 percent and in a single year increases their use in Vietnam 350 percent, and this year is buying more table grapes than at any time in history of the Defense Department. A De- fense Department position of neutrality is questionable when you
646
responded by saying that DOD has solicited telegram requests to all points around the world urging their consideration of the use of table gra^^es.
This is a charged and embittered labor dispute. It involves the pleas of some of the most depressed workers in this country. The plight of the grape worker is about as serious, and as deprived and tragic as any in the Nation. They are trying to settle a strike. They are asking the right to bargain collectively, which is a right most people have had for 30 or 40 years.
They find themselves overwhelmed by freely imported labor from Mexico. The only tool that they have that is nonviolent that is avail- able to them is the appeal to the public through the grape boycott.
In the midst of this boycott, they find these rapidly rising percentage increases in purchases of table grapes by the Defense Department. It may well be that the Defense Department policy is inadvertent, for- tuitous, and neutral in a highly theoretical sense, but the practical operational fact is that it is favoring and helping the grape grower in this dispute, and I would ask you to give very, very serious consid- eration to this fact in the light of Secretary Laird's recent directive that the Defense Department invoke a social consciousness.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Babione. Thank you.
(Information in re purchase of table grapes by the Department of Defense follows : )
Request for Change in Policy of Table Gkape Purchase by Department of
Defense Considered
The request for a re-examination of the Department of Defense policy of neu- trality in the light of the Secretary of Defense directive on social consciousness has been brought to the attention of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Instal- lations and Logistics) by DSA. The Assistant Secretary is also considering the direct request to the Secretary of Defense by Senator Cranston.
Senator Mondale. Our next witness is Mr. William Kircher.
We are delighted to have you here this morning, and we are sorry your testimony must be rushed by factors of time. I am sure you rea- lize the importance of what we were seeking to develop here this morning.
Mr. Kircher, would you proceed ?
Senator Cranston. Before you proceed, I would like to apologize for the fact that I have to leave. I have to be in the Senate. I will read the record.
Mr. Kircher. That is quite all right. Senator.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM KIRCHER, DIRECTOR OF ORGANIZATION, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Kircher. I find myself in an unusual position. I worked dili- gently and addressed myself to the outline of the purpose of these hearings, and I ]:)repared what I felt were some very pertinent remarks, and I have anticipated with much enthusiasm the opportunity to say them before this committee.
Now, suddenly, I find I am not at all interested in saying them. I will, however, leave a copy of my statement with the committee for printing in the record.
647
I do not want my lack of enthusiasm in saying them at this time to be interpreted as detracting in any way how I feel about their essence or their validity.
My change in attitude is, of course, a result of having sat here for the last 21/^ hours and heard some very distressing things.
It has been a very educational two hours and a half. I have learned a completely new concept of neutrality, a concept which in this case says, "If you don't buy grapes, you are taking sides. If you do buy grapes, you are being neutral."
I don't quite understand this.
Senator Mondale. Would you yield there? Mr. Babione went fur- ther and said if you maintain grape purchases at their current level, it would be a partisan act. Apparently, only if you increase them can you demonstrate pure neutrality.
Mr. KiRCHER. Ml. Chairman, I am shocked at the superficiality of the attitude of this massive Department that spends so many billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, with respect to this vital issue. I am amazed.
Senator Cranston. I would like to add that this may indicate in some ways how we can be dragged into foreign wars by a policy of neutrality.
Mr. KiRCHER. I must say that I have a new perspective on the so- called military-industrial complex as a result of what I have heard.
Let me tell you something about the Defense Department's neu- trality, and I think I can relate it to the subject of your hearing here, the question of powerlessness, which, conversely, is the question of power.
The Defense Department, when there is a strike in an industry that is producing goods and materials that the Defense Department feels is vital to the defense effort of this country is not reluctant to use every and all entrees available to it to reach the labor movement and ask for some easement of those pressures.
Let me call vour attention to the fact that when the airlines are on strike, arrangements are made to accommodate the Defense Depart- ment's wishes.
Wlien there is a shipping strike, arrangements are made to accom- modate the Defense Department's wishes.
The Defense Department is not reluctant to exercise its influence, to ease the pressures of a strike situation when it is their interest that is suffering, and this is another commentary on their neutrality.
You know, it is a direct comment on the whole question of power, because what I have heard here today may become a new primer for the AFL-CIO and the labor movement in this country with respect to relationships with the Defense Department, because what I got from this is, "If you go on strike, and you don't want the Defense De- partment to hurt your strike, you'd better have the power to make the strike 100 percent effective."
That is what he has told us today. It is the powerlessness of the farmworkers to completely stop the production in this case, as can hapj^en in terms of metal -producing industries or transportation in- dustries, which opens the door for the Defense Department to practice of the kind of neutrality we heard here today.
I think this is a travesty.
648
I will tell you sometliing; else. When we accede to the wishes of the Defense Department where these reqnecrts for special consideration are based on the strike's efl'ect on the national security, we do it out of a dedication and a respect for the national security.
Now, it would seem to me that the Defense Department could well atford to engage in a course of education as it relates to the concept of collective bargaining and the extent to which it is one of the comer- stones of the secure position of this Nation.
I think the Defense Department should be told that collective bar- gaining is a concept which for 40 or 50 years has been a public policy in this Nation, and that strikes are a proper, legal, and logical exten- sion, when necessary, and accepted as such, in the collective bargain- ing process.
I think that they need to understand the philosophies of Govern- ment that supports this even w^here importation of foreign labor and immigration policies are concerned.
This committee is well acquainted with the theory of the adverse effect of immigration practices on wage standards and policies in this Nation.
Well, if it makes sense for us to operate an immigration policy on the basis of not permitting practices that would adversely affect the wages and standards that have been developed in this Nation, doesn't it make an equal amount of sense that the Defense Department in its practices should be subjected to the same kind of regulations and criteria ?
If other departments did in essence what is being done in this case, I don't think they would get by with it, and 1 think it is maybe a com- mentary on the extreme size, strength, power, and ability to spend money that the Defense Department has gotten along as it has in this.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I never anticipated having this kind of a feeling as I came before this committee. I really didn't expect very much from the testimony of the Defense Department. I certainly didn't expect what I heard.
I think the policy that I heard enunciated could be a very dangerous thing.
Senator Mondale. I am glad to have for our hearing record your reaction to the Defense Department position and to have heard you express your opinions and feelings in that way.
You are an experienced and seasoned union organizer. You are part of the mainstream of organized labor. You have been honored by the AFL-CIO to be elected, I think, more than once as director of organi- zation. You have spent your entire adult life trying peaceably to assert the rights of men who w^ork for a living, and I think you are entitled to respond, from the backgromid of that remarkable public career, to what you heard.
Mr. KiRCHER. If I may say, I was amazed that the witness said at one point, "Let's talk about other things," besides grapes.
I woukl have said, "Sure, let's talk about J. C. Stephens."
I am surprised Senator Cranston even bothered to ask a question of what they would do if a Government agency certified to them that some company from whom they are buying material had violated any law, because the J. C. Stephens Co., which has become one of the Supreme Court's best customers in terms of appealing conductions of
649
the national labor relations law, and I think it is up over $1 million in terms of penalties that it has had to pay in back wages for these vio- lations, is rewarded by additional defense contracts.
So, that there is a certain brazenness.
Senator Mondale, Mr. Kircher, how many years have you been a union organizer?
Mr. Kircher. Well, I don't like to talk about years, but approxi- mately— this is the 29th year.
Senator Mondale. In what kind of industries have you organized ?
Mr. Kircher. I guess virtually all of them. I worked in the trans- portation industry. I am originally out of an aircraft engine factory I helped to organize. I organized in the automotive field, in the service trades, and in the past few years, I have a responsibility for the overall direction of the organization. I have personally spent most of my time in those elements of the work force where the poverty, the impoverished worker is.
Senator Mondale. Based on that lifetime of experience, what factors make the organization and the achievement of collective bargaining so difficult in this table grape industry ?
Mr. Kircher. I think very quickly, you can say it is a combination of things.
I know people are quick to say, and I don't want to demean their importance, but the question of the lack of coverage of the national labor relations law. The lack of establishment of a procedure to de- termine the fact of representation is obviously a great thing.
Secondly, very obviously, tlie whole immigration problem, the prob- lem of tlie green carder, with which you are very familiar, is also an organizational ])roblem.
I want to say, however, that I think there is an overriding factor in this that makes it difficult, where the farmworkers are concerned.
This is a personal opinion, but I think the overriding issue is that agriculture in this country is a sacred cow. It is geographically placed in the national political community in such a way that it can very easily make accommodations for what it wants when it wants it.
I think this is what happened in the very beginning, in the cov- erage of the farmworker by the Wagner Act. I think that probably the interstate commerce criteria liad something to do with it, and the Supreme Court's decision on section 7 of the NIRA had something to do with it, but I think more than anything else, the tremendous political clout of agriculture was the main thing.
I think that the exclusion of the farniAvorker was the price that the administration in that day had to pay to get the Wagner Act passed.
Senator Mondale. From your ex])erience as a union organizer, have you ever encountered a task that had more difficulties, was fraught with more and ditfering kinds of powerlessness than that which faces the farmworkers' attempts to organize and bargain ?
Mr. Kircher, I could liave given you a very quick answer to that prior to my experience of several weeks recently in Charleston, S.C., with the hospital workers there. I think the farmworker situation is the most difficult and most frustrating that I have ever encountered in my career, but it is, at this ])oint, run a very close second by the problem of minorities who work in ])ublic employment in sections of the country which have long since characterized their bitterness toward unionism. That is a good close second.
050
Senator Mondale, I am ^oing: to include your full statement as though read in the record, and also make the responses of the Defense Department to our interroafatories a part of the record, and let the staff determine Avhat other materials on,2:ht to be included.
(The information to be furnished follows:)
Prepared Statement of William L. Kircher, Director of Organization, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
Mr. Chairman, my name is William L. Kircher. I am Dirpotor of Organiza- tion of the AFL-CIO, an organization of more than 13% million worker.s, many of whom, as workens, have known poverty and powerlei-Miess. Some, who are younger, have been spared many of those exi)erience8. To the extent that their powerlessne.ss has been overcome, and to the extent that they now enjoy a measnire of stability, security and dignity, it occurs as a result of many years of cea.seless struggle to organize and to accomplish through collective action that which could never have been attained without collective action.
Powerlessness among workers is generally a (ondition which describes the state of disorganization or lack of organization. The implicit .sugge-stion that power tends to follow organization is not exclusively applicable to working people. The sui>er market corporation today is an example of power through organization. Today's '"conglomerate" is another.
Some people decry size, organization and power as evil. We know, however, that it isn't good or bad per sc. It is good or bad related to its usage. Thus in a system where tlie greatest good for the greatest number is a bat'ic principle, government must regulate size and power so as to best serA'e the common cause but it must, in so doing, protect the rights of the minority. No principle is more clear-cut in our system than that which i-ays that rights and procedures through which one group or segment grows and becomes powerful shall not be withheld from others. While we philo.'-ophically accept thi-; concept of equality of opportunity, it is the selfish unwillingness of many powerful elements in this nation to practice this type of Americanism which created and continues to create the problems into which you now inquire. I need not tell you that you take on a formidable array of opposition when you .start such an inquiry. However, it is important work and I Avant to compliment the Subcommittee for the work it is doing, not only with regard to the subject matter itself but for the diligence with which it is conducting its work.
It is not a fnopular thing to look searchingly behind the scenes of the most affluent society in this world's history and, in the process, to expose some of its most glaring social atrocities. I would guesis that many people squirm with discomfont as they leam that in this day and age, when a full bathroom for every bedroom is a frequent "new home" characteristic, workers in the fields who harvest the fruits and vegetables which grace our tables, are deinied simple sanitary facilities and frequently told, if they complain, to use the fields. They are told that they are fortunate because they have "the whole outdoors as their toilet." It has never been popular at any time to hold, before the eyes of those who have, the desolate picture of despair which isi so often the lot of those who have not.
It is apparent that this Subcommittee wishes to examine the questions of poioerlessncss where migrant and seasonal workers are concerned in the context of their inability to he^lp themselves — 'to situdy the disadvantages of their lives and to find the extent to which their poiccrlessness to eliminate the conditions of disadvantage causes them to continue.
I note, Mr. Chairman, that you have .stated that these hearings today will be to "examine community and union organization efforts of migrant and seasonal farmworkers, and to explore why those efforts have either .succeeded or failed."
I shall endeavor to confine my.self to this area. I don't intend to try to esitablish the shameful conditions and practices which create the "plight of the migrant". Certainly that is already well establLshed.
I will be talking of "farmworkers". While you have used the tenns "migrant" and "seasonal" farm labor, virtually all farm labor is either contained in tliese grour)s or direcitly affected by what happens to them.
When you examine the organizati(mal history and the success or failure of the unionization efforts in farm labor. I think you are closer t-o the heart of the problem of "powerlessness" than you will be in any other phase of your inquiry.
851
This is not to downgrade in any way such programs as minimuim wage dmprove- nients, Fair Labor Standards Act improvements, special liealth and educational assistance, food stamps ajid tlie like. They are of great importance and, as you know, AFL-CIO works constantly in their behalf. However, they deal more with tlie effects of the problem you are studying, rather than with the causes.
The best figures available today indicate that there are a little more than three million persons in the hired farm working force. Probably 80 percent of them do seasonal work. The degree of sieasonaUty varies. There may be dose to a million seasonal workers who are siuiimer-time vacationing school students. It is a hard work force to "identify". One thing is certain. For so many woirkers, whoever they are and wherever they are, to so completely remain outside the mainstream of America unionism is no accident.
Unions have not gx'own in farm labor. There have been many effortsu Most of them have failed. Many have been accompanied by bloodshed, tlie violent misuse of local consitabulary, in some cases the use of vigilante tactics, and various community pi'essures.
The only effort that has in any way succeeded — and its success looks good in the perspective of history, not in the perspective of what needs to be done — is the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee of the AFL-CIO.
It is not that there have not been some other rather strong efforts. It was three years ago that Walter Reuther, then president of the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO, laimched a massive program in Florida designed, as he stated, to bring unionism to hundreds of thousands of farmworkers in that state and who migrate northward each year. Despite the expenditure of great sums of money and the utilization of much skilled mapower in a program called 'tailor-made" to meet today's challenges, that program did not produce the expected results and was ultimately abandoned.
In Texas, starting with a strike in the Rio Grande Valley in the spring of 1966, an organizational attempt was launched. Even though UFWOC had not had anything to do with the commencement of the effort we "adopte<i" it. It produced not one single union victory and today is hardly more than a "holding" effort.
Two years ago in the State of Wisconsin we were able to get a representation election for field workers harvesting vegetables for the Libby Company. The election was possible because of a State Labor Relations Law. That election was won and the union certified as the bargaining agent but before a contract could be negotiated the company announced that it was eliminating all of tlie jobs con- tained in the unit for which the election was held, and mechanizing them. The case is now in the courts.
The efforts in California, where the UFWOC has concentrated its activity, is almost ten years old. It started with the Agricultural Workers Organizing Com- mittee of AFI^CIO which was in operation from 1959 to 1966.
While AWOC won no contracts with grower-employers its organizational pres- sure contributed to wage improvements in agriculture in CaUfomia to a very marked extent. The National Farm Workers Association was an independent or- ganization, Spanish-speaking oriented and working among farmworkers more in the area of family problems and needs than in a collective bargaining direction. It started shortly after AWOC, which was a state-wide organizing effort, with most of its efforts in the Delano area. The two came together in the grape strike which started in Delano in September 1965 and their joint efforts led them to merge into what is now known as UFWOC in August 1966.
Today I'FWOC has contracts with ten employers. Their membership reaches a "harvest i>eak" high of about 7,500. Those are the results of the only real suc- cessful union organizing effort in farm labor in this country and they come after almost four years of constant striking, picketing, and boycotting. There is probably no union organizing effort in history where the per capita resultsi represent a greater investment in terms of money, manpower, and bone-wearying effort. And just in case that statement gives any employers cause for joy I would have them understand that everyone involved is committed to a continuation of the organizing campaign ... in money, in manpower and in continued expendi- ture of whatever bone-wearying effort is necessary.
That's the picture, Mr. Chairman, as quickly and concisely as I can give it.
I'm not particularly embarrassed to talk about it here. I am much more embarrassed when I am visited by a delegation of farmworker imionist from South America who enjoy strong unions with organizational and legal rights on a par with all other workers. In many cases they have been interested readers in their country of material, prepared by and distributed by this country, which
652
points out the greatness of our Democracy as a way of life and it often points to our American dedication to the concept of free collective bargaining and it links the strength of unions to the development of our great economic and moral fibres. The South American Caimpesino looks with wide-eyed amazement, utter disblief, when he hears that his counterpart in this country isn't permitted to be a part of the great institution he has read of.
Of course it is easy to blame farmworker powerlessness on the fact he is excluded from the coverage of our National Labor Law. The unfair exploitation of greencard visa-holders from Mexico as competition for the farmworker who is trying to unionize could also be mentioned, and I know you are familiar with this and have covered it in previous testimony.
I think however, that there is a more overriding single reason and that is the fact that agriculture is a "sacred cow" in this nation and it has been for many many years. It is a potent political force. It is an aggressive lobbying force. Its geographical location and its interests have been such as to make it easy to form coalitions with other segments of the national political com- munity to get what it wanted when it wanted it. I've heard all the talk about the fear of the "inter.state commerce" criteria back in 1937 as the cause for excluding agricultural workers from the Wagner Act Coverage. Maybe it played a part, but I don't think it was the major reason. I think it was the political price that the Administration had to pay to get the Act passed. I don't mind telling you that one of the reasons things haven't changed much for the farm- workers since 1937 is that things haven't changed much in Washington as far as those kinds of arrangements and accommodations are concerned.
The farmworker as a hired workforce, just hasn't had to be given any con- sideration ... he didn't have the "clout" to cause concern.
I don't know what the political opposition said back in those days of 1937 but I'll bet it went something like this. . . .
"We are in great sympathy with the desire to see the unfortunate lot of American farmworkers improved. But the Wagner Act would raise many more problems both for farmers and farmworkers than it would solve. Indeed, it is apparent that this Act would be nothing more than a cruel hoax perpetrated upon farmworkers by the Congress of the United States. It would inevitably result in drastic curtailment of employment opportunities by driving farmers to mechanize even more quickly than they are doing now. It would also expose hundreds of thousands of our most uneducated and poverty-stricken workers to exploitation through fraudulent prehire agreements against which they would be utterly defenseless. It would also undoubtedly represent the last straw for thousands of farmers who are barely able to keep their heads above water under present conditions."
For your information, Mr. Chairman, that is the "conclusion" paragraph of the dissent written by Senators Murphy of California and Fannin of Arizona only a year ago as they opposed the effort to extend NLRA coverage to farm- workers. I merely inserted the Wagner Act for S. 8. the name of the current legisla- tive attempt.
There is, and has been for many years, a massive effort to keep farmworkers from organizing. That will keep them powerless, and that is what the foes of their organizational progress really want. Those foes are powerful, and they are alert and they stand ready to pounce upon and destroy the first indication of progress for farmworkers wherever and however it occurs. Only a few weeks ago a small group of grape growers, whose ranches have been under strike and their grapes subjected to boycott, called upon the Federal Mediation and Concilia- tion Service of this Government to come in, take a look at the situation, call the parties together, and see if they could give some leadership to a soluticm. Hardly had this occurred than the Senior Senator from California, Mr. Murphy, called for an investigation of these negotiations, declaring the possibility of some kind of conspiracy. Imagine that, Mr. Chairman. The FMCS is an estab- lished government agency whose pux'po.se is precisely to perform the very service these growers requested. I am sure Senator Murphy knows this because he is always very quick to remind his listeners of his union background as a leader in the Screen Actors Guild. Any old union man knows about the FMCS. Appar- ently, to the opponent of the farmworker union the services of the FMCS are OK for everyone else but not when they go poking their noses into the "sacred cow" of the agriculture powerhouse. That, somehow, suggests "conspiracy".
It is almost unbelievable what growers and the power structure of agriculture- dominated communities will do to resist the attempts of farmworkers to organize. It is hard to get precise wage information, Mr. Chairman, but I will wager that
653
had the growers involved in the California disputes recognized the union five years ago and entei-ed into contract negotiations and maintained the bargaining relationship up to date, the wages they would be paying today would be no higher as a result of unicn negotiations, and possibly not as high, as they are now as a result of employers frantically raising wages to help chase the union organizer from the front gate. I think that they are willing to pay that high price for the continued poicerlessness of the workers.
I don't know how familiar you are with the statistics, Mr. Chairman, but in the private sector of the workforce where the NLRA pertains and protects the rights of workers to organize, there is a new record set each year at the NLRB for the number of complaints issued against managements for violating the law in interference witli the workers' rights to organize. I'm sure you've been reading what goes on in the Textile Industry where J. P. Stevens has become one of the Supreme Court's best castomers, and has yet to win one, incidentally. My point is simply this ... if employers will do all of those things where there is a Federal Law against them, think what the farmworker organizing effort encounters when there is no law.
I mentioned earlier the strike in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. I'm not sijeaking academically when I talk of that situation. I was there. I saw what the Texas Rangers did. I saw the reaction of the power structure and the kind of treatment farmworkers and their friends received.
The Texas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report concluding that citizens active in the organizing campaign had been denied certain of their legal rights. The report of the Advisory Committee con- tains the.se findings :
1. Physical and verbal abuse by Texas Rangers and Starr County law enforce-
ment ofl3cials ;
2. Failure to bring promptly to trial members and union organizers against
whom criminal charges have been alleged ; n. Holding of union organizers for many hours before they were released on bond ;
4. Arrest of IJFWOC members and organizers on the complaints of growers and
•packer.-? without full investigation of the allegations in the complaints. In contrast, law enforcement officials made full inve.stigations before acting on complaints filed by members and officers of TJFWOC ;
5. Encouragement of farmworkers by Rangers to cross picket lines ;
6. Intimidation by law enforcement officers of farmworkers taking part in rep-
resentation elections ; and
7. Harassment by Rangers of UFWOC members, organizers, and a representa-
tive of the Migrant Ministry of the Texas Council of Churches which gave
the appe?irance of being in sympathy with the growers and packers rather
than the impartiality usually expected of law enforcement officers.
Mr. Chairman, I think that there are great forces in this country who are much
more interested in the infliction of powerle.ssness upon impoverished workers
than in eliminating it. For them to prevail, as they have for so long, is one of
the worst things that can happen to this couutry. For them to continue to say
to the poor that they must remain iX)or because they are powerless to organize
and to act collectively to better themselves, will no longer be accepted by the
poor. This is a matter, Mr. Chairman, that goes beyond the migrants. It cuts
deeply into the causes of poverty wherever they exi.st.
In this nation today the working poor are largely minorities, principally Negro and Spani.ch-speaking. Powerle.«!sness is a very common denominator and it comes because the meaningful ri^t of .self-organization does not exist either because of the non-existence of protective and procedural laws or becau.se of the dev- astating effect of the intimidative and coercive practices of employers even where laws exist.
I work among these people, Mr. Chairman. I am convinced that the day is passing when they will accejrt: second-class .«tatus that is inflicted upon them because they are powerless and because they are denied rights of effective self- organization. They have learned the lessons of organization by observing unions and by ob.ser\'ing, or being part of, the civil rights revolution of the pa.st ten years, and while they may not understand the academic nuances in the concepts of "civil disobedience" they understand the gut philosophy of refusing to live by standards which set two classes of citizenship. If its wrong for some people to have to ride the back of the bus while others ride where they plea.'je then it is wrong for some people to have the right to self-organization and collective bar- gaining while others have not. If there aren't procedures and laws to correct
654
such inequalities then procedures and methods will be found. I'm not over- simplifying it, Mr. Chairman. I marched with black hospital workers in Charles- ton, South Carolina and brown farmworker.s in the Coachella and Imperial Val- leys of California within a five-day i^eriod. The similarity of their plights is very striking. They are second-class citizens where the right to effective self-organiza- tion is concerned. For years we have been telling them that the only law they have, by which to organize, is the law of the jungle. That doesn't frighten them any longer. We have tended to tell them, as Congressman Sipk of California does repeatedly, that they have the right under the Constitution to organize. What is implicit In such a proposition is a challenge that they must have the muscle and guts to fight for that right.
They haven't stood up to that fight in the past. They are today. Without pro- cedures and protections that are meaningfully related to their organizational needs, that fight can be bitter and co.stly.
Already in South Carolina it has brought out Sherman tanks and National Guardsmen. In Texas it brought out the Rangens. In Calexico and the Mexicali Border it brought out the State Highway, the County Police and the Mexican police.
On the Mexican border, where normally workers pass freely to and from the United States to work at low wages, it put a "ix)lice state" embargo on their travel on the day of "worker solidarity" as U.S. farmworkers ended a 100-mile march to that border to extend the hand of trade-union solidarity to their Mexi- can brothers and si.sters. It caused merchants in the little town of Niland, Cali- fornia at the southeastern tip of the Salton Sea, to close their stores as the "marchens" came through so that on that hot 112-degree day there would be no ice or cold drinks available to them. It would find the Governor of South Caro- lina publicly stating that to "recognize the union of hospital workers would de- stroy the integrity of South Carolina."
It has already seen in the south, civil rights organizations, students, ministers and other community activists joining the cause of the disenfranchised hospital workers. In the west it sees similar action groups joining "LaCausa" around the fields and in front of super-markets all over the nation.
All is developing under the broad canopy of self organization for purposes of collective bargaining, which means unionism. As you know, AFLr-CIO is deeply involved in giving direct leadership to these movements.
Again, in terms of the dislocation to the community and the interruption of the tranquility of life as it has always been, the effect has been pronounced and dramatic in California and South Carolina. In terms of the national picture of millions of poor who are waiting "their turn" in this type of organizational endeavor, the.se two have hardly scratched the surface.
They point dramatically, however, to the fact that while there is powerlessness we have passed the point of continued acceptance by poor workers of those condi- tions which cause powerlessness. One of the great challenges which national leadership faces is the kind of machinery and climate which can be created to make the transition from powerlessness to power the least damaging to our national unity.
Senator Mondale. I thank you, Mr. Kircher, for being here today, and the other witnesses.
I will order the record kept open in order that pertinent documents may be included.
(The information referred to follows:)
Questions Submitted by the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor RE Purchase of Table Grapes and Other Fruits, and Its Impact, and Answers Supplied by DOD
Question 1. It is our understanding that numerous growers and/or their repre- sentatives have attempted to eneonrage the DOD to increase their purchase of table grapes. Please supply us with copies of all communications relating to this matter between the DOD and other branches of the federal government and table grape groujcrs and/or their representatives.
Answer. Only on one occasion has a grower or representative of a grower at- tempted to encourage the DOD to increa.'ie purchases of table grapes. That was in the form of a rebuttal in which he explained his .side from a grower's stand- point. DOD reply is shown below and a copy of incoming correspondence is attached :
655
"On behalf of President Nixon, I am replying to your recent letter regarding the shipment of grapes to U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam.
•'The boycott against the use of California table grapes has, as you know, received a great deal of publicity. As you related, we in the Department of De- fense have been accused of strike-breaking because we have continued to pur- chase grapes. The procurement of grapes is a very normal practice and no diffi- erent from that of providing other desired food requirements to support our mili- tary personnel stationed in South Vietnam and elsewhere.
"Our replies to inquiries concerning the Department of Defense position on grape procurements and to demands that we discontinue the procurements of California table grapes have been the same, that is, the Department of Defense position in labor disputes is to remain completely neutral in all such matters. The enclosed fact sheet reflects that position, as well as provides specific infor- mation on the extent of Department of Defense purchase of grapes.
"President Nixon has asked that I thank you for relating to him your concern for our agricultural system and for your thoughts of the possible effects of the grape boycott to the national interest.
President Richard M. Nixon,
The White House,
Washingfon, District of Columbia.
Dear Mr. President : I am a grape farmer and an ex-Merchant Seaman from World War II. My father escaped the Turkish massacre to come to this wonder- ful country of ours to take part in the "American Dream". He is now retired, unable to work any more. Today, I read in the Packer, a National Weekly Busi- ness newspaper for growers, shippers, rearers, distributors and retailers of fruits and vegetables that the Pentagon was accused of increasing grape ship- ments to Vietnam. It makes my blood boil to read such trash as this. There, are our boys fighting "Communism" take over of Vietnam and here in our country a "little Ceasar" (Chavez) would quoting his own words "If this spirit grows within the farm labor movement, one day we can use the force that we have to help correct a lot of things that are wrong with this society." The above was obtained from the Fourteenth Report Un-American Activities in California 1967 — Report of the Senate Fact Finding Subcommittee on Un-Amercan Activities to the 1967 Regular Session of the California Legislature.
Dear Mr. President : I wholeheartedly believe that if our troops desire grapes or whether fresh fruit, vegetables, or meat, they de.serve it, and any person, or- ganization, or company against it is going against our ideals of Americanism and our American Dream. I wholeheartedly and so does my wife agree that the Pentagon knows what our troops accept highly for food. They and the troops know what is best for themselves. I am mailing to you under separate cover this 1967 California Senate Report just in case you haven't read it. Our farm- workers have expressed themselves in more ways than one that they do not want any part of "little Cesar" and his union (commimist controlled). Just this evening, I spoke to another farmer and he told me that he spoke with a picketer who used to be on his basketball team that he managed for the youths. This picketer is no grape woi-ker and stated that the farmer sTiould after paying all expenses divide his profits equally between the farm workers. That sounds like and is exactly a "collective" "KOAX03" (gholkhoy in Russian communist system form. I am against that! Where am I going to escape it? My father from the Turks and now I from communist or unionism take over of our country. This "little Cesar" and his gang are exactly the same type of people that were "Lenin" and his gang. Lenin stated that boycotts and strikes lead to insurrec- tion, then revolution, then change of government. I have already written to Mr. J. Edgar Hoover but as yet have not received a reply. I do hoi)e our government can get rid of this "revolutionary little Cesar."
In Rome everybody laughed about him and his dreams of himself as a "Cesar of Rome" and said "communists only care about people." This was just printed recently in the Indio Daily News or the Riverside Enterprise. Last year, I heard with my own ears that "when we take over, the land will be ours." And when Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz several years back came to Indio, there were people shouting (not date-tree workers) but the "leftist element," "that if you can't farm date trees and try an make money, pull them out." Mr. Wirtz caused all of this havoc of the farmers. When I was going to school in East St. Louis, Illinois, I was instructed by my teachers that
-513 O - 70 - pt. 3A - 8
056
the farmer is the back-bone of this country. This I'll never forget until I die. I fervently hope that we farmers can remain doing this job and keep our agricul- tural .system a free enterprise and American instead of •'collective farming — communist style keeps us. Please try to do something to get this "little Cesar" and his backers (communist controlled) out of the business of ruining our government. I'm all for anything you are as Chief Executive of our great country in preventing or furthering this. Remember the Germans shipi)ed Lenin into Russia in a sealed boxcar to cause disruption for them so they could vs^in the vpar. The Germans helped finance Lenin also! Novp^ the communists are financing Chavez. Lets get rid of him ! Yours faithfully,
Question 2. Please furnish us ivith copies of all communications between the DOD and other agencies and/or branches of the federal ffovernment relating to DOD purchases of table grapes.
Ansiver. We have interpreted this to mean other than congressional referrals of letters from their constituents. Records indicate no correspondence from other agencies and/or branches of the Federal Government.
Question 3. Please provide us with copies of all communications from Cali- fornia state and county officials to the DOD on the topic of DOD purchases of table grapes.
Answer. There has been no correspondence to the Office of the Secretary of Defense from California State and county officials on this subject.
Question J/. What action ivas taken by the DoD as to the above communica- tions and by irhose authority? Please provide us with the name and title of the person(s) responsible for replying to these communications.
Answer. All correspondence received on this subject requiring an answer has been replied to stating the neutral position of DoD in such matters. Those re- sponsible for replying to such correspondence are :
Honorable Barry J. Shillito, Assistant Secretary of Defense ( Installations and Logistics).
Mr. Paul H. Riley, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (I&L) (Supply & Seri'ices).
Lt. Gen. Earl C. Hedlund, Director, Defense Supply Agency.
Question 5. Is it true that sometime bctireen 196^ and 196S the DoD purchased an unusually large long-range supply of frozen orange juice in advance of normal timing of purchases, so as to avoid the possible economic loss from a freeze af- fecting Florida- oranges? If so, please explain in detail.
Ansicer. DoD did not purchase any large long-range supply of frozen orange juice during the period 1964-1968.
Question. 6. Does the DoD buy table grapes for use in military dining halls, po.st exchanges (PX's), U.S. Embassies abroad, and/or commissaries, or other? If so, which? And what percentage of total purchases go to each category?
Answer. DoD buys table grapes for all its activities, including Military dining halls, post exchanges, and commissaries. DoD does not buy directly for U.S. Embassies abroad ; however, in some locations the Embassies may obtain grapes from Defense activities abroad. DSA purcha.ses grapes in the U.S. for commis- saries at military installations in the U.S. or abroad. The Commissaries pro- vide both troop and resale requirements. PX's and other non-appropriated fund activities, such as clubs, may be supported by commissaries or may do their own purchasing. Troop requirements are based on forecast troop strengths. An- nual Food Plans are developed in advance, the 1969 plan was prepared in May 1967. Serving of various items, in these plans, are .scheduled ba.sed on projected cost, availability, nutritional factors, and troop acceptability. Resale require- ments are consolidated with troop requirements. The forecast troop require- ments are subject to adjustment when forecast troop strengths are changed. Also, when planned items are not available, other items, either perishable or nonperishable, are substituted. For CONUS activities the.se requirements go di- rectly to DPSC SRH's for procurement. For overseas activities they are .sent to the DPSC SRH's in Port areas for purchase. There is no information readilv available as to the percentage of DSA grape purchases for each u.se category mentioned as requirements placed with DSA for purchase do not identify to use category.
Our educated guess is that approximately 50% of total consumption of table grapes is for troop issue. The Commissary Officers at the various Military Activities are responsible for
657
assuring that planned menu items, including grapes, are available and distrib- uted to troop messes as required. They are also responsible for support of in- dividual commissary customer or non-appropriated fund organizations with their requirements as necessary. Concessions, normally, do not purchase from commissaries.
Question 7. Does the DOD buy table grapes for other uses? If so, state them.
Answer. DOD does not buy table grai>es for any use other than thase outlrnetl in the response to question No. 6.
Question 8. Wh^it variety of table grapes does the DOD purehase (Thompson, Perlette, Emperor, Ribier, Tokay, ete.) ? Give the amount in pounds and value in U.S. dollars by each variety of table grapes purchased in each FY, 1965 through 19'69, with projected data for FY-70.
Ansiver. Statistics related to DOD purchases of table grapes are not recorde<l by variety and there is no data available which will identify purchases with a variety. Quantities of table grapes purchased are compiled as "table grapes" without regard to specific variety. The total amount in pounds and value in U.S. dollars for purchases of table grapes during FY 1965 through FY 1969 are con- tained in the response to question No. 9.
Question. 9. How much total table grapes in pounds and value in U.S. dollars has the DOD bought in each fi-seal year since 1965 through 1969, with projected pur- chase data through FY 10? Please provide this data by each quarter of each FY.
Ansiver. Procurement data requested has been tabulated as follows :
Period i
Pounds (in millions)
Dollars (in millions)
Fiscal year 1967:
1st quarter
2d quarter
3d quarter
4th quarter
Total, fiscal year 1967 2
Fiscal year 1968:
1st quarter _..
2d quarter..
3d quarter
4th quarter
Total, fiscal year 1968 2
Fiscal year 1969:
1st quarter
2d quarter
3d quarter
4th quarter
Total, fiscal year 1969 '
|
2.63 |
0.40 |
|
2.97 |
.45 |
|
1.99 |
.28 |
|
.73 |
.12 |
|
8.3 |
1.25 |
|
2.35 |
.46 |
|
3.35 |
.58 |
|
.79 |
.16 |
|
.42 |
.12 |
|
6.9 |
1.32 |
|
2.98 |
.53 |
|
4.12 |
.73 |
|
1.86 |
.32 |
|
.75 |
.17 |
9.69
1.76
> Fiscal years 1965 and 1966 data not available. 2 Approximate.
Requirements for fresh produce are not forecast and any projection of purchases for FY 70 would be pure conjecture. Purchase will depend upon the factors of supply and demand as well a.s prevailing market conditions.
Question 9a. Please supply similar data for oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, apples, plums, cherries, strauberries, pears, peaches, or other fruit.
Answer. Requested data are tabulated below :
ORANGES
Period 1
Pounds
(in
millions)
Dollars
(in
millions)
Fiscal year 1967:
Istquarter 9.98 1.33
2d quarter. 11.76 1.17
3d quarter 15.28 1.24
4th quarter.. 17.67 2.38
Total, fiscal year 1967 2 54.69 6.12
Fiscal year 1968:
Istquarter 11.43 1.15
2d quarter 15.91 1.77
Period '
3d quarter.
4th quarter
Total, fiscal year 1968 K Fiscal year 1969:
Istquarter...
2d quarter.
3d quarter
4th quarter
Total, fiscal year 1969..
|
Pounds |
Dollars |
|
(in |
(In |
|
millions) |
millions) |
|
17.60 |
2.15 |
|
16.56 |
1.98 |
|
61.49 |
7.06 |
|
10.06 |
1.60 |
|
9.79 |
1.16 |
|
14.07 |
1.27 |
|
(3) |
(3) |
|
Q) |
(') |
e58
GRAPEFRUIT
Period >
Pounds
(in
millions)
Dollars
(in
millions)
Fiscal year 1967:
1st quarter... (3) (3)
2d quarter (3) (3)
3d quarter 4.84 0.37
4th quarter _ 4.54 .37
Total, tiscal year 1967 2 16.23 1.48
Fiscal year 1968:
Istquarter... 2.90 .36
2d quarter 3.59 .36
Period i
Pounds Dollars
(in (in
millions) millions)
3d quarter 5.44 .50
4th quarter 4.01 .42
Total, fiscal year 1968 2 15.94 1.65
Fiscal year 1969:
Istquarter _ 3.05 .41
2d quarter 3.73 .45
3d quarter. 6.60 .61
4th quarter (3) (3)
Total, fiscal year 1969 (3) (')
TANGERINES
Fiscal year 1967:
Istquarter (3) (3)
2d quarter _ (3) (3)
3d quarter. 1.55
4th quarter .12
Total, fiscal year 1967 2 3.62
Fiscal year 1968:
Istquarter... (3) (3)
2d quarter 1.48
0.18 .01 .44
.23
3d quarter 1.40 .22
4th quarter. .09 .01
Total, fiscal year 1968 2. 2.97 .46
Fiscal year 1969:
Istquarter (3) (3)
2d quarter (3) 0)
3dquarter 1.18 .17
4th quarter (") (3)
Total, fiscal year 1969 -'. (3) (3)
APPLES
Fiscal year 1969: Isf quarter... 2d quarter...
13.17 18.74
1.99 2.70
3d quarter... 19.17 2.57
4th quarter (3) (3)
Total, fiscal year 1969. (3) (3)
PLUMS
Fiscal year 1967:
Istquarter _ 0.37 0.09
2d quarter 1.13 .25
3d quarter .001 .001
4th quarter. .21 ^005_
Total, fiscal year 1967 2 1.71 .39
Fiscal year 1968:
Istquarter 2.19 .47
2d quarter. .30 .06
3d quarter.
4th quarter
Total, fiscal year 1968 2
Fiscal year 1969:
1st quarter
2d quarter
3d quarter.
4th quarter...
Total, fiscal year 1969 (3)
|
.0008 |
.0001 |
|
.54 |
.12 |
|
3.03 |
.65 |
|
1.89 |
.41 |
|
.11 |
.02 |
|
.00006 |
. 00002 |
|
(') |
(») |
(0
PEARS
Fiscal year 1967: Istquarter... 2d quarter...
3d quarter
4th quarter...
Total, 19672
Fiscal year 1968:
1st quarter...
2d quarter...
3d quarter...
|
1.93 |
0.25 |
|
2.61 |
.34 |
|
1.66 |
.21 |
|
.81 |
.11 |
|
7.01 |
.91 |
|
.79 |
.15 |
|
2.29 |
.34 |
|
1.73 |
.25 |
4th quarter
Total, 1968..
Fiscal year 1969:
1st quarter
2d quarter
3d quarter.
4th quarter _.
Total, fiscal year 1969.. (')
|
.56 |
.10 |
|
5.36 |
.84 |
|
1.97 |
.31 |
|
2.75 |
.44 |
|
2.02 |
.33 |
|
(') |
(») |
(»)
PEACHES
Fiscal year 1967:
Istquarter (3) (i)
2d quarter (») («)
3d quarter (•) (»)
4th quarter («) (i)
Total, fiscal year 1967 (») (i)
Fiscal year 1968:
Istquarter 3.68 0.71
2d quarter 22 .05
3d quarter. . .0002 .00005
4th quarter 1.20 .21
Total, fiscal year 1968 2 5. 09 .96
Fiscal year 1969:
Istquarter 4.02 .57
2d quarter 24 .04
3d quarter . . 005 . 0007
4th quarter (3) (3)
Total, fiscal year 1969 (3) (')
659
OTHER FRUIT
Fiscal year 1967:
Istquarter 0.49 0.10
2d quarter.. 1.68 .38
3d quarter .47 .09
4th quarter 79 .22
Total, fiscal year 1967 2 3.45 .80
Fiscal year 1968:
Istquarter... .84 .22
2d quarter .79 .19
3d quarter .36 .07
4th quarter... .38 .12
Total, fiscal year 1968 2 2.39 .61
Fiscal year 1969:
Istquarter .73 .21
2d quarterp .55 .15
3d quarter 27 .06
4th quarter.... (3) (3)
Total, fiscal year 1969.. (3) (3)
1 Fiscal years 1965 and 1966 data not available.
2 Approximate.
3 Not available.
Procurement data for items Cherries and Strawberries respectively is not available. Procurements for these items are usually in insignificant amounts.
Question 10. Has the amount and/or value of all table (/rapes purchased iy the DoD in FY 69 increased or decreased over the amount purchased in each of the previous two FY's? If so, for what reason?
Answer. Reference to the table provided in the response to question #9 dis- closes that the amount and value of table grape purchases has increased. Supply and demand factors are the major contributors to the increases.
Question 11. Has the amount of fresh oranges purchased by the DoD in FY 69 increased or decreased over the amount purchased in each of the previous two FY's? If so, for what reason?
Answer. DoD purchases of fresh oranges were approximately 54 million pounds for FY 67, 61 million pounds for FY 68, and 34 million pounds through the first three quarters of FY 69. Procurements are based upon firm requisi- tions from the Military Services and increases or decreases from one year to another are the results of customer demands.
Question 12. What amount in pounds and value in U.S. dollars of fresh oranges has been purchased by the DoD in each quarter of FY 67, 68, and 69?
Answer. See question No. 9a. Question 13. What amount in pounds and value in U.S. dollars of fresh oranges has been shipped by the DoD to Europe in each quarter of FY 61, 68, and 69? to Vietnam ?
Answer. Information as to the oranges shipped to Europe, and their dollar value, is not available. Automated system combines oranges with grapefruit and lemons to provide a total pounds of citrus shipped. This total does not provide dollar value nor does system include any detail on the items included in the total.
Information as to total citrus shipped to Europe in fiscal years 1967 through 1969 is as follows : FY 1967, 517,000 pounds ; FY 1968, 5,648,000 pounds ; and FY 1969, 4,925,000 pounds.
The low volume of shipments in FY 1967 is attributed to the European area locally purchasing most of their citrus requirements during this period. This was discontinued in subsequent periods to further the national balance of pay- ments policies.
Data on orange shipments to Vietnam are also in the consolidated category of total citrus with no dollar value. Total citrus shipped to Vietnam in each fiscal year is as follows : FY 1967, 16,832,000 pounds ; FY 1968, 29,313,000 pounds ; and FY 1969, 42,507,000 pounds.
Question I4. Has the amount of fresh oranges purchased during FY 61, 68, and 69 by the DoD increased or decreased at a faster rate than that of table grapes purchased by the DoD during FY 61, 68 and 69?
Answer. DSA purchases of grapes and oranges were as follows, in millions of pounds :
|
Grapes |
Oranges |
|
|
Fiscal year: 1967 . |
8.3 |
54.7 |
|
1968 |
6.9 |
61.5 |
|
1969 -_ |
9.69 |
145.2 |
|
> Estimated. |
660
Analysis disc-loses both increases and decreases for which the normal factors of supply and demand are the predominant contributors. It is significant to note that when purchases for oranges increased, grape purchases decreased, and vice versa.
Question 15. Has the amount of fresh oranges shipped during FY 67, 68, and 69 by the DoD to Euroije and Vietnam increased or decreased at a faster rate than that of table grapes shipped by the DoD during FY 67. 68, and 69? If so, why?
Ansiwr. There is no detailed data available to provide a comparison of orange and grape shipments to Euroi>e during the period fiscal years 1967 through 1969.
There is also no detailed data on oranges shipped to Vietnam during this period but a comparison and analy!«is can be made of the volume of grai^es and citrus fruits (grapefruit, lemons, and oranges) shipments made to Viet- nam during each of these fiscal years. Comparison of volume of each item shipped to Vietnam is as follows :
Grapes to Vietnam Citrus to Vietnam
Percent Percent
Period Pounds increase Pounds increase
Fiscal year 1967 468,000 16,832,000
Fiscal year 1968 555,000 19 29,313,000 81
Fiscal year 1969 2,500,000 350 42,507,000 45
The above clearly indicates a substantially greater rate of increase in the volume of grape shipments to Vietnam than the rate of increase for citrus. This is attributed to reasons stated in the answer to question number 16.
Question 16. What wo.« the basis for the decision to ehoose table ffrapes as the substitute for the alleged shortage of fresh oranges during '67, '68, and '69? a. By tvhat process and authority teas this decision made? b. What is the name and title of the person who made the decision to substitute table grapes for the alleged shortage of fresh m-angcs during 1968 and 1969? c. Was a review of this decision made by tvhom, name, title, and position? d. What is the name and. title of the immediate supervisor of the person who made this decision?
Answer. There was no significant shortage of fresh oranges in FY's 67 and 68. In July of FY 69 a shortage of export quality oranges was predicted for the September-November period. All requisitioners in the Far East were advised of this and a.sked to consider grapes as a substitute. Grapes were .selected by the customers because ample supplies of high quality were forecast and it was not considered advisable to duplicate the planned servings of the limited selection of other fresh fruits available for this period, such as apples and pears. HQ DPSC was aware of, and in agreement with, this action.
Grapes had not, previously, been shipped regularly to the most distant overseas commands due to the long transit time and high probability of extensive loss prior to consumption due to difficulty in maintaining proiier temperature in conven- tional refrigerated hatch shipments and the numerous handlings associated with this method of shii>ping. The U.S. Forces in Vietnam, during the build-up, had limited refrigeration and in-country distribution capability. Conventional refrig- erated hatch space "Was the principal means of accomplishing the overseas move- ment. As the build-up progressed, high priority was given to improvement in overseas storage and distribution capability. There was, concurrently, a rapid increase in the availability of refrigerated container service for the overseas movement. There was strong command desire to provide a variety of fresh fruits to troops. These are additional factors which have influenced the increased ship- ments of grai>es to Vietnam. Movements by refrigerated container eliminate sev- eral handlings of product. Temperatures are more constant, and less time is consumed in port waiting for loading and unloading.
Question 11. What percentage of all DoD fresh table grape purchases were made from California contractor.^ (groircrs and/or packcr.s and shipper.^) in each FY, 1965 through 1969? a. What percentage of all DoD fresh table grapes pur- cha.ses in each FY, 1965 through 1969, were made from contractor.s {growers and/or packers and shippers) in states other than California? b. How much table
661
{/rapes in pounds and value in U.S. dollars icere purchased from each state?
Answer. There are no precise figures on this, but we estimate that 90% of DSA table grape purchases are from California contractors.
Question 18. Do all U.S. table grape growers have an equal opportunity to Md on DoD contracts for table grapes? If not, explain. If so, explain how this is achieved.
Atiswcr. Not all growers of table grai)es have an opportunity to bid on every single DoD procurement. This is because DoD purchases of table grapes are made by an on-site buyer who is normally located in an area where a number of grower.s are located. As a result, all growers of table grapes do not have an op- portunity to bid on DoD requirements for table grapes. This procedure is fol- lowed by DoD in the purchasing of most items of iKrishable subsistence. There are a number of reasons for this procedure, however, two of the prime factors are ; first, the buyer is able to visually inspect the quality of the product being offered and, secondly, this procedure enables the buyer to obtain brisk competition among the growers and thus, is assured good prices.
Question 19. How much has the DoD paid per pound for all U.S. table grapes purchased in each FY since 1967 through 1969? Please provide this information on a quarterly basis with a breakdown by each variety of grape.
Question 20. How much has the DoD paid per pound for all CalifoiMia table grapes purchased in each fiscal year since 1967 through 1969? Please provide this information on a quarterly basis with a breakdown by each variety.
Question 21. Has the price per pound by the DoD for U.S. table grapes in- creased or decreased in FY 69 as compared to FY 67 and 68? If so. state the reason.
Question 22. Has the price per pound paid by the DoD for California table grapes increased or decreased in FY 69 as compared to FY 67 and 68? If so, by how\much, and state the reason.
Answer. This information not available on a quarterly basis by variety. The average prices paid for all grapes were :
Fi-scal year 1967 $0. 130
Fiscal vear 1968 0. 192
Fiscal year 1969 0. 182
No separate breakout is available for California grapes, however, since practically all grapes purchased by DSA are California, the above prices ai"e applicable for California grapes.
There was an overall increase in price from FY 67 to FY 68 and a smaller decrease from FY 68 to FY 69. These are attributable to normal supply and de- mand factors.
Question 2,3. What is the cost per pound to ship grapes, oranges, apples, a)nd. other fruits to Vietnam?
Answer. DSA purchases fresh produce delivered to Port for items scheduled for movement as hatch cargo or to the container stuffing location when move- ment is scheduled by this means, and purchase prices include cost of trans- portation to the FOB point. Hatch cargo space is paid on a cube basis, and containers are paid on a flat rate per container basis. The cost per pound varies on the weight/cube ratio of the commodity. Average cost per pound for fruits and other produce from the FOB point to Vietnam, including container stuffing, port handling and stevedoring, approximate :
Refrigerated hatch $0. 06
Refrigerated container 0. 085
Question 2^. What procedure is used by the DoD in awarding contracts for table grapes? Please give us a copy of a typical 1969 contract between the DoD and a table grape contractor (grower and/or packers and .shippers).
Answer. Grapes are generally purchased by the sight buying method. Sight buyers make daily visits to produce terminals or growing areas.^ When they have requirement.s for grapes, they visit suppliers who market grapes, inspect for quality, and obtain price quotations. Later, after evaluating all offerors price, quality, and other factors, they notify the successful suijplier(s) of their awards. Purchases are for requirements to meet specific delivery schedules
602
(rather than quantities for a long period of time) and are accomplished with only enough time after award for the contractor to meet the delivery schedule.
Suppliers are generally notified, in advance, that buyers will be in their areas, and are furnished copies of standard terms, conditions, and clauses which will be referenced and become a part of the formal contract document which will be forwarded later to the contractor.
Certain clauses and conditions are required by statute or by Government action at the Executive or Departmental level. These are incorporated into standard forms at the Government level and instructions on their use provided to con- tracting personnel by the Armed Services Procurement Regulation.
Other clauses and conditions are peculiar to the operations of DSA or DPSC. These are incorporated into standard provision format, in a similar manner, and promulgated to contracting personnel through the Procurement Regulations of DSA or DPSC.
Five copies of a standard DPSC subsistence order and the standard terms and conditions nonmally incorporated therein are being provided separately.
663
ORDER FOR SUBSISTENCE
DSA, Subastencc Regionid Hcadqu* Defense Personnel Support Center 312Nonh Spring Street Lo. Aagele.. C«lifomia 90012
l»coo.
DEA 134 70 M 1243
ATfi50S 9139 7204 FC : C?/;
PACE I or
3 PAGES
f orie
I.ASM DB CAMP COMPAP^v P. 0. 5ox 3127, Visalia, Calif. 93277
DSA, Subs Defens
312 North Sorin/i Street Los Angele.-i, California
ce Regional Headqua inel Support Center
□ '
Dlt.lVCN S AND C(
97X4961.51)3 74 26 SD4089 P/R 3-70
E
69 July 10
ruNNItM THE FOL VPCCIFICD IM TMl!
T/O, MOTGA-, OAKUl.'ID ARWY BASE
Del. to: Sealand Contr. Yd, Oakland, Calif .
For Loading on: "SS LOS ANGELES"
(ARMY DEPOT OKir;AWA)
T«(M 1969 July 10
Pick up- 2 FM
, MOT •« ACCCPTCD AFTKfc
ATKa aPaciFiKO, Non at ant timc o
■ . IN5»eCTION POINT
Origin - Arvin, Calif.
». ACCKPTANCC POINT
□ oeSTN |X~10RICIN
5ealand Van^..^,,,.^
□ OESTN E] In .ch«»,l.)
Origin-accept. final^''^^"' "^alif^ 33 schedul
GRAPES: FS : Y-G-671f, 24 Oct 66 .^ Interim Amd. 3, 19 Dec. 68; US No. 1 grade "Table" Cardinals. Min. Net Ut. 26#
GROWING AREA: Kern County, Calif.
Via truck
Origin Inspection by USDA at Contractor's
"FOR EXPORT"
EXPORT MKD PII// Or;LY TCN SC0305 1814A005KK5 I. D. #054
(Cont'd(
$1,380.00
PEFEWENCCi
DPSC 1 8 » THRU H, 69 May i9
20 A,e, 69 JAN 2 ; DPSC 38a, b, 68 Jan 15 44, 69 Apr. 7 200a, b, 66 Sept. 15
69 July 11;
—'-■.It OCT67,'
$1,380.00
K. B. THOMP!
664
|
RECEIVING REPORT OF ORDER FOR SUBSISTENCE |
FROMf/V.meof Co |
ns/jn^r) |
n PARTIAL □ final |
|||
|
RECEIVING REPORT |
OUANT.TV 1 |
|||||
|
STOCK NO (If Shown on OrdeO AND DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES |
UNIT |
SHIPPED |
RECEIVED |
|||
|
REJECTIONS fCIVE REASONS) |
||||||
|
CHECK IF □ INSPECTIONCERTIFICATE NOT RECEIVED | | ITEMS NOT RECEIVED WITH SHIPMENT APPLICABLE- □ SUPPLIES PLACED IN HOLD CONDITION |
||||||
|
DATE RECEIVED |
GBL NO. |
CAR NO. |
STOCK RECORD ACCOUNT VOUCHER NO. |
|||
|
THE SUPPLIES LISTED HEREIN WERE INSPECTED. THEY CONFORM TO CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT AS NOTED 1 1 NO EXCEPTIONS |
THE SUPPLIES LISTED HEREIN. EXCEPT AS NOTED. HAVE BEEN RE- CEIVED. ACCEPTED AND ACCOUNTED FOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS. □ NO EXCEPTIONS |
|||||
|
SIGNATURE AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE |
SIGNATURE AND ACCOUNT SERIAL NO. AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE |
|||||
|
GRADE |
300- 2
665
AGE NO. tND.Or PAOES
ORDER FOR SUBSISTENCE
CONTINUATION SHEET
3SA |3< <it M X.
CONTRACT NUMSEN
THf WSRKING or FRFSH FRUITS i VreETABLES SHALL BE CONTRACT OR PURCHASE ORDER.
N ACCOROANC
PRICOOL PRODUCT TO
VAN TO BE PRECOOLED -lO-.-O'
F.
ANNOTAT: commercial B/l : "MAINTAIN TEMP. OF "■■' I "(-.
fA) SEALS TO BE APPLIED BV VENDOR IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION (B) SEAL NUMBERS TO BE RECORDED ON B OF L BY INSPEITOR SUPERV 1 1 ING IL OAD INC. fC) "VENDOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE AND ASSUME TVI E RISI FOR SUPPLI'IS N(T RECFlVEli AT THE FIRST SPECIFIED OVERSEAS DESTINATION PRIVlDED, HOtE'ER, THAT THE GOVFHNMENT OETERMIN'ES THAT THE ORIGINAL SEALfS OF THE CONfA'NqR IN WHICH SAID SUPPLIES ARE TRANSPORTED WAS INTACT."
OPbC rOHU
666
Question 25. Who is responsible, other than DoD attorneys, for drafting, approving, signing, and enforcing these contracts? Oivc tlw name, title, and posi- tion for the person (s) responsible.
Answer. The procuring contracting officer (PCO) , located at one of the various Subsistence Regional Headquarters (SRHs) is responsible for incorporating the terms, conditions and clauses in the formal contract document. The PCO is guided in this effort by the contents of the Armed Services Procurement Regula- tions (ASPR) and the Procurement Regulations of the Defense Supply Agency and the Defense Personnel Support Center. As a matter of practice, there are a number of PCOs at each SRH and each is responsible to the Commander who is normally a Senior Field Grade Officer of one of the Military Departments. Ap- proval authority is vested in Commanders and Directors, in addition to the PCOs, throug'hout the chain of command and this approval authority is keyed to specific contract dollar amounts. As an example, any contract for table grapes (subsistence) for more than one (1) million dollars requires the approval of the Executive Director, Procurement & Production, Defense Supply Agency. Enforce- ment of the terms and conditions relating to delivery, quality, price, etc., is the responsibility of the PCO. Enforcement of those clauses and conditions required by statute, Executive Order, or other Grovernment Agency requirement is the responsibility of the Government Department named in such statute, Executive Order, or other Government Agency requirement.
Question 26. How far in advance of the delivery date of the table grapes can the contract between tlw DoD and the contractor be signed? (Please answer in terms of most, least, and average number of days. )
Answer. See answer to Question 24. Contracts are awarded only far enough in advance of delivery date to meet the delivery schedule. For a nearby delivery point, this may be the same day. For a coast to coast shipment, it may be 7 to 10 days.
Question 21. Who is responsible for determining to which military concessions and dining halls DoD table grapes are distributed? Please give nam,e, title, and position.
Answer. See Question 6.
Question 28. Does the DoD buy table grapes directly from the growers and/or packers and shippers, or does it buy from intermediaries such as brokers, mar- kets, etc. ?
Answer. Purchases may be made from growers, packers, shippers, brokers or dealers on local markets. Small quantities are usually purchased competitively from dealers on local markets in the proximity of delivery points. Larger quantities, such as carlot or truck lot quantities or as major components of mixed loads, are purchased from source offering best price for required quality.
Question 29. What amount in pounds and value in U.S. dollars of table grapes was purchased by the DoD from each source listed in question #28 in FY 67 through 69?
Answer. Data not available.
Question 30. Is the contractor responsible for transporting the table grapes to a central or regional DoD ivarqhouse? If not, where arc the grapes first received by the DoD?
Answer. The contractor is responsible for transporting grapes to destination specified by DoD. This may be at origin shipping points when shipment by con- tainer type vans for export is economically feacible. Otherwise, destination speci- fied is a regional DoD redistribution warehouse, a military terminal for over- seas shipment or direct to the requiring activity as appropriate.
Question 31. What are the names of all contractors, groivers, and /or packers and shippers, from whom the DoD has purchased table grapes in each fiscal year from 1967 through 1969? Please answer this question on a quarterly basis.
a. What is the amount in pounds and value in U.S. dollars of table grapes pur- chased from each named person or entity?
Answer. Information is not available as requested. Principal contractors from whom DoD has purchased grapes during recent years are as follows :
1. Giumara Brothers Vineyard Corp., Bakersfield, Calif.
2. Nash De Camp Co., Visalia, Calif.
3. Haggblade Margulas Co., San Francisco, Calif.
4. J. B. Distributing Co., Los Angeles, Calif.
5. Eugene Nalbandian, Inc., Lamot, Calif.
6. R. A. Glass Co., Indio, Calif.
7. Pandol & Sons, Delano, Calif.
067
8. Paramount Growers, McFarland, Calif.
9. DiGiorgio Brothers, San Francisco, Calif.
10. Setrakian & Company, San Francisco, Calif.
11. United Packing Co.. Fresno, Calif.
12. Wilemon Brothers & Elliott, Cutler, Calif.
13. Elmco "Vineyards, Inc., Poterville, Calif.
14. Mendelson Zeller Co., San Francisco, Calif.
15. S. L. Douglas, Exeter, Calif.
16. Royal Valley Fruit Growers Ex., Reedley, Calif.
17. Ballantine Products Co., Inc., Reedley, Calif.
18. Joe Phillips, Inc., Fresno, Calif.
19. Hooker Corrin Sales, Inc., Reedley, Calif.
20. Peters & Garabedian, Fresno, Calif.
21. Ito Packing Co., Reedley, Calif.
22. Paramount Citrus Assn., Inc., San Francisco, Calif.
23. Chris Sorensen Packing Co., Parlier, Calif.
24. Tamonzian Brothers, Cutler, Calif.
25. Western Fruit Sales Co., Fresno, Calif.
26. Giumara Brothers, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif.
27. Kaplan Produce Co., Los Angeles, Calif.
28. Moreno Brothers, Los Angeles, Calif.
29. Eagle Brothers Products Co., Los Angeles, Calif.
30. Coast Citrus Co., San Diego, Calif.
31. Pure Gold & Co., Lodi, Calif.
32. California Fruit Exchange, Lodi, Calif.
33. Mendelson Zeller Co., Lodi, Calif.
34. Nash De Camp, Lodi, Calif.
35. Levy &Zentner& Co., Lodi, Calif.
36. Crescent Prod. Co., South San Francisco, Calif.
37. C. & L. Prod., Oakland, Calif.
38. John D. Martin, San Francisco, Calif.
39. Sunset Produce, South San Francisco, Calif.
40. Marators' Brothers, Glendale, Ariz.
41. Albert Barnett Co., Chicago, 111.
42. The Auster Co., Inc., Chicago,Ill.
43. Universal Fruit Co., Chicago, 111.
44. Qianuba-Mandolini Co., Chicago. 111.
45. La Montia Brothers Arrigo Co., Chicago, 111.
46. Nathan Krupnick Co., Chicago, 111.
47. Hobbs Banana Co., Nashville, Tenn.
48. Central Produce Co., Nashville, Tenn.
49. Jack Walters & Sons, Nashville, Tenn.
50. Gamble Robinson Co., Minneapolis, Minn.
51. R. Guercio & Son.s, New Orleans, La.
52. Scanio Produce Co., New Orleans, La.
53. L. R. Morris, Columbia, South Carolina
54. Pearse Young Angel, Columbia, South Carolina
55. Conway, Inc., Jacksonville, Fla.
56. Adams Brothers, Birmingham, Ala.
57. Consolidated Prod., San Antonio, Texas
58. DeFeo Fruit Co., Kansas City, Kansas
59. L. Yukon & Sons Prod. Co., Inc., Kansas City, Kansas
60. Federal Fruit Co., Denver, Colo.
61. Pacific Fruit & Prod. Co., Denver, Colo.
62. A & Z Prod. Co., Salt Lake City, Utah
63. Ravarino Prod. Co., Salt Lake City, Utah
64. Market Distributing Co., Inc., Fort Worth, Tex.
65. El Paso Wholesale Prod. Co., El Paso, Tex.
66. Rio Grande Prod. Co., El Paso, Tex.
67. A. Reich & Sons, Inc., Kansas City, Kansas
68. West Coast Fruit & Prod., Seattle, Wash.
69. Pacific Fruit & Prod., Seattle, Wash.
70. Associated Grocers, Seattle, Wash.
71. Ken Grimes Fruit & Prod., Seattle, Wash.
72. Consolidated Fruit & Prod., Seattle, Wash.
73. Boise Fruit & Prod., Boise, Idaho
74. Pacific Fruit & Produce, Boise, Idaho
668
75. Pacific Fruit & Prod.. Great Falls, Idaho
76. Colonial Fruit & Prod.. Tacoma, Wash.
77. E. Armata, Inc., New York, N.Y.
78. Carbone Brothers & Co.. Inc., New York. N.Y.
79. Fruiteo Corp., New York, N.Y".
80. Manhattan Fruit Contracting Co., New York, N.Y.
81. Senter & Corgan, Inc., New York, N.Y.
82. E. J. Rosengarten, Philadelphia, Pa.
83. Bearman Fruit Co., Minneapolis. Minn.
84. Isaac Kossow Co., Washington, D.C.
85. W. C. Heitmuller Co., Washington, D.C.
86. National Produce Co., Washington, D.C.
87. Salins Co., Washington, D.C.
88. Tidewater Prod. Co., Inc., Portsmouth, Ya.
89. D. & M. Prod. Co., Inc., Norfolk. Va.
90. Seidman Co., Philadelphia, Pa.
91. Lamantia Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.
92. Paragon Fruit, Pittsburgh, Pa.
93. Farm Fresh Prod., Providence, R.I.
94. Michael Brothers, Providence. R.I.
95. Tourlellots & Co., Providence. R.I.
96. Nathan Warren, Providence, R.I.
97. P. Codakes& Co.. Boston, Mass.
98. S. Strock, Boston, Mass.
99. Community Prod., Boston, Mass. 100. D. Arrigo Brothers Co., Boston, Mass.
Question 32. What is the amount in pounds and value in U.S. dollars of table grapes shipped by the DoD to each state of the U.S. and each country in each FY from 196.5 through 1969?
Answer. Data regarding amount in pounds and value in U.S. dollars of table grapes shipped by DoD is not accumulated in a manner that will identify quan- tities shipped to each state and country. This datum is maintainedi only on total purchases.
Question 33. How many military personnel were stationed in each state of the U.S. and each country to which table grapes were shipped in each FY from 1965 through 1969?
Ansiver. This information is not maintained and can be supplied only after a de- tailed research personnel records of the four Military Services.
Question 34- In its Fact Sheet, ''DoD Use of Table Grapes'' of March 28, 1969, the DoD states that the "General Accounting Office has stated that it is only to the extent that a contractor's labor practices interfere with the potential per- formance of a contract that a co'ritracting officer may consider the practices of a conracor {43 Comp. Gen. 323 (1963))." What measures have been taken by the DoD to insure that the present labor dispute at California and Arizona table grape ranches, in which it is reported that many workers are leaving the fields, icill not "interfere with the potential performance of a contract"?
a. Who is the official responsible for administering this portion of the contract? Please give his name, title and position.
Answer. As outlined in response to Question 24 and 25, buyers do not award contracts until after evaluating price and other factors. He must consider ability to perform in this evaluation of other factors, and will not award if there are factors which indicate a strong probability that a potential .supplier could not perform. Review of historical files concerning contracts for table grapes awarded during the period 1965-1969 disclosed that these contracts are seldom termi- nated because a contractor failed to deliver.
Question 35. It is clear that the use of strikebreakers, especially inexperienced foreign workers in the struck grape ranches, is leading to reduced quality in the picking and packing of this year's crop. What measures is the DoD taking to insure that this situatimi tvill not interfere with the quality requirement of table grapes purchased by the DoD?
a. Who is the official responsible for administering this portion of the contract? Please give his name, title, and position.
Answer. Purchases are made on the basis of officially recognized specifications and standards. Contracts for any quantities of consequence siJecify inspection by inspectors of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who issue official grade cer- tificates The total administration of perishable subsistence contracts is the re- sponsibility of the various procuring contracting officers.
669
See answer to question number 64 for more detail on the inspection of grapes.
Question 36. Does the fact that a contractor has been convicted of violating state and /or federal labor laws prohibit the DoD from purchasing products from that contractor f If so, explain. If not, explain.
Ansxcer. The fact that a contractor has been convicted of violating State and/ or Federal labor law does not necessar.ly prohibit the DoD from procuring supplies or services from that contractor. If a conviction results in the con- trator's name being placed on the Joint Consolidated List of Debarred, Ineligi- ble, and Suspended Contractors, no procurements can be made from that con- tractor until such time as his name is removed from the list. On the other hand, if the conviction does not result in the contractor being placed on the above referenced list, there will be no restriction on awarding contracts to that con- tractor so long as he is able to demonstrate the capability to perform.
Question 37. Does the DoD buy table grapes for use in South Vietnam?
Answer. Yes, for the purposes of troop feeding and for resale in authorized commissaries.
Question 38. What is the amount in pounds and value in U.S. dollars of table grapes that the DoD has shipped to South Vietnam in each qmarter of each FY from 1965 through 1969, with projected pui'chase data for FY 10?
Ansicer. Shipment data that is available is provided in answer to question number 15.
Question 39. The Fact Sheet, "DoD Use of Table Grapes" shows that South Vietnam has received a sharp increase of DoD table grapes in FY-69. Please explain why South Vietnam Ims been singled out for this increase.
Answer. See Question 16.
Question 40. How many personnel has the DoD maintained in South Vietnam in each quarter of each FY since 1965 through 1969?
1st quarter
2d quarter
3d quarter
4th quarte
1965. 1966. 1967. 1968. 1969.
|
0) |
(0 |
(') |
0) |
|
231 |
268 |
313 |
385 |
|
421 |
449 |
460 |
486 |
|
515 |
535 |
538 |
536 |
|
538 |
539 |
*U.S. military personnel ashore (in thousands). 1 Not available.
Question J^l., Hotv many personnel maintained directly or indirectly by the DOD in South Vietnam had "farmtcorker" as their occupational classification in the U.S. for each FY from 1965 through 1969?
Answer. This information is not maintained and can be supplied only after a detailed research of personnel records of the four Military Services.
Question 4^. How many personnel maintained directly or indirectly by the DOD in South Vietnam are Mexican- Americans, or have Spanish surruimes, for each FY from 1965 through 1969?
Answer. This information is not maintained and can be supplied only after a detailed research of i>ersonnel records of the four Military Services.
Question 4^. How many personnel maintained directly or indirectly by the DOD in South Vietnam arc Filipino for each FY from 1965 through 1969?
Answer. Data is provided to the extent available as follows :
3d-country nationals (mostly Filipino)
Appropriated funded
Nonappro- priated funded
Filipinos
employed by
contractor
Fjscal year 1965
FjScal year 1966.
Fscal year 1967
F seal year 1968 -..
Totals as of Mar. 31, 1969.
(') 22 326 271
1,301
(') 124 938 838
(') (0 0) (')
4,388
1 Not available.
670
Question 44- Bow many personnel maintained directly or indirectly ty th& DoD in South Vietnam are U.S. citizens of Filipino descent for each FY from 1965 through 1969?
AlVSWER. This information is not known to be available at any level in the DoD.
Question ^5. What amount in pounds and value in U.S. dollars of all table grapes purchased for shipment to South Vietnam comes from California contrac- tors f Provide this information on a quarterly basis for each FY from 1965 through 1969?
ANSWER. See response to questions # 9 and #17.
Question ^6. What are the names and addresses of each California contractor from whom DoD purchased table grapes, and what amounts in pounds and value tvere purchased from each?
ANSWER. See response to questions #17 and #31.
Question Ifi. Does the DoD have any direct or indirect control over U.S. com- mercial exports of fresh table grapes sold to South Vietnam civilians?
Answer. Negative.
Question 48. Does the DoD have any direct or indirect control over the number of civilian ships or planes carrying table grapes to South Vietnam for civilian consumption?
ANSWER. Negative.
Question 49. Are U.S. table grapes being sent to South Vietnam for civilian consumption under U.S. military aid programs?
ANSWER. Negative.
Question 58. Do U.S. or DoD military ships or planes carry table grapes for civilian consumption in South Vietnam?
ANSWER. AflSrmative — to the extent of the civilians authorized to utilize military facilities in South Vietnam — Civil Service employees, Embassy, and cer- tain contractual personnel.
Question 51. How are DoD table grapes shipped from their point of origin to South Vietnam?
ANSWER. See question 23.
Question 52. How are private commercial shipments of table grapes shipped from their point of origin to South Vietnam?
ANSWER. Information on which to base reply .if not maintained by DoD.
Question 53. Give the name, title, and position of the person (s) responsible in South Vietnam for the distribution of table grapes shipped to South Vietnam, by DoD.
ANSWER. Major General Joe Heisser, USA, Commander, 1st Logistics Com- mand, and Captain Norman Hermann Clifford Kuhlman, SC, USN, Supply Officer, Naval Support Activity, Danang.
Question 54- Have DoD facilities ever been used, directly or indirectly, to transport or handle private commercial shipments of U.S. table grapes to or within South Vietnam? Please explain.
Answer. Not to the knowledge of DoD transportation authorities.
Question 55. Do U.S. DoD commissaries, officers" clubs, PX's or other installa- tions ever purchase U.S. table grapes from private South Vietnam brokers? If so, what quantities in pounds and amounts in dollars were purchased from these .sources in each FY from 1965 through 1969?
Answer. Not to our knowledge.
Question 56. What precautions does the DoD take to insure that table grapes .shipped to South Vietnam do not enter the black market?
Answer. Normal security procedure as applied to other commodities destined for military use.
Question 57. What is the price paid per pound for table grapes purchased for South Vietnam by the DoD in each quarter of each FY from 1965 through 1969?
Answer. DoD has made no purchases of tatole grapes for the Republic of Vietnam. Statistics regarding prices paid by DoD for all table grapes purchased during the fiscal years reque.sted are reflected in the response to question No. 19.
Question 58. Does the DoD sign contracts for table grape purchases with con- tractors, growers, and/or packers and shippers, who do not pay federal minimum, wages to their employees? (a) What measures does the DoD take to guarantee that table grape contractors, etc., meet federal minimum wage standards? (b) What is the name, title, and position of the persmi in charge of assuring that table grape contractors, and so forth, comply irith federal minitnum wage standards? (c) Has a DoD purchase contract ever been denied to a table grape grower because he failed to meet federal minimum wage laws? If so, please give the specifics.
671
Answer. The minimum wage provisions of the Walsh-Healey Public Contractsi Act do not apply to purchases of perishables. The Fair Labor Standards Act exempts certain categories of agricultural employees from its minimum wage requirements. This statute is administered by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. It is Department of Defense policy to cooperate to the fullest extent practicable with the Department regarding the labor requirements. The Department of Defense would, of course, report to Department of Labor any known violations. There have been no known instances of a contract having been denied to a table grape grower because he failed to meet federal minimum wage laws.
Question 59. Does the DoD sign contracts for table grape purchases with con- tractors, growers, and/o^r packers and shippers, who do not pay state minimum wages to their employees? (a) What measures does the DoD take to guarantee that table grape contractors, etc., meet state minimum wage standards? (b) What is the name, title, and position of the person in charge of assuring that table grape contractors, etc., comply with state minimum wage standards? (c) Ea^ a DoD purchase contract ever been denied to a table grape grower because he failed to meet state minimum wage laws? If so, please give the specifics.
Answer. It is Departmentof Defense policy to cooperate and encourage con- tractors to cooperate, to the fullest extent practicable, with State agencies responsible for enforcing labor requirements with respect to such matters as State minimum wages. DoD is not responsible for policing compliance and no procedure has been established for contracting only with firms which do comply.
Question 60. Does the DoD sign contracts for table grape purchases with con- tractors who do not deduct social security payments from the wages of their employees? (a) What measure does the DoD take to guarantee that table grape contractors, et cetera, deduct social security payments from the wages of their employees? (ft) What is the name, title, and position of the person in charge of assuring that table grape contractors, etc., deduct social security payments from the nxiges of their employees? (c) Has a federal contract ever been denied to a table grape grower because he failed to deduct social security payments from the wages of the employees?
Answer. DoD does not take any special measures to guarantee that table grape contractors deduct social security payments from the wages of their employees. To the best of our knowledge, a DoD contract has never been denied to a table grape grower because he failed to deduct social security payments from the wages of employees. Administration of the social security program is not a re- sponsibility vested in the Department of Defense.
Question 61. Does the DoD sign contracts for table grape purchases toith con- tractors, et cetera, who violate Federal or State equal employment opportunity laws in hiring policies or employment practices?
Answer. DoD's contracting operations are conducted in conformity with the appropriate provisions of the Armed Services Procurement Regulations. ASPR 12-808.2 sets up particular procedures for pre-award determination with re- spect to invitations for bids for supply contracts of $1 million or more. To qualify for this type of award, the proposed contractor and first-tier subcontractors must be found to be in compliance with the equal opportunity clause prescribed by Executive Order 11246.
ASPR 12-808.3 requires that, before entering into a negotiated contract or a construction contract of $1 million or more, the Procurement Contracting Offi- cer ascertain whether the proposed contractor is in compliance with the pro- visions of Executive Order 11246. A contractor who is found to be deficient with respect to his obligations under the Executive Order is ineligible for award until he has taken action or has agreed to take action to repair the deficiencies.
DoD has no responsibility for enforcement of State equal employment oppor- tunity laws. In the conduct of its compliance reviews of contractors imder its cognizance and in the investigation of complaints, however, the Department does take official notice of the findings of State Equal Employment Opportunity Agencies as indicators of conditions warranting attention.
Question 61a. What measures does the DoD take to guarantee that table grape contractors, and so forth, do not violate Federal Equal Employment laws?
ANSWER. To assure that contractors assigned to DoD for surveillance do actually comply with the provisions of Executive Order 11246, the Dod under- takes on-site compliance reviews of the contractors' personnel policies, procedures and practices and investigates complaints lodged against such contractors by employees or applicants who allege that the contractor is guilty of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. When as a result
672
of such review or investigation the Department finds a contractor in non- compliance with tlie provisions of the Executive Order it exacts a commitment from tlie contractor to take the actions requisite to placing him in compliance with the provisions of the Executive Order. If the contractor refuses, or persists in his refusal, the Department initiates action looking toward the imposition of sanctions — cancellation, termination or deharment.
So far as the exercise of this kind of authority toward table grape growers is concerned, the Department's activity is limited to those contractors over whom it has been assigned cognizance by the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance which has responsibility under Executive Order 11246 for making such assignment.
Question 61b. What is the name, title and position of the person in charge of assuring that table grape contractors, and so forth, comply with Federal equal employment opportunity laws?
ANSWER. DoD Directive 1100.11, August 9, 1968, assigns responsibility in the equal employment opportunity area as follows :
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (Honoi-- able Roger T. Kelley) is the Contract Compliance Officer for the Department of Defense,
The Director, Defen.«e Supply Agency (Lt. Gene'-nl Earl C. Hedlund) is the Deputy Contract Compliance Officer for the Department of Defense.
As provided by the Directive, the functions of contract compliance operations are organized at both headquarters Defense Supply Agency and field levels into specialized offices and are administered as separate components of Defense Contract Administration Services. The Chief of the Headquarters Office of Contract Compliance is Mr. M. R. Shafer.
Question 61c. Has a DoD piirehafc contract ever been denied to a table grape grower because he failed to comply with Federal equal employment opportunity luwsf Answer. No.
Question 62. Docs the DoD sign contracts for table grape purchase with con- eontraetors, ct cetera, trho employ foreign workers who hare entered the U.S. illegally? (a) What measures does the DoD take to guarantee that table grape contractors, et cetera, do not employ foreign workers who have entered the U.S. illegally? (ft) What is the name, title, and position of the person in charge of assuring that table grape contractors, et cetera, do not employ foreign workers who have entered the U.S. illegally? (c) Has a DoD purchase contract ever been denied to a table grape grower because he employed foreign workers who entered the U.S. illegally?
Answer. Department of Defense contracts contain no si^ecific provision barring the employment of aliens by the contractor. Known violations of the immigra- tion laws would, of course, be reported to the Department of Justice.
Question 63. Does the DoD sign contracts for table grape purchase with con- tractors, et cetera, who employ children in violation of Federal or State child labor laws? (a) What measures does the DoD take to guarantee that table grape contractors, et cetera, do not employ children in violation of Federal child labor laws? (ft) What is the name, title, and position of the person in charge of assuring that table grape contractors, et cetera, do not employ children? (c) Has a DoD purchase contract ever been denied to a table grape groover be- cause he employed children in violation of federal child labor laws? If so, please give specific references, (d) What measures docs the DoD take to guarantee that table grape contractors, ct cetera, do not employ children in violation of state child labor laws? (e) What is the name, title, and position of the person in charge of assuring that table grape contractors, et cetera, do not employ chil- dren? (/) Has a DoD purchase contract ever been denied to a table grape grower because he employed children in violation of state child labor laws? If so, please give specific references.
ANSWER. As indicated in the answer to question #59. it is DoD policy to co- operate with State agencies responsible for enforcing State labor requirements. There is, however, no procedure for policing compliance nor for contracting only with firms which do comply. The child lal)or provisions of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act do not apply to purchases of perishable. The Child Labor Provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act do not apply to employees employed in agriculture outside of school hours for the school district where the employee lives while so employed. As indicated in the answer to question #58, this statute is administered by the Department of Labor.
673
Question 64- Does the DoD apply minimum standards of quality with regard to Nirnir content, bcrnj sizr. color, dcr/rcc of rot, amount of water berries, and quality of pack to purchases of taJ}le grapes? If not, explain. If so, what are these quality standards? (a) Who inspects these grapes to assure that they meet these quality requirements? (ft) Give the name, title, and position of the person who inspects these grapes, (c) At tchat point in the shipping and handling process are these grapes inspected? (d) By tchat procedure are these grapes inspected and what unit of grapes is selected for inspection?
AXSWER. The Department of Defense profures IT.S. No. 1 Grade table grapes or better in accordance with Fed Spec Y-G-671F, PPP-F-685 and the U.S. Standards for Grade. These standards for this minimum quality of grape cover sugar content and color as factors of maturity ; decay and water berries as factors of damage. Grajpes, when inspected at shipping point, are insi>ected by State or Federal Inspectors whereas inspections of grapes on wholesale markets are conducted only by Federal Agricultural Commodity Graders. On a national basis, no one individual inspector in the market or shipping point has total responsibility ; however, Mr. Fisher Kee, Head, Inspection Section, Fresh Products Standardization and Inspection Branch, Fruit and "Vegetable Division, C&MS, USDA, Wa.«hington, D.C. has the overall responsibility for assuring proper conduct of inspection on a nation-wide basis. On carlot quantities of grapes, inspection is conducted at the point of loading Into the carrier whereas market inspections are conducted prior to transport from wholesalers house to supply point by agricultural personnel. At supply point or receiving installation, verification for identity and condition is conducted in most instances by Vet- er^'nary Corp«! personnel ; however, some market areas have arranged a pool type TJSDA inspection at the supply point at the expense of the vendors. The proce- dures utilized in inspecting grapes are examination of randomly selected sam- ples and based on the size of the unit, that is, lug, basket, etc., either total contents of the unit or at least y2 the content of the unit is inspected as a sample unit.
Question 65. Has a California table grape contractor ever leen held in violation of a contract because he supplied grapes below the minimum standards or in violation of the Walsh-Healey Act? If so, what are the names of such contractors, how did the contractor violate the contract, when was the contract violated, and what was the result in regard to the settlement of the contract with the DoD? ANSWER. Contractors for table grapes cannot be held in violation of the Walsh- Healey Public Contracts- Act because the Act specifically exempts procurement of perishable subsistence from compliance with any provision of the Act. Same response for questions 66. 67, 68, and 69.
Question 6€. What measures does the DoD take to insure that table grape con- tractors meet the minimum .standards of safety and health regarding (a) provi- sion of toilet facilities and washrooms? (b) lunchrooms and food handling? (c) drinking water? (d) medical services? (e) eye protection? (/) environmental conditions? (g) personal protective equipment as specified under the Walsh- Healey Public Contracts Act.
ANSWER. See response for question No. 65.
Question 67. Hotv often and by what procedure is each contractor checked to see that he meets the general standards of safety and health required by Federal contractors under the Walsh-Healey Act
ANSWER. See response to question No. 6.5.
Question 68. What is the name and title of the person responsible for insurinp that table grape contractors comply with the general safety and health standards in Federal supply contracts tinder the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act? ANSWER. See response to question No. 65.
Question 69 In determining if a table grape contractor is in compliance tvith the general safety and health standards of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, docs the DoD rely on assistance from state public health officials and/or departments ?
ANSWER. See respon.se to question No. 65.
Question 70. Does the DOD purchase table grapes treated tmth DDT and/or other chlorinated hydrocarbons?
ANSWER. It is not known at the time of purchase whether grapes have been treated with DDT and/or other chlorinated hydrocarbons. There is no routine acceptance inspection performed for this purpose.
Question 71 If so, tvhat is the maximum residue level permttted on these table grapes? (a) How is this residue meamred? (b) At tvhat point in the shipping
674
and handUng process are these grapes inspected? (o) Explain the inspection pro- cedure and the manner in which these grapes arc selected for inspection. Please give the na/me, title, and position of the official responsible for this inspection. ANtiWER. The tolerance levels for pesticides and/or insecticides are published in Section 408, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, subchapter B, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The residues are measured through analytical determination utilizing approved methods of F&DA. These methods have resulted from food petitions or are contained in AOAC (10th edition) and the Pesticide Analytical Manual. Samples for determination of residuals may be selected by enforcement agencies (state & federal) at any time from harvest to retail point. Samples are collected statistically at various outlets throughout the U.S. The degree of follow- up is based upon results of analytical data. The F&DA has the overall regulatory responsibility ; however, actual enforcement is by state officials.
Question 12. Who prepared the fact sheet entitled "DOD Use of Table Grapes," dated March 28, 1969 {2 pages) f Please give name, title, and position. Who is his immediate supervisor? Please give name, title, and position? (c) What is meant by the term "high troop acceptability" used in the fact sheet? (&) What is the "troop acceptability" of all other fruits shipped to Vietnam?
ANSWER. The fact sheet was prepared under the direction of Honorable Barry J. Shillito, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics), and Mr. Paul H. Riley, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (I&L) (Supply and Services), (a) High troop acceptability is used to denote a preference for grapes over fruits that are commonly available, such as apples and oranges; (b) The troop acceptability of all fruits shipped to Vietnam enjoys a high rating. Question 13. How many copies of this fact sheet have been distributed? ANSWER. Approximately 200 fact sheets have been distributed as enclosures to replies for information regarding grapes, of which approximately 50 copies were passed by hand to news media on verbal request to OASD Public Affairs office. DOD does not know how much reproduction and redistribution may have been accomplished by the original recipients, therefore, does not know the total number of copies that are in circulation.
Question H. Please provide us with copies of all correspondence regarding increased purchases of table grapes by the DOD in response to which the above mentioned DOD fact sheet toas sent-
ANSWER. We have interpreted this to mean all fact sheets that have been sent in response to correspondence regarding increased purchases of table grapes. Accordingly we have included one copy of the 101 inquiries received as Exhibit "A." (Exhibit A may be found in the committee files.)
Question 15. Please provide us tvith the name of the person{s) answering these questions. If more than one person answered these questions, please indicate which questions each person answers.
Answer. All replies to questions regarding grapes referred to OSD were answered as directed by Barry J. Shillito, Assistant Secretary of Defense (In- stallations & Logistics), Mr. Paul H. Riley, Deputy Assistant Secretary of De- fense (I&L) (Supply & Services), and Mr. Dale R. Babione, Deputy Executive Director of Procurement and Production, Defense Supply Agency.
Question 16. Under whose authority were these questions answered? Please give name, title, and position.
Answer. All replies to questions regarding grapes referred to OSD were answered as directed by Barry J. Shillito, Assistant Secretary of Defense (In- stallations & Logistics), Mr. Paul H. Riley, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (I&L) (Supply & Services), and Mr. Dale R. Babione, Deputy Execu- tive Director of Procurement and Production, Defense Supply Agency.
Memorandum From Defense Supply Agency
U July 1969. DSAH-LC Memo for Mr. Boren Chertkov, Counsel. Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Senate
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Subject : Subcommittee Hearings, July 15, 1969.
1. In accordance with your request, attached are 100 copies of a Department of Defense fact sheet of 10 June 1969 on the use of table grapes. I have already delivered to you 100 copies of the prepared statement, for the hearing on 15 July, of Mr. Dale R. Babione, the DoD witness.
e75
2. Please note that in paragraph 3 of the fact sheet procurements of table grapes for FY 69 are estimated at 11.0 million pounds. This was a projected figure based upon reports available through the third quarter of FY 60. You will note that the later projection of the FY 69 procurement figure, as cited in Mr. Babione's statement, is 9.69 million pounds, a reduction from the earlier estimate Included in the 10 June fact sheet. Enclosures.
Edmund C. Burnett, Special Assistant for Congressional Matters.
Fact Sheet : Department of De^^ense Use of Table Grapes
1. The basic policy of the Department of Defense with regard to awarding defense contracts to contractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to DoD procurement needs to maintain a sound working relationship with both labor and management. The resolution of labor disputes involves complex and delicate areas of judgment and interpretation for which the responsibility has been vested by the Congress in other agencies of the Government. From the diverse opinions that have appeared in various news media, it is quite apparent that the dispute over California table grapes falls in this category.
2. In addition to the above policy, the General Accounting OflSce has stated that it is only to the extent that a contractor's labor practices interfere with the potential performance of a contract that a contracting oflScer may consider the labor practices of a contractor (43 Comp. Gen. 323 (1963) ). Also, the Comp- troller General has ruled that there is no authority to reject bids on the basis that an employer does not employ union labor (31 Comp. Gen. 561).
3. The Defense Supply Agency, which is responsible for the purchase of food for military dining halls and commissaries, reports that procurements of table grapes have been as follows :
Pounds Amoun
(millions) (millions)
Fiscal year:
1966 - -- 7.5 $1.04
1967 . - 8.3 1.25
1968 ---- - 6.9 1.32
19691 __ 11.0 1.98
1 This figure is projected on the basis of actual totals for the 3 quarters of fiscal year 1969 and the rate of decline of seasonal procurements as experienced during the last half of fiscal years 1967 and 1968.
The total Defense Supply Agency purchases of table grapes represent less than one percent of U.S. table grape production.
4. There is no record of any grape shipments to Vietnam prior to fiscal year 1967 ; subsequent shipments have been as follows :
Fiscal year : Pounds
1967 468, 000
1968 550, 000
1969^ 2, 500, 000
1 This figure Is projected on the basis of actual totals for the three quarters of fiscal year 1969 and the rate of decline of seasonal procurements as experienced during the last half of fiscal year 1967 and fiscal year 1968.
The increase in the Vietnam requirement for grapes during FY 1969 was influenced by the following factors: (1) the high troop acceptability of this seasonal item; (2) the reduced availability of export quality fresh oranges, with a substitution of table grapes; and (3) the improved capability of shipping perishable items, including grapes, to Vietnam by refrigerated vans. In this con- nection, it is significant that the quantities of all fresh produce shipped to Viet- nam have greatly increased during the past three years.
5. The Department of Defense does not purchase grapes merely because they have been made more available and less expensive due to the effects of the boycott.
676
Grape purchases are made by the Defense Supply Agency in response to requisi- tions from the Military Services. These requisitions are based on planned menus which reflect numerous factors, among them being troop acceptability ; nutri- tional requirements ; variety ; and item availability, perisihability. and cost. In the interests of objective and systematic management, menu planners (often working a year to eighteen months in advance) should not be required to con- sider whether a labor dispute exists when making these decisions.
Fact Sheet : Department of Defense Use of Table Grapes, February, 1969
1. The basic policy of the Department of Defense with regard to awarding defense contracts to contractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a i)osition on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to DoD procurement needs to maintain a sound working relationship with both labor and management. The resolution of labor disputes involves complex and delicate areas of judgment and interpretation for which the responsibility has been vested by the Congress in other agencies of the Government. I<>om the diverse opinions that have appeared in various news media, it is quite apparent that the dispute over California table grapes falls in this category.
2. Tn addition to the above policy, the General Accounting Ofiice has stated that it is only to the extent that a contractor's labor practices interfere with the jjotential performance of a contract that a contracting officer may consider the labor practices of a contractor (43 Comp. Gen. 323 (1963) ). Also, the Comp- troller General has niled that there is no authority to reject bids on the basis that an employer does not employ union labor (31 C^mp. Gen. 561).
3. The Defense Supply Agency, which is responsible for the purchase of food for military dining halls and commissaries, reports that procurements of table graces for the past three and one-half years have been asi follows:
Pounds Amount
(millions) (millions)
Fiscal year:
1966
1967
1968
1969, 1st half-..
The total Defense Supply Agency purchases of table grapes represent less than one percent of U.S. table grai>e production.
4. There is no record of any grape shipments to Vietnam prior to fiscal year 1967. Shipments during the past two and one-half years have been as follows :
Fiscal year : Pounds
1967 468, 000
1968 555, 000
1969, 1st half 2, 047, 695
The increase in the Vietnam requirement for grapes during the first half of FY 1969 was influenced by the following factors : (1) the high troop acceptability of this seasonal item ; (2) the reduced availability of export quality fresh oranges, with a substitution of table grapes; and (3) the improved capability of shipping perishable items, including grapes, to Vietnam by refrigerated vans. In this con- nection, it is significant that the quantities of all fresh produce shipijed to Viet- nam have greatly increased during the past three years Export quality oranges again became available in late Calendar Year 1968 (second quarter FY 1969), and action was taken to resume procurement or oranges for shipment to Vietnam.
5. The Department of Defense does not purchase grapes merely because they have been made more available and less expensive due to the effects of the boy- cott. Grapes purchases are made by the Defense Supply Agency in response to requisitions from the Military Services. These requisitions are ba.sed on planned menus which reflect numerous factors, among them being troop accei)tability ; nutritional requirements ; variety ; and items availability, i>erishability, and cost. In the interests of objective and systematic management, menu planners (often w^orking a year to eighteen months in advance) should not be required to consider whether a labor dispute exists when making these decisions.
|
7.5 |
$1.04 |
|
8.3 |
1.25 |
|
6.9 |
1.32 |
|
8.0 |
1.26 |
677
[ Sample union contract] Agreement
This agreement, made and entered into the 18th day of September, 1969, by and l>etween A. Perelli-Minetti & Sons, Pond Road and Highway 99, Delano, County of Kern, California, hereinafter referred to as "P-M", on the one hand, and United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFLr-CIO, hereinafter referred to as "Union", on the other hand,
Witnesseth :
RECOGNITION
A. P-M recognizes the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining agent for the agricultural employees who work on the agricultural property owned by P-M ; but excluding all herdsmen, office and clerical employees, winery employees, labo- ratory employees, distillery employees, warehousing employees, bottling em- ployees, maintenance employees, electricians and apprentice electrician, profes- sional employees, guards mid supervisors who have the authority to hire or fire. The "agricultural property owned by P-M" is defined as the agricultural fields presently owned and directly controlled and operated by P-M.
B. P-M further recognizes the rights and obligations of the Union to negotiate wages, hours and conditions of employment, and to administer this agreement on behalf of all covered employees.
C. P-M and its representatives will make known to all employees, super- visors, and officers, its policies and commitments as set forth above with respect to recognition of the Union and that employees in the bargaining unit should give the utmost consideration to supporting and participating in col- lective bargaining and contract administration functions.
UNION SECURITY
A. Union membership shall be a condition of employment. Each employee shall be required to become and remain a member of the Union, in good standing, immediately following ten (10) continuous calendar days of employ- ment.
B. The Union shall be the sole .iudge of the good standing of its members. Any employee who fails to tender the uniformly required initiation fees, periodic dues and regularly authorized assessments as prescribed by the Union shall be discharged within one (1) day after written notice from the Union to P-M.
C. P-M agrees to furnish the Union, in writing, the names of employees giv- ing the names, address, ages. Social Security numbers and type or job classi- fications.
D. P-M agrees to deduct from each employee's pay all initiation fees, periodic dues and assessments as uniformly required by the Union, uix)n presentation of individual authorizations, signed by the employees, authorizing P-M to make such deductions. P-M shall make such deductions from the employees' pay once in each month and remit them to the Union not later than the 15th day of the following month. The Union will furnish the forms to be used for the authorization. P-M will furnish the Union with a duplicate copy of all signed authorizations.
E. The Union agrees to hold harmless P-M against the claims of any em- ployee discharged by P-M pursuant to paragraph (b).
RETAINED RIGHTS
A. In order to operate its business, P-M retains all rights of management including the following, unless they are limited by the clear and explicit language of some other provision of this Agreement: to select all of the em- ployees; to determine the number of employees, including the number of em- ployees assigned to any particular operation ; to determine the work pace, work performance levels and standards of performance of all of the em- ployees, and to determine whether any individual employee meets such pace, levels and standards so determined : to decide the nature of equipment, ma- chinery, methods or processes used, to introduce new equipment, machinery, methods or processes, and to change or discontinue existing equipment, ma- chinery, methods or processes, to subcontract or contract out any or all of the agricultural processes or the conduct of its business ; to discontinue temporarily
078
or i)ermanently, in whole or in part by sale or otherwise, the products to be produced, or the conduct of its business ; to change, combine, or abolish job classifications and the job content of any classifications and to establish new classifications of employees ; to terminate employees as the result of the exer- cise of any of the foregoing rights; to direct and supervise all of the employees, including the right to assign and transfer employees ; to determine when over- time shall be worked and whether to require overtime; to establish and make known work rules and safety rules for all of the employees; and to determine work schedules.
SUBCONTRACTING
The Union and P-M understand and agree that the hazards of agriculture are such that subcontracting by P-M is necessary and proper ; that P-M will not have as its purpose to subcontract to the detriment of the Union or the bargaining unit. Therefore P-M and the Union agree that P-M has the right to subcontract as it has in the past in such cases as a crop dusting, barley plant- ing and harvesting, manure and gypsum spreading, vine removal, grafting, con- struction work and the like ; where P-M does not have the equipment to do the work ; where work is of such short duration that it is uneconomical for P-M to lease equipment. The foregoing are examples only and are not intended as limitations on P-M's right to subcontract. P-M will, if possible, notify the Union prior to any of the above mentioned subcontracting being undertaken.
CLASSIFICATIONS AND RATES OF PAY
The presently existing classifications of employees and rates of pay shall be as set forth in Appendix A attached herewith, incorporated herein, and made a part hereof.
NEW JOB CLASSIFICATIONS
A. P-M will notify the Union in writing of any new job classifications and wage rates.
B. If the Union does not agree with the wage rate established for the new job classification, it may request a meeting to discuss the new wage rate. Failing to agree, the Union may resort to the grievance and arbitration procedure over such wage rate.
C. Should P-M introduce technological improvements, P-M agrees to offer training to qualified bargaining unit employees to fill any new jobs created.
D. P-M shall not change or modify any present classification so as to remove it from the bargaining unit.
HIRING
A. Whenever P-M requires new employees to x>erform any work covered by this Agreement, it shall notify the Union, stating the numiber of employees needed, the type of work to be performed, the starting date of the work and the approximate duration of the job or jobs.
B. Upon receipt of such notice the Union shall use its best efforts to furnish the requested number of employees. P-M may reject any applicant who is referred by the Union if he has previously been discharged by P-M for cause. If the Union does not furnish the requested number of qualified employees within 48 hours, or on the date of the beginning of the work (whichever date is later), P-M shall be free to procure needed workers not furnished by the Union from any other source.
C. If P-M procures employees from any other source, it shall notify the Union, in writing, within 48 hours, of the names, Social Security numbers and addresses of all employees so hired.
EMERGENCY
If an emergency should occur, P-M may immediately use any source of laboi in order to meet such emergency.
P-M agrees to notify the Union of such emergency condition as soon as practical, and Union agrees to aid and assist P-M, ui>on notification, in meeting such emergency.
SENIORITY
A. Seniority will be based on continuous service. Seniority shall be retained but shall not accumulate during time not worked.
B. Seniority will be broken for the following reasons :
679
1. If the employee quits.
2. If the employee is discharged with cause.
3. If the employee is absent for two (2) working days without properly notifying P-M unless a satisfactory reason therefore is given.
4. If the employee fails to return to work within three (3) working days after being notified to work and does not give a satisfactory reason there- fore.
5. If an employee has not been employed during a twelve (12) month period, illness excluded.
6. Failure to return from a leave of absence without satisfactory reason being given.
C. When filling vacancies or making promotions between classifications cov- ered by this Agreement, transfers, layoffs, recall from layoff, and reclassifica- tions, P-M will give preference to employees with the greatest length of con- tinuous service, providing that ability and qualifications are equal.
D. To facilitate recall from layoff P-M will notify the Union of its needs as provided in Article HIRING, and the Union will assume responsibility for compliance with seniority. The Union will hold P-M harmless from any claims arising from non-compliance with seniority rights on recall whenever the Union has been notified of P-M's needs.
E. P-M will furnish Union with seniority list after pruning and harvest.
DISCHARGE
A. P-M shall have the sole right to discipline or discharge any employee for just cause. Grievances with respect to the exercise of this right to discharge or discipline are subject to arbitration.
B. Where practicable, P-M shall notify a Union Steward or Union official prior to any discharge.
C. The Union official (s) and/or steward shall have the right to interview dis- charged employees in private.
D. Withn twenty-four (24) hours after any discharge, the employee will be notified in writing of the discharge.
E. As used in the Article entitled HIRING, any person who has been dis- charged by P-M, will be irrebuttably presumed to have been "discharged for cause" where the discharge was sustained on appeal to grievance or to arbitra- tion, or where such discharge was not appealed to grievance or to arbitration.
F. Individual i)erformance in relation to a piece rate or incentive plan shall not be conclusive evidence for the purpose of discharging an employee.
EMPLOYMENT SECtTEITT
A. Picket lines. — P-M agree that any employee may refuse to pass through any picket .line at any other employer's premises sanctioned by the Union.
B. No farm worker imder this agreement shall be required to perform work that normally would have been done by employees of another company that engaged in a strike, or to work on goods that will be handled or are destined to he handled by other workers engaged in strike breaking.
RIGHT OF ACCESS TO COMPANY PROPE31TY
Authorized representatives of the Union shall be permitted on P-M's agricul- tural premises for the normal conduct of Union business. Such representatives shaU, before each entry, notify the designated representative of management. It is further provided that such permission to enter P-M's premises shall be exercised reasonably and shall not interfere with the conduct of P-M's operations.
NO STRIKE — NO LOCKOUT
The Union and P-M agree that there will be no strikes or lockouts and no boycotts of any kind during the term of this Agreement.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
P-M agrees that it will not illegally discriminate in the hiring of employees, or in their training, promotion, transfer, discipline, discharge or otherwise, on the basis of race, creed, national origin, sex or religion.
eso
GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATIONS
A. Any dispute which an employee may have relating to his employment with P-M may be processed through the grievance steps outlined below. However, in order to be subject to arbitration as provided in subparagraph D herein, a grievance must be defined as, and limited to, a statement by an employee covered hereby that P-M has violated an express term of this Agreement and that by reason of such violation his rights have been adversely affected. Furthermore grievances relating to alleged threatened or actual violations of Articles Hiring, Union Security, No Strike — No Lockout, and Recognition may not be submitted through the grievance steps contained in subparagraphs B and C herein or sub- mitted to arbitration pursuant to subparagraph D herein, it being understood between the parties that the exclusive procedure for arbitrating the Union's or P-M's grievances relating to those four Articles is that procedure set forth in subparagraph E herein.
B. If an employee shall have a proper grievance there shall be an earnest effort on the part of both parties to settle it promptly through the steps listed below :
STEP 1. — An employee grievance must be submitted by the employee's Union Steward to the supervisor immediately in charge of the aggrieved employee within three (3) working days after the event giving rise to the grievance. The supervisor will give his answer to the Steward within twenty- four (24) hours following the presentation of the grievance and the giving of such answer will terminate Step 1.
STEP 2. — If the grievance is not settled in Step 1, the grievance will be submitted by the Union's ranch committee to P-M Management within forty- eight (48) hours after termination of Step 1. Management will give its answer to the ranch committee within two (2) working days following the presen- tation of the grievance and the giving of the answer will terminate Step 2.
Step 3. — If the grievance is not settled in Step 2, the grievance will be reduced to writing, fully stating the facts surrounding the grievance and the provisions of this Agreement alleged to have been violated, signed by and dated by a Union district officer and presented to the P-M Management within two (2) working days after termination of Step 2. A meeting with such au- thorized representative of the Union will be arranged to review and discuss the grievance. Such meeting will take place within three (3) working days from the date the grievance is submitted to Management. The P-M Manage- ment will give his written reply within end of the fourth (4th) working day following the date of the meeting, and the giving of such reply will terminate Step 3. 0. A ranch committee, consisting of not more than five (5) employees, may participate in Step 2 and 3 of the grievance procedure.
D. A grievance shall be submitted to arbitration as provided in this subpara- graph D, but only if the Union gives written notice to P-M of its desire to arbi- trate such matter within ninety (90) working days, after the termination of Step 3 above, except that in case of discharge, such written notice must be given within ten (10) working days after the termination of Step 3 above.
(1) As soon as possible and in any event not later than ten (10) working days after P-M receives written notice of the Union's desire to arbitrate, the parties shall agree upon an arbitrator. If no agreement is reached within said ten (10) days, an arbitrator shall be selected from the following panel in the order listed below. If the first named is unavailable, or is unable or unwilling to serve, the next named arbitrator in the order listed shall be selected, (etc.)
1. Robert Moock, Visalia.
2. Wm. S. Boyd, Jr., San Francisco.
3. John B. Lauritzen, San Francisco.
4. John Kelley, Bakersfield.
5. Steve Wall, Bakersfield.
6. Clarence Up de Graff, San Francisco.
7. Robert E. Burns. San Francisco.
8. Thomas T. Roberts, Los Angeles.
9. Adolph Koven, San Francisco.
(2) The arbitrator shall have no ix)wer to alter, amend, change, add to, or substract from any of the terms of this Agreement, nor shall he substitute his discretion for that of the Union or P-M, nor shall he decide any issue not submitted or not arbitrable, nor shall he interpret or apply this Agreement so as to change what can fairly be said to have been the
esi
intent of the parties as determined by generally accepted rules of contract construction. The decision of the arbitrator within the limits herein pre- scribed shall be final and binding to the parties to the dispute. No decision rendered by the arbitrator shall be retroactive beyond the beginning of the three (3) day period specified in Step 1 of the Grievance Procedure above or the occurrence of the grievance, whichever is the more recent. The arbitrator shall have no power to render an award after the termination date of this Agreement.
(3) Each party shall bear the expense of the presentation of its own
case, such as, but not limited to, the reimbursement or witnesses called, and
transcripts ordered. The arbitrator's fees and expenses shall be paid by the
losing party. If neither party has lost in whole, then such fees and expenses
shall be allocated proportionately. If questions arise as to the losing party
or proportionate allocation, such issues .shall be decided by the arbitrator
hearing the matter or matters in dispute.
E. A matter subject to Expedited Arbitration, an exclusive procedure set forth
in this subparagraph E, shall be defined as and limited to a claim by P-M or
the Union that there is a violation or threat of violation of Articles Hiring,
Union Security, No Strike — No Lockout, and Recognition.
(1) In the event P-M or the Union believes that one of the foregoing is being violated or threatened to be violated, it shall immediately notify the other party and the other party will do everything within its power to end or avert the same.
(2) Since time is of the essence in settling such disputes, in the event of such claimed violation or threat of violating either Articles Hiring, Union Security, No Strike — No Lockout, or Recognition, within twenty-four (24) hours after the other party has been notified according to E(l) above, and the claimed violation or threat of violation has not been cured within said twenty-four (24) hours, the grieving party may within 48 hours, submit such claim to Expedited Arbitration as follows:
(a) The claim shall be filed orally or by telephone with the arbitrator • who is selected according to the following procedure and the grieving
party shall notify the other party of such filing orally or by telephone.
(b) The arbitrator with whom such claim or dispute may be filed and presented shall be as in Section D(l) ; in the event he shall be unavailable, or unable or unwilling to serve it shall be submitted in the order enumerated to the following named arbitrators until one is available, able and willing to serve :
1. Robert Moock, Visalia.
2. Wm. S. Boyd, Jr., San Francisco.
3. John B. Lauritzen, San Francisco.
4. John Kelley, Bakersfield.
5. Steve Wall, Bakersfield.
6. Clarence Up de Graff, San Francisco.
7. Robert E. Burns, San Francisco.
8. Thomas T. Roberts, Los Angeles.
9. Adolph Koven, San Francisco.
(c) A hearing before the arbitrator shall be held within eight (8) hours after filing of the grievance. Such time may be extended by written mutual agreement of the parties.
(d) No continuance of said hearing shall be allowed without the consent of the grieving party. Absence from or nonparticipation at the hearing by any party shall not prevent the issuance of an award. Hear- ing procedure's which will exi)edite the hearing may be ordered at the ■arbitrator's discretion when he decides that he has heard suflScient evidence to satisfy issuance of an award. The arbitrator's award shall be rendered as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than twelve (12) hours after the close of the hearing.
(e) The arbitrator shall have no power to alter, amend, change, add to, or subtract from any of the terms of this Agreement, nor shall he substitute his di-scretion for that of the Union or P-M, nor shall he exercise any of the responsibility of the Union or P-M, nor shall he decide any issue not submitted or not arbitrable, nor shall he interpret or apply this Agreement so as to change what can fairly be said to have been the intent of the parties as determined by generally accepted rules of contract construction.
682
(f ) In the event the arbitrator finds that the activities of either em- ployees or the Union, or P-M. are in violation of No Strike — No Lockout. he shall, as a part of his decision, specifically order that all normal operations be resumed at once and enjoin any continued or prospective violations of said provisions.
(g) The arbitrator is empowered to award damages, if any, against the Union or P-M sihould he determine that the activities of either party are in violation of No Strike — No Lockout.
(h) The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties.
(i) In the event either party fails to abide in any respect with the arbitrator's award, the other party may apply to any appropriate court for enforcement of said award without notice to the party or i)arties against whom smch enforcement is sought.
(j) The fees and expenses of Expedited Arbitration shall be borne by the parties in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph D above.
BULLETIN BOARDS
P-M will provide bulletin boards placed at such central locations as the Union may designate subject to approval of P-M for posting of formal notices.
RECORDS AND PAY PERIODS
A. Accurate records shall be kept, including total hours worked, piece rates or incentive records, total wages and total deductions. Employees shall be fur- nished a copy of itemized wage statement and itemized deduction statement each pay day which shall include the employee piece rate production.
B. In case of a dispute as to pay, the Union shall have the right to examine time sheets, work production, or other non-confidential records that relate di- rectly to an individual employee's compensation for the pay period in dispute.
C. During the 90 day period prior to the expiration date of this agreement, the Union may request of P-M piece rate production reports.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR UNION BUSINESS
A. Any regular full time employee, not to exceed three (3), elected to or ap- pointed to an oflSce or position with the Union, shall be granted a leave of absence not to exceed the term of this agreement. Such leave ishall not affect the seniority rights of the employee. The leave shall be without pay.
B. The Union agrees that P-M will be given (15) days notice in writing before the employee takes leave to accept such office or position or chooses to return to work.
C. A temporary leave of absence for Union business of not more than three (3) employees shall be granted by P-M provided that ample notice in writing is given P-M. The leave shall be without pay.
LEAVE OF ABSE:NCE
A leave of absence shall be granted to a regular full time employee, upon proper application, for a reasonable period for any of the following reasons, without loss of seniority ; such leaves to be without pay.
A. For jury duty or, if subpoenaed, for witness duty.
B. Up to two (2) years for illness or injury of an employee requiring absence from the job.
C. Valid personal reason not to exceed thirty (30) days.
D. Military Leave : All federal and state statutes applicable to the reemploy- ment of servicemen shall be observed.
CRH3HT UNION
A. Upon receipt of written authorization by the employee, deductions from his wages will be made by P-M for the Farm Workers Credit Union. They will be forwarded to that organization, addressed as follows :
Farm Workers Credit Union
P. O. Box SM
Delano, California 93215
683
B. The Union shall indemnify and save P-M harmless against any and all claims', demands, suits, or other forms of liability that shall arise out of or by reason of action taken by P-M for the purpose of complying with any of the provisions of this Article.
VACATIONS
A. Vacations with pay shall be granted to eligible employees who qualify.
B. Employee.s shall be eligible in tlie calendar year following the first anni- versary of employment and annually thereafter for the following vacations :
45 Hours after 1 year seniority. 90 Hours after 2 years seniority. 135 Hours after 10 years of seniority.
C. To qualify for vacation pay an employee must have worked 1600 hours in the prior calendar year.
D. Vacation pay will be computed on the basis of the hourly rate (or the basic hourly minimum rate) applicable on the last day worked prior to the vacations.
E. On or before January 1, 1970, P-M will apply to withdraw from its vol- untary participation in the State Unemployment Insurance Program. If such withdrawal is approved, the vacation schedule above will be changed to four per cent (4%) of the total yearly earnings for regular full time employees after two years employment, with a qualifying period of 1600 hours per year. All other employees will receive vacation allowance of two per cent (2%) of the total yearly earnings after a qualifying period of 15 working days per year.
JURY DUTY
A. In order to be eligible for jury duty pay, as described herein, one must be an employee.
B. Jury duty pay is defined as the difference between the fees received by him and his regular earnings up to nine (9) hours per day, for each such day of jury duty service.
C. To receive pay under this provision, the employee must (1) provide P-M with notice that he has been summoned for jury service and (2) present P-M with documentary evidence the amount of jury fees received for jury service.
BEREAVEMENT PAY
An employee will be granted a three (3) day leave of absence in the event of death in his immediate family. For the purpose of this article, a member of the immediate family shall mean only persons who occupy the relationship to the employee of father, mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law, wife, brother, sister, son or daughter. In the event of absence for death in the immediate family, the employee shall be paid his regular hourly rate for his scheduled working hours on any day during such three (3) day leave on which he would otherwise have been scheduled to work, and no employee shall be paid under the provisions of this article for any day falling during a vacation, leave or absence or on a holiday. No extra pay allowance will be made for multiple or simultaneous deaths occurring within any three (3) day period.
If more time is required the maximum leave that would be granted would be ten (10) days without pay.
HOLIDAYS
A. An employee shall receive eight (8) hours pay at his basic hourly rate of earnings for the following holidays :
1. Christmas Day
2. New Year's Day.
3. Labor Day.
B. In the event any employee works on any holiday enumerated in subpara- graph above, he shall be paid time and one-half in addition to his holiday pay.
C. "When a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed as the holiday.
D. Work performed on the following named holidays shall be paid at time and one-half the employee's regular rate of pay.
1. Thanksgiving Day.
2. July 4th.
3. Good Friday.
684
E. To qualify for the holiday pay an employee must have worked the last working day preceding the holiday and the first working day following the holiday.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
A. The Health and Safety Committee shall be formed consisting of equal num- bers of worker's representatives selected by the bargaining unit and P-M repre- sentatives. The Health and Safety Committee shall be provided with notices on the use of pesticides, insecticides, or herbicides, as outlined in Section D 1, 2 and 3.
The Health and Safety Committee shall advise in the formulation of rules and practices relating to the health and safety of the workers, including, but not limited to, the use of pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides ; the use of garments, materials, tools, and equipment as they may affect the health and safety of the workers and sanitation conditions.
B. The following shall not be used : DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, and Endrin. Other chlorinated hydrocarbons shall not be applied without the necessary precautions.
C. The Health and Safety Committee shall recommend the proper and safe use of organic phosphates including, but not limited to parathion. The Company shall notify the Health and Safety Committee as soon as possible before the ap- plication of organic phosphate material. Said notice shall contain the information set forth in Section D below. The Health and Safety Committee shall recommend the length of time during which farm workers will not be permitted to enter the treated field following the application of organic phosphate pesticide. If P-M uses organic phosphates, it shall pay for the expense for all farm workers, apply- ing the phosphates, of one baseline cholinesterase test and other additional such tests if recommended by a doctor. The results of all said tests shall be immedi- ately given by P-M to the Health and Safety Committee.
D. P-M shall keep the following records and make them available to each member of the Health and Safety Committee :
(1) A plan showing the size and location of fields and a list of the crops or plants being grown.
(2) Pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides used, including brand names plus active ingredients, registration number on the label, and manufac- turer's batch or lot number.
( a ) Dates and time applied or to be applied.
( b ) Location of crops or plants treated or to be treated.
( c ) Amount of each application. id) Formulation.
( e ) Method of application.
(/) Person who applied the pesticide.
(3) Date of harvest.
SANITATtON
A. There shall be adequate toilet facilities, separate for men and women, in the field, readily accessible to workers, that will be maintained in a clean and sani- tary manner. These may be portable facilities and shall be maintained at the ratio of one for every 35 workers.
B. Each place where there is work being performed shall be provided with suitable, cool, potable drinking water convenient to workers. Individual paper drinking cups shall be provided.
C. Workers will have two (2) relief i)eriods of fifteen (15) minutes which, insofar as practical, shall be in the middle of each work i>erlod.
TOOLS AND PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
Tools and equipment and protective garments necessary to perform the work and/or to safeguard the health of or to prevent injury to a worker's person shall be provided, maintained and paid for by P-M.
SUPERVISORS
A. Supervisors and other employees not covered by this Agreement shall not perform work on operations performed by employees in the bargaining unit as defined in this Agreement except for instruction, training, experimental and development work, including the improvement of processes and testing of equip- ment and emergencies.
e85
B. Any claim by the Union that action on the job of any non-bargaining unit employee is disrupting harmonious working relations may be taken up as a grievance. The Union agrees that grievances filed under this provision are for the purpose of bringing to P-M's attention and correction situations of dis- harmony between representatives of P-M and members of the Union and further that such grievances shall not have as their purpose the abridgement, modifica- tion or lessening of P-M's inherent right to select, assign and/or retain in employment non-bargaining unit employees.
MAINTENANCE OF STANDABDS
Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, on the job general working con- ditions in effect at the execution of this Agreement shall be maintained during the term of this Agreement and no employee covered by this Agreement shall suffer a. reduction in the rates of pay or other conditions of employment for those classifications set forth in Appendix A as a result of the execution of this Agreement.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
A. P-M shall not be bound by any requirement which is not specifically stated in this Agreement or stated in any supplementary agreement executed by the parties hereto.
B. The Union and P-M agree that this Agreement is intended to cover all matters affecting wages, hours and other terms and all conditions of employ- ment and similar or related subjects, and that during the term of this Agree- ment neither P-M nor the Union will be required to negotiate on any further matters affecting these or any other subjects not specifically set forth in this Agreement.
MODIFICATION
No provision or terms of this agreement may be amended, modified, changed, altered or waived except by a written document executed by the parties hereto.
SAVINGS CI^AUSE
Should any valid federal or state law or final determination of any board or court of competent jurisdiction affect any provision of this Agreement, the pro- vision or provisions so affected shall be made to conform to the law or determina- tion ; and otherwise this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
SUCCESSORS
This agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors, ad- ministrators, executors and assigns. It is understood by this section that the parties hereto shall not use any leasing device to a third party to evade this contract. P-M shall give notice of the existence of this agreement to any pur- chaser, in writing, with a copy to the Union.
REIPORTING AND STANDBY TIME
An employee who is required to report for work and furnished no work or less than four hours work for reasons other than an Act of God or act beyond the control of P-M ranch management shall be paid at least four hours for that day at the employee's hourly rate of pay.
An employee shall be paid for all time he is required to remain on the job at his hourly rate or current incentive rate.
SPECIAL BENEFITS FUND
P-M agrees to contribute to the Union's Special Benefit fund 10^ per hour for each hour worked by all employees covered by this Agreement
DURATION AND TERMINATION
This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect from May 1, 1969 to April 30, 1971, and thereafter from year to year, unless one party or the other gives notice, in writing, at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of this Agreement of the desire to terminate this Agreement or modify its terms.
Appendix A
A. Work day. — ^The normal work day shall be nine hours except in the case of irrigators who shall have a ten hour day and in the case of pickers, pruners, and tiers.
Nothing in this article shall be construed as guaranteeing the number of hours in a work day or that any employee shall receive any specified hours of work per day.
B. Rates of pay hourly Job classification :
Irrigator : Hourly rate
Day $2. 05
Night 2. 10
Vehicle operators : Tractor :
Day 2. 20
Night 2. 25
Pipeline repair 2. 05
All others 2. 00
Notwithstanding the incentive rates each employee is guaranteed a minimnm hourly ralte of $2.00 per hour effective May 1, 1969.
Overtime pay. — Employees other than irrigators required to work more than 9 hours in a day will be paid 25^ for each hour worked in excess of 9 hours in addition to their hourly rate of pay, except in the case of irrigators, where such overtime pay will start after 10 hours. Nothing herein, however, shall constitu/te a guarantee of 9 hours work in a day, or 10 hours in the case an irrigator.
C. 1969 picking rates
Rate
100 blacks $11. 00
Salvador, Nigeria. Thompson 7. 80
M. Bordelaise, Ribier, Aramon, White #2, Almission, 270 mixed, 53 rows mixed.
101 8. 40
Ranch #1 mixed, Grignolino, Canosino, Verdizo, Rubiired and Royalty, 270 experiments. D. Effective May 1, 1970 all regular rates of pay will be increased by 15^ per hour including incentive rates. Written notices: For the Union : P.O. Box 130 Delano, California 93215. For P-M :
P.O. Box 818
Delano, California 93215.
In witness whereof, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective representatives thereunto duly authorized.
The contract was duly signed by all parties, and a copy with signatures aflSxed is in the Subcommittee files. )
StTPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
It is understood that this Supplemental Agreement constitutes a modification of that certain contract between A. Perelli-Mineti & Sons and United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, dated September 18th 1969.
1. Under Article No Strike — No Lockout :
The Union will accept the responsibility for stopping and settling all work stoppages. This is subject to Article Grievance and Arbitrations, Section E, Expedited Arbitration.
2. Under Article Health and Safety, Section C, reference to cholinesterase test recommended by "a doctor", that doctor shall be the doctor, or any doctor on the panel of doctors as designated by P-M's compensation insurance carrier for regular compensation matters.
687
3. Under Article Tools and Protective EJquipment, any equipment supplied by P-M is to be returned to P-M, or to be paid for by the employee ; reasonable wear and tear excluded.
4. P-M will pay standby time as provided in article Reporting and Standby Time, except in the case of harvest, where there will be no standby time for the first one-half hour, nor will there by any standby time for any additional delay of one-half hour where caused by interruption of grapes being received at the winery during the lunch hour.
5. P-M will continue payments under voluntary coverage for Unemployment Insurance unless withdrawal from such voluntary program as provided under Article Vacations is approved.
6. Article Special Benefits Fund will not become effective until such time as approval is received from P-M's attorneys that such contribution will be a deductible exi)ense. After such approval P-M will withdraw from the Teamsters Bay Area Warehousemen's Health and Welfare Fund and begin contribution to the Special Benefits Fund.
Dated September 18, 1969.
A. Pebfjxi-Minetti & Sons.
Cakdiovascular Clinical Research Center,
Temple University Medical Center,
Philadelphia, Pa., February 11, 1969. ELIiA.NOR A. EIaton,
National Representative for Economic Security and Rural Affairs, American Friends Service Committee, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. Dear Miss Eaton : The best authority I can quote in answer to your request for comparison of the nutritional value of oranges and grapes in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 8, "Composition of Foods — Raw, Processed, Pre- pared" which gives the following figures per 100 grams edible portion.
Grapes Orange
Calories
Protein (g.)
Fat(g.)
Carbohydrate (g.)
Calcium (mg.)..
Phosphorus (mg.)
Potassium (mg.)
Vitamin A (I.U.)
Vitamin B(mgO
|
69.0 |
45.0 |
|
1.3 |
1.0 |
|
1.0 |
.2 |
|
15.7 |
12.2 |
|
16.0 |
41.0 |
|
12.0 |
20.0 |
|
158.0 |
200.0 |
|
100. 0 |
200.0 |
|
4.0 |
50.0 |
You will note that grapes possess higher caloric but lower mineral values, while being markedly inferior to oranges in content of vitamins A and C. Grapes have respectively one half and one twelfth as much of these crucial factors as do oranges.
I would expect that either oranges or grapes containerized and shipped promptly without overheating to their destination would arrive without essential change in their nutritive value.
I hope this information will be of some help to you. Yours sincerely,
T. G. G. Wilson, Ph.D., M.D.
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee AFL-CIO,
Delano, Calif., September 12, 1969. Comptroller General of the United States, General Accounting Office, Washington, B.C.
Dear Sir: This letter is to formally protest the course of practice of the United States Defense Supply Agency ("DSA") in awarding contracts for the procurement of fresh table grapes in continuing violation of the Armed Services Procurement Regulations, the Defense Department Appropriations Acts for fiscal years 1966 through 1969, and the United States Constitution. This protest relates to all DSA awards of contracts for the procurement of table grapes since
36-513 O— 70— pt. aA— ^-10
688
fiscal year 1966 and to all future such procurements, from suppliers listed in Attachment 1 hereto, and any other suppliers of table grapes produced in the states of California and Arizona. (These states produce over 95% of total U.S. table grape production). It is based principally on the fact that the Defense Supply Agency has radically increased its purchases of fresh table grapes in fiscal years 1967, 1968 and 1969 with the purpose and effect of supporting and underwriting the growers of table grapes in an on-going labor dispute with the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO ("UFWOC"). The ex- istence of this labor dispute has been formally certified by the U.S. Department of Labor. This protest does not, however, request or require GAO to talie any po.sition on the merits of the labor dispute. Rather, we submit that regardless of the substantive issues in that dispute DSA's purchases of table grapes from the growers referred to above violate the ASPR, the applicable provisions of the Appropriations Acts, and the U.S. Constitution.
I. JURISDICTION
31 U.S.C. § 71 provides that :
"All claims and demands whatever by the Government of the United States or against it, and all accounts whatever in which the Government of the United States is concerned, either as debtor or creditor, shall be settled and adjusted in the General Accounting Office."
§ 20.1 of the G.A.O. Regulations provides that :
"An interested party wishing to protest the proposed award of a contract, or the award of a contract, by an agency of the Federal Government whose accounts are subject to settlement by the U.S. General Accounting Office may do so by addressing a telegram or letter to the Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 20548, identifying the procurement or sale and the agency concerned and stating the specific grounds upon which the protest is based."
As is further set out below, DSA's purchases of table grai)es directly and substantially affect the relative positions of UFWOC and the growers in the present labor dispute. UFWOC is clearly "an interested party" within the mean- ing of § 20.1 quoted above. I am the Director of UFWOC.
Both the Armed Services Procurement Regulations and the Defense Supply Procurement Regulations, as well as the GAO Regulations cited above, recognize the right to lodge a protest directly with the General Accounting Office. See ASPR 112-407.9 (b) (2) ; DSPR 112-407.9. We should point out, however, that in the present controversy repeated protests have been made directly to the Department of Defense, but to no avail. After several previous efforts, I cabled the Secretary of Defense On August 2, 1968 to "again ask for [a] policy decision regarding mili- tary procurement of California table grapes which are subject to major wide- spread boycott .... We are hopeful that your department will be sensitive to the efforts of the California Farm Workers to claim their rights." ^ On August 8 the Department answered, stating that "the Department of Defense does not have any basis upon which to restrict awards to the producers affected by the boycott." ^ In a letter to Senator Philip Hart, dated October 22, 1968, the Department reiterated that it was "unable to find any evidence which would support a change of the Department of Defense's policy. . . "^ Finally, in recent testimony before the
Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, the DSA representative left no doubt that the Department of Defense intends to continue its present policies with re- spect to the procurement of table grapes. See Hearings cited infra pp. 55 ff.
11. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Dispute
The United Farm Workers Committee strike against the California growers of table grapes was begun in September, 1965, to protest against the working, health and sanitary conditions existing in the fields, widespread use of child labor, the long hours of work, and inadequate rates of pay. For example, with
1 See Attachment 2. s See Attachment 3. ' See Attachment 4.
689
respect to sanitary conditions, California law provides that every employer must provide toilet and hand washing facilities for every food crop growing operation. The attached affidavit of Salvador Santos and Gilberto Flores describes over 70 violations of these requirements observed over a short period of time (Attach- ment 5).* Similar data can be made available with respect to housing, child labor, wages, and hours.
The growers have fiercely resisted the strike, and have employed physical vio- lence and other unlawful tactics in their efforts to break both the union axid the strike. The actions of the growers are fully described in the attached affidavit of Jerome Cohen, General Coimsel of UFWOC (Attachment 6). In summary, these activities have included i) numerous physioal beatings and assaults on pickets and other workers; ii) the use of deadly weapons, economic poison, and motor vehicles to shoot at, spray and run over peaceful pickets ; iii) organization of company unions financed and dominated by the employers, in violation of Cali- fornia labor laws ; iv) deliberate recruiting of "green card" workers from Mexico' in violation of federal regulations prohibiting the bringing of foreign labor into the U.S. to work at locations where a labor dispute exists ; v) deliberate firing of workers because of their political views ; vi ) deliberate mislabeling of struck grapes in violation of state and federal laws in an effort to mislead the public to believe that the grapes were picked by union labor. Many of these activities of the employers are matters of public record. See, e.g.. Transcript of Hearing be- fore the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare, U.S. Senate, Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Powerlessness/ Efforts to Organize, July 15, 1969, (hereinafter cited as "Hearings") pp. 19-31 (Testimony of Dolores Huerta) ; S. Rep. No. 91-83, The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the United States. 91st Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 20 ff. ; Extension of Remarks of Senator Ralph Yarborough, Congressional Record, July 10, 1969 pp. E5772 ff.
2. The Boycott
Faced with adamant refusal of the growers to recognize the union, to bargain with it, or to make any efi^ort to correct the labor conditions existing in the fields, the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee organized a nationwide con- sumer boycott against table grapes produced by the Giumarra vinyards, the larg- est producer of table grapes in the United States. The boycott was instituted in September, 1967. After Giumarra began shipping grapes under the labels of other growers, UFWOC, in January, 1968, instituted a nationwide and international consiuner boycott of all California table grapes. In May, 1969, after all Arizona table grape growers refused to recognize UFWOC as the collective bargaining agency for employes, the boycott was expanded to cover Arizona table gr^apes as weU. Tlie boycott has now been organized in all major cities in the United States and in a nmnber of countries abroad.
The boycott has been remarkably successful, resulting in 1968 in a 15% reduc- tion in grape sales in the U.S. and Canada when compared with 1966 figures. Fur- ther reductions are occurring in 1969. More siignifieant, however, is the fact that wholesale grape prices have fallen sharply since the boycott l>egan. At the start of the 1969 season, F.O.B. prices on Thompson seedless grapes (which account for over 40% of all California grape production) were down over 30% when com- IDared to 1968 prices. Last year, F.O.B. prices per 22 lb. lug of Thompson seedless grapes shipped from Coachella, in the heart of the grape producing area, opened at $6.50 and closed at about $5.00. This year, F.O.B. prices opened at $4.75 and closed at $2.75. Thus most Coachella Thompsons were sold for at least $2.00 less per lug than last year.^
3. Procurement by DSA
In the face of consistently declining volume of purchases of table grapes by the public as a result of the boycott, the Defense Supply Agency has radically in- creased its purchases of California and Arizona table grapes over the last four years. According to the Defense Supply Agency, Defense purchases of fresh table grapes have been as follows :
* Additional similar affidavits are attached as Attachment 5A.
5 Affidavit of Jane Brown, attachment 7 hereto. We should point out that Coachella grapes are the first to be harvested and are therefore always priced very substantially above mldseason grape prices.
690
Millions of Millions of
Fiscal year pounds dollars
1966 - - - 7.5 1.04
1967 8.3 1.25
iggaY 6.9 1.32
i969»:v::: :::::::::::::::::::::::----- 959 1.75
1 Reduced purchases reflectthe unusually low grape harvest in 1968. .. u ^ .. u
2 Statement of Mr. Dale R. Babione, Defense Supply Agency, July 15, 1969, attached as attachment 8.
It will be observed that with the exception of the reduced purchases in FY 1968 due to lower harvests in that year, the volume of Defense Supply Agency grape purchases has consistently increased in each year since FY 1966. (The Agency asserts that it has no information for procurement prior to FY 1966). In terms of dollar value (which is, of course, the most significant to the growers), in- creases are shown in each year, including 1968.
The increases over recent years in grape shipments to Vietnam have been even greater. According to the Department of Defense Fact Sheet of June 10, 1969 (Attachment 9 hereto) the shipments have been as follows:
Fiscal year Fiscal year : pounds
1967 468, 000
1968 555, 000
1969* 2, 500, 000
Thus, DSA shipments of fresh table grapes to Vietnam in fiscal year 1969 were almost five times the volume shipped in fiscal year 1968. In testimony be- fore the Subcommittee on Migrant Labor of the United States Senate, the Agency admitted that its purchases of table grapes during 1969 were higher than at any previous time in history.*
These increases in DSA grape purchases for military consumption world- wide and for shipment to Vietnam in fiscal year 1969 have not been matched by a corresponding increase in military personnel. According to Department of De- fense figures, there were an average of 531,000 troops stationed in Vietnam dur- ing fiscal year 1968, and an average of 538,500 in the first half of fiscal year 1969, an increase of slightly over 1%^" Meanwhile the volume of table grapes shipped to Vietnam by DSA rose from 555,000 lbs. in FY 1968 to an estimated 2,500,000 lbs. in FY 1969, an increase of over 350%. On a worldwide basis, mili- tary manpower levels declined from 3.6 million in 1968 to 3.5 million in 1969 a decrease of approximately 3%.^ In the same period, total DSA purchases of fresh table grapes rose from 6.9 million lbs, to an estimated 9.7 million lbs., an increase of over 41%.
Despite the substantial volumes of DSA purchases, the Agency appears to have paid premium prices for the grapes it bought. According to DSA figures, the average prices per pound paid by the Agency for all grapes it bought in FY 1967, 1968 and 1969 were as follows :
Fiscal year 1967 $0. 139
Fiscal year 1968 . 192
Fiscal year 1969 . 182
Market prices for purchases by the public are, unfortunately, not available on a fi.«cal year basis, but rather are reported by season. The California table grape harvest begins in late May or early June and runs through October. Ship- ments of stored grapes continue, however, until the following May, when the cycle begins again. Thus the "grape season," running from June through May, corresponds roughly to the U.S. fiscal year, running from July through June.
Market price data are available for Thompson seedless and Emperor grapes for the grape seasons which correspond to fiscal years 1967-1969. These two varieties account for 83% of the total fresh table grape harvest. The average F.O.B. shipping point prices to the public at midseason for these varieties, and the average prices paid by DSA for its purchases of grapes, were as follows :
8 AcpordinK to the Department of Defense, this data is "projected on the basis of actual totals for the first three quarters of fiscal year 1969 and the rnte of decline of seasonal &!!,*' *"ot™l"*L*\^^."^'''^"<^''*' <l"rlngr the last half of fiscal year 1967 and fiscal year 1968." Fact Sheet attached as Attachment 9.
• Hearings, d. 65.
"See Attachment 10.
" Hearings, p. 82.
691
Midseason shipping point wholesale
f.o.b. prices per lb.— sales to the
Grape season/fiscal year public i
Average wholesale
Thompson prices— sales to
seedless Emperor DSA, all varieties ^
1966-67 - $0.13 $0.14 $0,139
1967-68 — .14 .15 .192
1968-69 - .11 -12 .182
'Source: Department of Agriculture, s Source: DSA.
Although for FY 1967, the prices paid by DSA and by private purchasers were substantially the same, the average prices paid by DSA in FY 1968 and FY 1969 appear to have been substantially above the midseason wholesale market prices reported by the Department of Agriculture.
III. SUMMARY OF AKGUMENT
Paragraph 12-101 (e) of the Armed Services Procurement Regulations pro- vides that "Military Departments shall remain impartial in, and refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute." Although the Defense Supply Agency insists that its policy is strictly an impartial one, we submit that the substantial increases in DSA procurement of table grapes precisely at the time that the grape boycott was reaching its peak are not impartial, either in purpose or in effect. Although it is, of course, diflScult to prove that DSA's purchases were made with the intent of supporting the growers in the existing labor dispute with UFWOC, we believe that the available evidence supports this conclusion. But even if such intent could not be proved, it is clear that the effect of DSA's purchases is not impartial. In either event, DSA, by bringing the economic power of the Defense Department to bear on the side of the growers, violates Paragraph 12-101 (e) of the Armed Services Procurement Regulations. We do not contend that for this reason, DSA must cease all purchases of fresh California and Arizona table grapes. We do argue, however, that fresh inter- pretation of the impartiality principle set forth in the ASPR requires at least that DSA reduce its grape purchases to those levels existing before the strike and boycott began.
The available evidence also suggests that the average prices paid by DSA for table grapes during FY 1968 and 1969 were substantially higher than mid- season wholesale prices for grapes sold for public consumption. It would appear that DSA has either been purchasing grapes at higher than market prices, or has been buying principally during those parts of the season when grape prices are at their highest. In either event, we submit that purchases at these prices violate the reasonable price requirements Paragraphs 3-806 and 3-807 of the Armed Services Procurement Regulations, and demonstrate an intent to support the growers.
Paragraph 1-903.2 of the ASPR, and the regulations cited therein, require that DSA purchase foodstuffs only from suppliers who are approved with respect to sanitation in accordance with certain stated standards and procedures. The suppliers from whom DSA purchases grapes have never been inspected or ap- proved with respect to sanitation as required by the regulations and could not meet applicable requirements if an inspection were to be made.
Finally we submit that DSA violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Con- stitution when it purchases substantial quantities of grapes from grower® who consistently take actions to discourage the workers from organizing a labor union and the consumer boycott. These activities of the workers are protected against governmental interference by the First Amendment. Although the Con- stitution does not protect the workers against purely private actions by the growers, the government, by financially underwriting the activities of the grow- ers, has made their actions its own for purposes of the prohibitions contained in the First Amendment.
692
IV. D.O.D. PURCHASES OF TABLE GRAPES VIOLATES § 12-101 (e) OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS
Paragraph 12-101 (e) of the Armed Services Procurement Regulations provides :
"Military Departments shall remain impartial in, and refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute, and shall refrain from the councilia- tion, mediation, arbitration, or any such dispute."
The Fact Sheet issued by the Department of Defense with respect to its pro- curement of table grapes admits the existence of a labor dispute in this case, thus calling 1112-101 (e) into play :
"The basic policy of the Department of Defense with regard to awarding de- fense contracts to contractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to DOD procurement needs to maintain a sound working relationship with both labor and management. The resolution of labor disputes involves complex and delicate areas of judgment and interpretation for which the responsibility has been vested by the Congress in other agencies of the Gov- ernment. From the diverse opinions that have appeared in various news media, it is quite apparent that the dispute over California table grapes falls in this category." ^^
The Armed Services Procurement Regulations are, of course, binding on the Defense Supply Agency and have the force of law. See Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 372 (1957) ; Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 265 (1954) ; Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States, 269 F. 2d 221, 224 (D.C. Cir. 1959). Even in the area of procurement, where the government admittedly has substan- tial discretion, its discretion must be exercised in conformity with applicable laws and regulations, uniformly applied. Overseas Media Corp. v. McNamara, 385 F. 2d 308 (D.C. Cir. 1967) ; see Gonzalez v. Freeman, 334 F. 2d 570 (D.C. Cir. 1964).
(a) The evidence shows a deliberate DSA policy to favor the grape grow- ers in the present dispute in violation of ASPR Par. 12-101 (e).
We submit that the radical increases in DSA grape purchases, particularly in FY 1969, at the very time that the UFWOC organized grape boycott was reach- ing its peak, demonstrates a deliberate DSA policy of favoring and supporting the efforts of the grape growers in the present labor dispute, in violation of the impartiality principle set forth in Paragraph 12-101 (e) of the ASPR and DSA's policy statement quoted above. It could not have been fortuitous that DSA pur- chases of table grapes should reach an all time high at the very time that pur- chases of table grapes by the public had declined over 15% as a result of the boycott.
DSA does not attempt to justify its increased purchases on tne basis of in- creased troop levels. As the statistics cited above demonstrate, it could not do so. Moreover DSA admits that grapes provide no unique nutritional value not available in other fruits.^^ Rather, DSA states in its "Fact Sheet" " that the in- creased purchases were due to 1) "a reduced availability of export quality fresh oranges, with a substitution of table grapes" 2) "high troop acceptability" of grapes and 3) "the improved capability of shipping perishable items, including grapes to Vietnam by refrigerated vans." We shall examine each of these sup- posed justifications in turn.
(1) Reduced availability of oranges. — According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there was a substantial reduction in the 1967-68 orange crop as compared with previous levels of production. In July 1968, DSA cabled all armed services food requisitioners in the Far East to advise them of the anticipated shortage of export quality oranges. In the Agency's own language, the requisi- tioners were "asked to consider grapes as a substitute." ^° Although other fruits were also available as substitutes, no other fruits were mentioned. Only grapes were suggested.^'
^ See Attachment 9.
12 Hearings! n. 72.
1* See Attachment 9.
15 DSA Reply to Questions by the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor to the De- partment of Defense concerning Purhcase of Table Grapes and other Fruits and Its Impact, Filed with the Subcommittee July 14, 1969. Reply to question 16. (Attachment 11 hereto.)
w Hearings pp. 91-95.
693
Thus there were no DSA fruit purchases which increased in volume nearly as greatly as grape purchases during FY 1969. In recent testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Mr. Dale Babione, representing the Defense Supply Agency, testified as follows :
"Senator SchweLker. One other factor relating to this. Is there any other food here at all in the list I have, tangerines, plums, pears, peaches, and apples, that increased in quantity anywhere near the grape increase?
"Can you point to any other fruit that had a significant jump, whether you are talking to Vietnam or purchasing in all your buying, that jumped as much as grapes?
"Mr. Babione. You are talking Vietnam only, or total?
"Senator Schweiker. I will give you an out either way. It is your option.
"Mr. Babione. No, there is not. . . ." (Hearings p. 93.) Detailed data with respect to DSA procurement of fruits other than grapes are provided in attachment 12 hereto.
Although the reduced availability of export quality oranges explains why other fruits had to be partially substituted for oranges in FY 1969, it does not explain why grai>es were suggested as the only alternative when a large variety of other fruits were equally available. Moreover the FY 19<>9 orange shortage obviously does not explain the increased purchases of grapes by DSA in other years when no orange shortage existed, and would not justify continued heavy purchases in FY 1970, for which no orange shortage is predicted.
(2) Troop AcceptaMlity. — DSA states that its increased purchases of grapes are also due to "high troop acceptability." The Agency has, however, been unable to explain how "troop acceptability" is measured. No surveys of any kind have been itaken. Rather the Agency's explanation is that "the troops like the taste of the product, and when it is served by and large the majority consume it, instead of thrown away [sic]" Hearings p. 70. Apparently, the Agency takes the position that if a certain food is served to hungry troops in Vietnam or elsewhere and more than 50% of those troops consiune that food rather than go hungry, there is "high troop acceptability" that in turn warrants increased purchase of that food. It is obvious, however, that the majority of the troops would consume any food when there is no alternative choice. To argue that a five fold increase in grape shipments to Vietnam is warranted because the majority of the troops do not refuse to eat grapes when they are served is, in our view, ridiculous.
(3) Improved shipping techniques. — Finally, the Agency asserts that grape purchases and shipments to Vietnam increased substantially in FY 1969 be- cause of the development of improved shipping techniques for perishables. Ac- cording to DSA, there has been a recent increase in shipping capacity by "re- refrigerated container" rather "refrigerated hatch." Although shipment by refrigerated container costs substantially more (8l^0/lb., as opposed to 6^/lb. for refrigerated hatch, according to DSA figures), it results in a lower rate of spoilage. Thus, according to DSA, it is more economical to buy and ship grapes now that more refrigerated containers are available.
It is interesting to note, however, that grapes are one of the fruits least subject to spoilage in transit. According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook published in 1965,
"Average losses during transit and unloading of grapes is relatively small
By comparison the transit spoilage rate of apples is 2.29c, cherries, 2%, i>eaches, 3% etc., according to DOA figures.^
These Department of Agriculture figures are based on data compiled during the early 1960s. If, under shipping methods used at that time, the spoilage rate for grapes during transit was only 1%, it is difficult to understand why the increased availability of improved shipping techniques in FY 1969 justified a five fold increase in grape shipments to Vietnam in that year.
Moreover, as noted earlier, no other fruit procurement by DSA increased nearly as radically as DSA grape purchases during the period in question. The increased availability of refrigerated containers had little impact on other fruits, accord- ing to DSA, because these containers are used only for shipping grapes and fresh peaches in season. However, DSA procurement of fresh peaches increased by less than 10% in FY 1969," while total DSA procurement of grapes increased by more
" U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook No. 291, p. 87.
" Id. at 86-87.
» See Attachment 12 and Hearings p. 94.
694
than 40%. Figures with respect to shipments of peaches to Vietnam during these periods have not been made available by DSA.
There would also seem to be some question as to why DSA should, under the circumstances described above, have paid 8V^^ a pound to ship grapes to Vietnam by refrigerated container when it could have shipped grapes or other fruits at 60 a pound by refrigerated hatch. Adding the shipping charges to the average price per pound paid by DSA for grapes in FY 1969, the delivered cost per pound amounted to 26.7^/lb. for grapes delivered by container as against 24.20/lb. for those delivered by hatch, a difference of over 10%. Unless spoilage rates for hatch shipments had been more than 10%, and the use of refrigerated containers reduced spoilage by at least this amount, there was no economic reason for DSA to ship by container. In light of the Department of Agriculture data showing transit losses for grapes at 1%, DSA's "shipping container" rationale for its increased grape purchases does not ring true.
In summary, we submit that the available evidence fails to support DSA's stated explanations for its increased purchases of table grapes since FY 1966. Rather, the radical increases in DSA purchases of table grapes, unaccompanied by increased procurement of other fruits, partially in response to a DCA telegram specifically suggesting procurement of grapes ( and no other fruit ) in place of oranges, demon- strates, we believe, a deliberate DSA policy designed to favor the growers in the present labor dispute, in violation of Paragraph 12-101 (e) of the ASPR, and the DOD policy statement quoted above.^
( 6 ) The effect of DSA's increased grape purchases is to violate the neutrality principle of ASPR Par. 12-101 (e), regardless of DSA's purpose.
Even if it is assumed that the Defense Sui>ply Agency did not intend to sup- port the growers or to effect the outcome of the present labor dispute, it is clear that the effect of its increased purchases is far from neutral, but is rather to underwrite the efforts of the growers to withstand the boycott and crush the strike.
Our position in this regard was well summarized by Senator Mondale at the conclusion of the recent Senate hearings when he said :
"I think it is asking too much of the average farm workers to believe that the Defense Department is being neutral when it increases the purchase of table grapes 40 percent and in a single year increases their use in Vietnam 350 percent, and this year is buying more table grajyes than at any time in history of the Defense Department, and has responded by saying that they have solicited tele- gram requests to all iwints around the world urging their consideration of the use of table grapes.
"This is a charged and embittered dispute. It involved the plea of some of the most depressed workers in this country. The plight of the grape worker is about as serious, and as deprived and tragic as any in the Nation. They are trying to settle a strike. They are asking the right to bargain collectively, which is a right most people have had for 30 or 40 years.
"They find themselves overwhelmed by freely imported labor from Mexico. The only tool that they have that is non-violent available to them is the grape boycott.
^We should also mention that if DSA's actions were Intended to assist the growers in the dispute, the Agency also violated the Defense Appropriations Acts for the years in question (FY 1969 : PL 90-580, 82 Stat. 1120 ; FY 1968 : PL 90-96, 81 Stat. 231 ; FY 1967 : PL 89-687, 80 Stat. 980). Obviously the purpose of the appropriations was to provide funds for defense procurement, and not to provide funds with which DSA could attempt to affect the outcome of a labor dispute. As stated by the Comptroller General in decision No. A- 96689. ISComp. Gen. 285, 292 (1938) :
"Article I, section 9, clause 7, of the Constitution ordains that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made bv Law," and section 3678, Revised Statutes, taken from the act of March 3, 1809, 2 Stat. 535, provides that —
"All sums appropriated for the various branches of expenditure in the public service shall be applied solely to the objects for which they are respectively made, and for no others.
"In the settlement and adjustment of all accounts and claims in which the United States is concerned, and in certifying the balances thereon which the law makes final and conclusive upon the Executive branch of the Government, this office necessarily has the duty of deciding under these cited provisions whether an appropriation is available for making payment on the basis of the record presented. Sections 304 and 305, Budget and Accounting Act, 42 Stat. 24. Generally, the Congress in making appropriations leaves largely to administrative discretion the choice of ways and means to accomplish the objects of the appropriation, but, of course, administrative discretion may not transcend the statutes, nor be exercised in conflict with law, nor for the accomplishment of purposes un- authorized by the appropriation; and, just as clearly, such unauthorized objectives may legally no more be reached indlrcetly . . . than by direct expenditure." (emphasis eupplled).
695
"In the midst of this boycott, they find these rapidly rising percentages, in- creases by the Defense Department, purchasing of table grapes, and it may well be that the policy is inadvertent, fortuitous, and neutral, in a highly theo- retical sense, but the practical operational fact is that it is favoring and helping the grape grower in this dispute. . . ." Hearings pp. 100-101.
The Agency argues that its purchases of table grapes could not have a sub- stantial effect on the outcome of the existing labor dispute since its purchases represent less than one percent of total U.S. table grape production. This argument is entirely without merit.
First, DOD table grape purchases amounted to over 2% of U.S. table grape production in both FY 1968 and FY 1969. The 1% figure quoted by DSA repre- sents DSA purchases as against all grapes sold, whether for crushing (for wine) , drying (for raisins) or fresh table use. Since the return to the growers for grapes which are crushed or dried is only a small fraction of the return on fresh grapes,2i the 1% figure used by DSA is misleading. The correct data with respect to DSA table grape purchases as a percentage of total U.S. fresh table grape production for 1965-1968 are refiected in the following chart:
TOTAL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TABLE GRAPE PURCHASES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL U.S. FRESH TABLE GRAPE PRODUCTION, BY FISCAL YEAR AND HARVEST YEAR, 1965-68.
Harvest year
California fresh Estimated U.S.
table grape fresh table grape DOD table
Fiscal year production production i grape purchases
(millions of (millions of (millions of
pounds) pounds) pounds)
Percent DOD
table grape
purchases of
total U.S. fresh
table grape
production
|
1965 |
1966 |
531.8 |
557.6 |
7.5 |
1.3 |
|
1966 |
1967 |
522.0 |
548.1 |
8.3 |
1.5 |
|
1967 |
1968 |
326.0 |
342.3 |
6.9 |
2.0 |
|
1968 — |
1969 |
437.0 |
458.8 |
9.69 |
2.1 |
1 California production plus 5 percent.
Source: Compiled from California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Sacramento, Calif., and Factsheet: Department of Defense Use of Table Grapes, June 10, 1969, and DSA testimony at hearings cited, supra.
But regardless of whether DSA's purchases amount to 1% or 2% of the total amount of fresh grapes sold, DSA's argument with resi)ect to the economic effect of its purchases is simply bad economics. A change of even 1% in demand may affect price by 3 or 4%, or more. In the grape industry, where costs of production remain essentially fixed regardless of how much of the crop is sold for fresh consumption, a change of 1% in demand may affect grower's profits by as much as 10%. Since costs are essentially fixed, every dollar of sales above the break- even point represents an additional dollar of profit. Thus, as ^Senator Mondale pointed out at the recent hearings :
"We have farm programs, we spend millions and millions of dollars trying to affect the market by 1 percent, because for 1 percent you can affect the market three or four percent. One percent can make the difference in winning or posing a strike. To argue that one percent is neutral is just not good economics." ^
The assertion that DOD believes its policy to be "neutral" is, of course, not controlling. In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had opportunity to comment on another instance in which the Depart- ment of Defense claimed that its procurement actions were governed by "a policy of complete neutrality." In Ove^rsea^ Media Corp. v. McNamara, 385, F. 2d 308 (D.C. Cir. 1967), the 'plaintiff , a newspaper publisher sought to restrain the De- fense Department from continuing to refuse its newspaper access to PX news- stands in the Far East After receiving an initial denial of such access, plaintiff sought a letter from the Department expressing "no objection" to sales of the newspaper outside military channels. Apparently such letter was required in order to Cbtain Government of Vietnam approval for importation of the paper. In refusing to provide the "no objection" letter, DOD used language remarkably similar to that used by DOD throughout the present controversy saying :
"[W]e must maintain a policy of complete neutrality, since to set a precedent for one private entrepreneur would open the door for many such other requests.
'°- See Attachment 13. 22 Hearings p. 88.
696
"I regret that my reply must, under the circumstaBce, be unfavorable." 385 F. 2d at 312.
The D.C. Court of Appeals held that this determination of "neutrality" by DOD was not conclusive, and that the DOD decision to exclude plaintiff's paper from PX newsstands in the Far East was subject to judicial review :
"Appellee . . . contends that his decision fell into the area of procurement, and that his discretion in the purchase of supplies is not subject to question. We do not stop to pursue the implication of the assertion on behalf of appellee that newspapers are no different from any other article of merchandise sivbject to military procurement. Whether they are or not, the publishers of newspai)ers, like the makers of shoepolish, may fairly claim to be governed by uniform standards."
While the Court did not reach the merits of the controversy, it held that DOD's concept of what constituted "neutral" treatment was not controlling.
In the present controversy, we submit that regardless of DSA's intent, the effect of its increased purchases of grapes at the very time that the boycott was reach- ing its peak was not neutral, but was rather to support and underwrite the growers in the existing labor dispute. The effect of DSA's increased purchases of grapes was to violate the neutrality principle set forth in ASPR 1112-101 (e).
V. THE D.O.D. PUKCHASES OF TABLE GEAPES VIOLATES 1f1|3-806 AND 3-807 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS
According to the Defense Supply Agency, grapes are "either bought in the growing areas by field buyers or by special purchasing procedure known as the Notice of Intent to Purchase (NIP)."^ Although we are unable to find any express description or authorization of this procedure in the ASPR, we assume that it involves a type of negotiated procurement. Formal advertised competitive bidding is not required in the procurement of "perishable . . . subsistence supplies." ASPR 113-209.
However the fact that procurement may be by negotiation does not, of course, authorize DSA to pay more than market prices for the products it buys. As in all government procurement, the ASPR's applicable to procurement by nego- tiation require that the government pay no more than lowest fair market prices, quality, delivery time and other relevant factors being considered. See ASPR 113-806 and 3-807.
As indicated on pages 6-7 of this protest, it appears that the average price per pound paid by DSA for grapes purchased in FY 1968 and FY 1969 was between 40 and 50% above the average mid-season wholesale prices per pound at which grapes were sold for ultimate consumption by the public. We do not know, and DSA has not explained, the reasons for this discrepancy. It appears likely however, either that DSA is buying grapes at higher than market prices, or that it is concentrating its purchases at those times (the beginning or end of the season) when grape prices are at their highest. In either event, we submit that such purchases violate the price regulations contained in the ASPR, and further demonstrate the intention on the part of DSA to financially support the growers in the present dispute. A thorough investigation of DSA's prac- tices in this regard by your office is clearly warranted.
VI. THE DSA PURCHASES OF TABLE GRAPES VIOLATE ASPR 1[ 1-9 03. 2 RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR FOOD
Paragraph 1-903.2 (b) of the ASPR provides as follows
"(b) Standards for Food. Procurement of food shall be made only from those sources which, in addition to meeting the standards in 1-903.1, are approved with respect to sanitation in accordance with standards and procedures pre- scribed in AR 40-657, NAVSUP PUB 395. AFR 163-2 and NAVMC 2573."
The regulations referred to in the above paragraph are attached hereto as Attachment 14. They provide, inter alia that:
"Purchasing activities of the Armed Forces which use either appropriated or nonappropriated funds will purchase foods only from establishments inspected for sanitation by the military veterinary services and listed in a Directory of Sanitarily Approved Food Establishments for Armed Forces Procurement." Section II, US.
The regulations describe the manner in which such inspections are to be conducted, and provide applicable criteria, and inspection forms. The form
=« See Attachment 8, p. 3.
697
of inspection report, set forth on page 7 of the regulations, requires detailed findings on a variety of matters, including specifically,
"Disposal of wastes."
"Toilet, dressing room and hand washing facilities."
"Water supply (ice, if used)."
Protestants believe that no inspections of the types required by the cited regulations have ever been made of the facilities of the growers from whom DSA purchases grapes. Moreover, it is clear that if such inspections were to be conducted as required by the regulations, the growers would not now meet the criteria set forth in the regulations. The attached affidavit of Salvador Santos and Gilberto Flores (Attachment 5) describes over 70 recent violations of California Sanitation laws involving the failure of the growers to establish adequate toilet hand washing and drinking facilities for grape workers. The affidavit recites several instances in which workers have been observed defecat- ing in the fields. DSA has purchased grapes from all of the growers mentioned in the Santos-Flores affidavit.
The cited regulations are, of course, binding on DSA. See cases cited pp. 9^10, supra. The Defense Supply Agency, in flagrantly ignoring these regulations, is subjecting U.S. troops to serious health hazards. We submit that further DSA purchases of table grapes should be suspended until such time as the procedures established by the cited regulations have been complied with.
vn. THE INCREASES IN DSA PROCUREMENT OF TABLE GRAPES ALSO VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
By its substantial purchases of table grapes, we submit that the Defense Supply Agency is effectively underwriting the unlawful activities of the growers designed to deny to the United Farm Workers their Constitutionally-protected rights to organize a labor union and to carry out the grape boycott. Since under the First Amendment to the Constitution the Government could not directly take action to discourage the members of UFWOC from organizing a union and carrying out the boycott, neither can it do so indirectly, by underwriting the unlawful efforts of the growers to break the union and the strike (see p. 3 supra), whether or not such undervv^riting by the Government is deliberate.
It is, we believe, absolutely clear that the right of the grape workers to or- ganize a labor union and to take their case to the public by organizing a con- sumer boycott is protected against governmental interference by the speech and assembly guaranties of the First Amendment. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1944) ; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 (1940) ; Carlson v. California, 310" U.S. 106 (1940) ; Hague v. C.I.O. 307 U.S. 496 (1939) ; McLaughlin v. Tilen- dis, 398 F.2d 287, 289 (7th Cir. 1968). Clearly, if the Government itself under- took to discourage the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee from or- ganizing a union in the grape fields, and from organizing a consumer boycott, whether it did so by firing pro-union workers, by forming "company unions", by unlawfully hiring "green card" strikebreakers, by violence and intimidation or by any other means, such government action would be precluded by the First Amendment. While the government has taken no such direct action against the strikers, the growers from whom DSA purchases grapes have repeatedly and consistently taken actions described at p. 3 above which, if taken by the govern- ment, would violate the First Amendment. The issue posed is whether the gov- ernment violates the Constitutional guaranties of free speech and assembly when, through the exercise of its purchasing power, it underwrites these actions of the growers. We submit that it does.
A similar question has arisen in several cases arising under the Equal Protec- tion Clause of the 14th Amendment. In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715, 725 (1961), the Supreme Court held that by entering into a con- tract with, and failing to take action against, a business which discriminated on the basis of race, the State had, in effect, "elected to place its power, property and prestige behind the admitted discrimination. The State has so far inserted itself into a position of interdependence with . . . [the business] that it must be recognized as a joint participant in the challenged activity, which, on that account, cannot be considered to have been so 'purely private' as to fall with- out the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment." See also, Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), affirming 50 Cal. 881, 413 P.2d 825 (1966), and cases cited in the latter opinion ; cf. Hunter v. Erickson, 395 U.S. 385 (1969).
Directly on point are two recent federal district court decisions dealing with government procurement of construction services, one involving a state govern-
698
ment procuring agency, the other involving GSA. In both decisions the federal courts held that by entering into construction contracts with firms employing union labor, which unions excluded Negroes, the government agencies concerned had, in effect, permitted and underwritten private discrimination by the unions, and had accordingly violated the equal protection guaranty of the 14th and 5th Amendments. Ethridge v. Rhodes, 268, F. Supp. 83 (S.D. Ohio 1967) ; Todd v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee, 223 F. Supp. 12 (N.D. 111. 1963), vacated as moot, 332 F.2d 243 (7th Cir. 1963). See also Svmkins v. Moses H. Cone Memo- rial Hospital, 323 F.2d 959 (4th Cir. 1963) (holding unconstitutional that pro- vision of the Hill-Burton Act permitting Federal assistance to be expended for private but segregated hospitals) .
On the bases of the decisions cited above, the Solicitor of Labor, in a Legal Memorandum prepared at your request concluded that :
"Government contracts or assistance to private employers who discriminate would constitute unconstitutional discrimination by the Government. The Execu- tive has an obligation to ensure that no action is taken by the Federal Govern- ment which violates the Constitution by subsidizing an employer who discrimi- nates. The failure of the Federal Government to require a Government contractor to remedy the present effects of past discriminatory practices would render the Government vulnerable to a suit that it had breached its Fifth Amendment obli- gations." Solicitor of Labor, Legal Memorandum, Authority Under Executive Order 11246, p. 4.
We submit that these principles, heretofore applied in cases arising under the 5th and 14th Amendments, are equally applicable to the claims asserted herein arising imder the 1st Amendment. Although private racial discrimination is not barred by the Constitution, see Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1893) , the Ethridge and Todd decisions clearly hold that when the Government buys services from a contractor who discriminates, the Government itself deprives the victims of the discrimina- tion of equal protection of the laws. Similarly, although the private actions of the growers to discourage the boycott and the strike are not themselves barred by the 1st Amendment, we submit that when the Government buys substantial quan- tities of grapes from growers engaged in that course of conduct, it violates the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. As the Supreme Court has made clear, there is a "preferred place given in our scheme to the great, the indispensable freedoms secured by the First Amendment [citing eases]. That priority gives these lib- erties a sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions." Thomas v. Collins, supra, 323 U.S. at 530.
Although we maintain that the government's interference in the present dispute is deliberate, it is, from a Constitutional standpoint, immaterial whether or not the Government intends by its purchases to support the growers. Thus, in N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), the Supreme Court held invalid under the 14th Amendment an Alabama requirement that out of state associa- tions doing business in the state file their membership lists with the state authori- ties. In the following language, the Court rejected the contenion that because the state had taken no direct action to discourage free association, and did not intend any such discouragement, its actions were valid :
"In the domain of these indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association, the decisions of this Court recognize the abridgment of such rights, even though unintended, may inevitably follow from varied forms of govern- mental action. Thus in Douds, the Court stressed that the legislation there chal- lenged, which on its face sought to regulate labor unions and to secure stability in interstate commerce, would have the practical effect "of discouraging" the exercise of constitutionally protected political rights, 339 U.S. at 393, and it up- held the statute only after concluding that the reasons advanced for its enact- ment were constitutionally suflBcient to justify its possible deterrent effect upon such freedoms. Similar recognition of possible unconstitutional intimidation of the free exercise of the right to advocate underlay this Court's narrow construc- tion of the authority of a congressional committee investigating lobbying and of the Act regulating lobbying, although in neither case was there an effort to sup- press speech. United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 46-47 : United States v. Harris, 347 U.S. 612, 625-626. The governmental action challenged may appear to be to- tally unrelated to protected liberties. Statutes imposing taxes upon rather than prohibiting imrticular activity have been struck down when perceived to have the consequence of unduly curtailing the liberty of freedom of press assured under the Fourteenth Amendment Grosjean v. American Press Col, 297 U.S. 233; Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, 519 U.S. 105." 357 U.S. at 449 (emphasis supplied).
See also, Gibson v. Florida Legislative Comm., 372 U.S. 539 (1963).
699
The Court recognized that if Alabama had demonstrated a "compelling interest in obtaining the information it sought, the Alabama requirement could be upheld despite its deterrent effect on constitutionally protected activities. It held, however, that no such compelling interest was present.
We submit that N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama, when read in conjunction with the cases cited earlier arising under the 5th and 14th Amendments, is dispositive of the present, controversy. Under the rule in Burton, Ethridge and Todd, govern- ment purchases from, or contracting with, a supplier who discriminates violates the 5th and 14th Amendments. Given the "preferred place" of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment {Thomas v. Collins, supra), there can be no doubt that substantial Government purchases from, or contracting with, a supplier who actively seeks to discourage the free speech and association of his employees violates the First Amendment, unless there is an overriding public interest in making such purchases. And under the rule of l^.A.A.C.P. y. Alabam^a, it is the effect, not the intent, of the Government's action that is controlling.
In the present case, the evidence is clear that the growers are actively seeking to discourage the grai)e workers in their constitutionally protected rights to organize a union and to carry out the boycott. Whether or not the Government so intends, the effect of its purchases is to support and underwrite the growers in the present dispute. There is no "compelling" government interest in pur- chasing grax)es from these growers which overrides Protestants' First Amend- ment rights. The DSA has admitted that its purchases of grai)es are not essential to the national defense. Hearings p. 77. It has also adtoitted that it is not essential from a nutritional point of view to purchase grapes in the amounts that it does. Hearings p. 72.
In conclusion, we wish to emphasize the narrow scope of the argument we assert. We do not maintain that the government is precluded by the Constitution (or the regulations) from purchasing a product whenever the employees involved in producing the product are on strike. Nor do we argue that the government may not purchase commodities which are the subject of a consumer boycott. Rather, we maintain only that the Constitution precludes the government from making substantial purchases of a commodity when (1) the producer has taken actions which, if taken directly by the government, would violate the U.S. Con- stitution, and (2) there is no comi)elling defense or other need for the com- modity being purchased. Although a case in which both of these circumstances exist veil! be a rare one, both of them are present here.
Vin. CONCLUSIONS
As was observed by Senator Mondale in the Senate hearings cited earlier, the existing labor dispute between UFWOC and the grape growers is a tragic and embittered one. The only effective nonviolent weapon available to the farm workers is the consumer boycott. As indicated earlier, the boycott has been remarkably successful, resulting in a marked reduction of sales by the growers to the public, and a substantial reduction in grape prices. As a result, some 11 growers have, for the first time in history, initiated collective bargaining nego- tiations with the union.^
By this protest, we are not seeking aflBrmative help from the government. Nor do we ask GAO to examine or take sides in the labor dispute. Moreover, we do not ask that the Defense Supply Agency halt all of its purchases of fresh table grapes. We ask only for honest neutrality: 1) that the level of such purchases be reduced to the level prevailing in FY 1965, before the present strike and boycott began; 2) that average prices paid by DSA not exceed midseason fair market prices for fresh table grapes; and 3) that DSA limit its purchases of grapes to those which have been produced by growers who are found not to engage in unlawful activities designed to deprive the workers of constitutionally protected rights, and who have been inspected and approved with respect to sanitation in accordance with the applicable regulations. We will be happy to provide you or DSA with whatever information we may have available bearing on such findings.
Paragraph 2-4079(3) of the ASPR provides as follows :
"Where a written protest against the making of an award is received, award shall not be made until the matter is resolved, unless the contracting officer determines that :
2* See Attachment 7.
700
(i ) The items to be procured are urgently required ; or (ii) Delivery or performance will be unduly delayed by failure to make award promptly ; or
(iii) A prompt award will otherwise be advantageous to the Government" Paragraph 2-407.9(2) provides in part that "Where it is known that a protest against the making of an award has been lodged directly with the Comptroller General, a determination to make award under [the paragraph quoted above] must be approved at an appropriate level above that of the contracting officer, in accordance with Departmental procedures."
DSA admits that its purchases of grapes are not essential to the national defense or from a nutritional viewpoint. Under these circumstances, and in view of the serious violations of the ASPRs and the U.S. Constitution alleged herein, which violations are working irreparable injury to UFWOC, we believe that the above-cited provisions of the ASPR require an immediate suspension of all further procurement of fresh table grapes by DSA until this protest has been decided on the merits. We request that DSA be so notified. Very sincerely yours,
Cesar Chavez. Peter A. Hornbostel, Esquire, 734 Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20005, 737-1255, Counsel for Protestants.
Db^partment of Defense, National Military Command Center,
August 2, 1969. Clark Clifford,
Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.
UFWOC, AFL-CIO again ask for policy decision regarding military procure- ment of California table grapes which are subject to nationmde boycott sanc- tioned by AFL-CIO, Teamsters and United Auto Workers and all major religious bodies. We suggest you contact us for further clarification — if needed. We are hopeful that your Department will be sensitive to the efforts of California farmworkers to claim their rights.
Cesar Chavez.
August 8, 1968. Mr. Cesar Chavez, Delano, Calif.
Db^r Mr. Chavez : This is in response to your telegram of August 1 in which you asked for the policy position of the Department of Defense on the military procurement of California table grapes in light of the boycott presently being imposed.
The basic policy of the Department of Defense with regard to awarding de- fense contracts to contractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to our procurement needs to maintain a sound working relationship with both labor and management. As you know, the resolu- tion of labor disputes involves complex and delicate areas of judgment and interpretation for which the responsibility has been vested by the Congress in other agencies of tlie Government.
In addition to the above policy, the General Accounting Office has stated that it is only to the extent that a contractor's labor practices interfere with the po- tential performance of a contract that a Contracting Officer may consider the labor practices of a contractor. (43 Comp Gen 323 (1963)). We are not aware that the boycott will impair the ability of the contractors to perform their contracts.
Accordingly, the Department of Defense does not have any basis upon which to restrict awards to the producers affected by the boycott. I trust you will find this information helpful in answer to your question. Sincerely,
Thomas D. Morris, Assistant Secretary of Defense {Installations am,d Logistics) .
701
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C., October 22, 1968. Hon. Philip A. Hart, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Hart : This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1968 to Secretary Clifford about the purchase of grapes by the Department of Defense.
The basis policy of the Department of Defense with regard to awarding de- fense contracts to contractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to our procurement needs to maintain a sound working relationship with both labor and management. As you are well aware, the resolution of labor disputes involves complex and delicate areas of judg- ment and interpretation for which the responsibility has been vested by the Congress in other agencies of the Government. From the diverse opinions that have appeared in various news media, it is quite apparent that the dispute over California table grapes falls in this category.
In addition to the above policy, the General Accounting Office has stated that it is only to the extent that a contractor's labor practices interfere with the potential performance of a contract that a contracting officer may consider the labor practices of a contractor (43 Comp Gen 323 (1963) ). Also, the Comptroller General has ruled that there is no authority to reject bids on the basis that an employer does not employ union labor (31 Comp Gen 561 ) .
I have been informed by the Defense Supply Agency, which is responsible for the purchase of food for military dining halls and commissaries, that pro- curements of table grapes for the past three fiscal years have been as follows :
|
Fiscal year |
Million pounds |
Million dollars |
|
|
1966 |
7.5 |
1.04 |
|
|
1%7 |
8.3 |
1.25 |
|
|
1968 |
6.9 |
1.32 |
|
The total Defense Supply Agency purchases of table grapes represent less than one percent of U.S. table grape production.
There has been a recent increase in the shipment of grapes to Vietnam, for several reasons: (1) the high troop acceptability of this seasonal item; (2) the reduced availability of export quality fresh oranges, with a substitution of table grapes; and (3) the improved capability of shipping perishable items, including grapes, to Vietnam by refrigerated vans. In this connection, it is significant that the quantities of all fresh produce shipped to Vietnam have greatly increased during the past three years.
Finally, let me assure you that the Department of Defense does not purchase grapes merely because they have been made more available and less expensive due to the effects of the boycott. Grape purchases are made by the Defense Supply Agency in response to requisitions from the Military Services. These requisitions are based on planned menus which reflect numerous factors, among them being troop acceptability ; nutritional requirements ; variety ; and item availability, perishability, and cost. In the interest of objective and systematic management, we do not believe that our menu planners (often working a year to eighteen months in advance) should consider whether a labor dispute exists when making these decisions.
Although we appreciate your concern in this matter, we have been unable to find any evidence which would support a change of the Department of Defense policy as stated above. Sincerely,
Paul H. Riley, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Supply and Services).
702
Affidavit of Salvador Santos and Gilbert Flores
State of California County of Kern, ss:
Salvador Santos and Gilbert Flores, being first duly sworn upon their oath, depose and say we are community workers in the County of Kern, State of Cali- fornia ; our duties include investigation of violations of the field sanitation laws of the State of California which provide that every employer shall provide toilet and handwashing facilities for every food crop growing operation (California Health and Safety Code, sections 5474.20 et seq. and regulations thereunder ; In- dustrial Welfare Commission Order 14r-68 [8 California Administrative Code, Section 11500]). During the course of our investigation over the past eight months we have observed the following violations of the California Food Crop Sanitation Laws in the table grape vineyards. These violations were observed in a triangular area formed by Delano, Richgrove and Earlimart. There were some violations in the Arvin-Lamont area.
1. On December 18, 1968, at about 11 A.M. at the Bianco Ranch No. 6 located near Browning Road and Cecil Avenue outside Delano there was a crew of about 25 workers, about 15 of which were women, working in a grape field in tying operations. There were no toilets or handwashing facilities ; there was no water provided by the grower and the workers had to bring their own drinking containers.
2. On December 18, 1968, at about 3:30 P.M. at a grape field on the south side of Cecil Ave., between Kyte and Zerker, between Delano and Richgrove, belonging to Louis Caric & Sons, there was a crew of about 15 men working in pruning operations. There were no toilet facilities. We saw no handwashing facil- ities. There was water supplied, but no individual drinking cups. We saw two plastic cups that were used by the entire crew. This field was checked on Decem- ber 19 and December 23, and these conditions remained unchanged.
3. In a grape field located in the southeast corner of Cecil Avenue and the Formoso-Porterville Highway, owned by M. Caratan, there have been approxi- mately 15 men working there without any toilets being provided on each of the following occasions: December 18, 1968, at 11:30 A.M., and 3:15 P.M.; Decem- ber 19, 1968 ; and December 23, 1968.
4. In a grape field bounded by Highway 99, Road 144, Eighth Avenue, and County Line Road, owned by Mid-State Horticultural Company, there have been three separate crews under three labor contractors, comprising a total of over 60 persons, both male and female, working without toilets or adequate water facili- ties on each of the following occasions : December 19, 1968 and December 23, 1968.
5. In a grape field in Delano bounded on the east by Highway 99, on the west by Albany St., and on the north by First St., owned by the Lyons Ranch, there was a crew working without toilets provided on each of the following occasions : December 18, 1968, at 2 :30 P.M., December 19, 1968, at 9 :00 A.M., and Decem- ber 23, 1968.
6. In two grape fields owned by V. B. Zaninovich, located on either side of Road 208, between Avenue 8 and Avenue 24, west of the Famoso-Porterville Highway, there were on December 23, 1968, two large crews, of about 40 men each, working without toilets provided.
7. A subsequent check on December 27, 1968, at a grape field bounded by Highway 99, Road 144, Eighth Avenue and County Line Road, owned by Mid- State Horticultural Company, revealed that the conditions previously reported were continuing.
8. In a check of another field, apparently owned by the same concern near Delano north of Cecil Avenue on both sides of the Famoso-Porterville Highway, at 3:30 P.M. on January 6, 1969, indicated that three crews were engaged in pruning grapevines, including a substantial number of women. There were no visible toilets or handwashing facilities available for two of the crews, and for the third there was only four walls of plywood over a small hole in the ground with no toilet paper (though it had a newspaper) and a door that would not close.
9. In grape fields on either side of Road 176, between Avenue 40 and Avenue 48, in Tulare County, also apparently owned by Mid-State Horticultural Company, there were three crews totaling 70 to 80 men engaged in pruning grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible, at the following observation times : at 11 :20 A.M. and at 3 :55 P.M. on January 3, 1969 : at 2 :55 P.M. on January 6, 1969. Drinking water was visible for only one of the crews, and there were no individual drinking cups visible.
708
10. On December 27, 1968, in a grape field in the southern end of Tulare County bound on the north on Avenue 8, on the south by Olive Road, on the east by Road 148 and on the west by Road 144, there were about 15 men working pruning the grapevines. There were no toilets or handwashing facilities visible at 10 :15 A.M., and a second check revealed that these conditions were the same at 2 :00 P.M. that same day. On December 30, 1968, two additional checks were made, at 10 :15 A.M. and at 4 :05 P.M. and these conditions remained the same.
11. There are several grape fields apparently owned by Jack Pandol & Sons, between Kyte Road and the Famoso-Porterville Road, on either side of Rich Road. On December 27 at 3 :10 P.M. and again on December 30 at 11 :05 A.M. there were several crews, totaling about 40 men on the first day, and about 60 on the second, pruning grapevines, but with no visible toilets or handwashing facilities. On January 2, 1969, at 3 :45 P.M., there was again a crew working there with no toilets visible.
12. In two grape fields owned by V. B. Zaninovich located on either side of Road 208 between Avenue 8 and Avenue 24, west of the Famoso-Porterville Highway, there were two large crews engaged in pruning grapevines with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible. Subsequent checks on these fields re- vealed these conditions to be continuing at 2 :30 P.M. on December 27, 1968, at 11 :00 A.M. and again at 3 :40 P.M. on December 30, 1968, and on December 31, 1968.
13. Moreover, on December 30, 1968, at 10 :50 A.M. and again at 3 :45 P.M., it was ascertained that in an adjoining field to the north, between Avenue 24 and Avenue 32, and apparently owned by the same grower, V. B. Zaninovich, there were about 25 men pruning grapevines, apparently under labor contractor Jesus Gutierrez, with the closest visible toilet facilities about a 20-minute walk distant.
14. In grape fields on the northwest corner of Avenue 8 and Road 208 in Tulare County, also apparently owned or worked by V. B. Zaninovich, there were two crews totaling about 200 men and women engaged in grape pruning, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible, at the following times of observation : at 3 :40 P.M. on January 2, 1969 ; at noon ; and again at 4 :10 P.M. on January 3, 1969 ; at 3 :20 P.M. on January 6, 1969.
15. In a grape field west of Road 208, between Avenue 8 and Avenue 16, in Tulare County, there appeared to be a crew of about 10 men and women engaged in tying grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible, at the following times of observation : at 3 :35 P.M. on January 2, 1969 ; on January 3, 1969, at 11 :55 A.M., and again at 4 :05 P.M. ; and at 3 :15 P.M. on January 6, 1969. This field is apparently owned or worked by V. B. Zaninovich.
16. In a grape field on the northwest corner of Road 208 and Avenue 40 in Tulare County, which was apparently being worked by V. B. Zaninovich, al- though it may be owned by Divizich, there was a crew of about 40 to 45 men engaged in pruning grapevines, with no visible toilets or handwashing facili- ties, at the following times of observation : at 3 :30 P.M. on January 2, 1969 ; on January 3, 1969, at 11 : 50 A.M. and again at 4 :00 P.M. ; and at 3 :10 P.M. on January 6, 1969.
17. In a grape field, apparently owned by Anton Oaratan in southern Tulare County, bounded on the south by County Line Road, on the west by Road 152, and on the north by Avenue 8, on December 27, 1968, at 10 :30 A.M. and again at 2 : 10 P.M., there were observed to be about 40 men engaged in pruning grape- vines, with no toilets visible. At 10 :25 A.M. on December 30, 1968, there were about 70 people working there with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
18. At the Bianco Ranch No. 11 in the Arvin area, bordered to the south by Sycamore Road, there appeared to be a crew of about 40 women and men engaged in pruning grapevines, with no visible toilets or handwashing facilities, on December 30, 1968, at 1:50 P.M. and again, with perhaps an even larger crew, on December 31, 1968, at 3 :30 P.M.
19. There are three fields apparently belonging to El Rancho Farms in the Arvin area where there have appeared to be continuing violations. They are located: (1) on either side of Richardson, east of Tejon Highway; (2) at the northeast corner of Landers and Tejon Highway; (3) on the south side of Sunset Avenue, east of Tejon Highway. The violations were as follows : at field No. 1 there appeared to be on December 30, 1968, at 2 :05 P.M. and again on December 31, 1968, at 3 :35 P.M., two crews, one of about 25 men pruning grape- vines and one of about 25 men and women tying grapevines, with no toilet or handwashing facilities visible. At No. 2 there appeared to be, on December 30, 1968, at 2 :10 P.M. and again on December 31, 1968, at 3 :40 P.M., about 25 men
704
and women engaged in pruning with no toilet or handwashing facilities visible. At No. 3 there appeared to be, on December 30, 1968, at 2 :15 P.M. and again on December 31, 1968, at 3 :45 P.M., two crews, one of about 14 women tying grape- vines and one of 20 to 25 men and women pruning grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
20. In a large grape pruning operation, on land apparently owned by W. Mosesian in the Lamont area, east and west of Fairfax to the south of Panama Lane, there appeared to be about 100 workers, women and men, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible on December 30, 1968, at 1 :00 P.M., and again on December 31, 1968, at 1 :45 P.M. There were several crews included in this total, one apparently under labor contractor Johnnie Agustin of Lamont, and one apparently under J. M. and Connie Melendes of Bakersfield.
21. In three grape pruning operations on land apparently owned by Sabovich Brothers in the Lamont area there have appeared to be on-going violations. They are: (1) east of Vineland between DiGeorgio and Buena Vista, where there were about 15 men working with no visible toilets or handwashing fa- cilities on December 30, 1968, at 1 :15 P.M., and again on December 31, 1968, at 3 :05 P.M. ; (2) east of Edison on either side of DiGiorgio, there appeared to be two crews, one of 30 women and men to the north of DiGiorgio, and one of 20 men and women to the south of DiGiorgio, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible, on December 30, 1968, at 1 :25 P.M., and again on December 31, 1968, at 3:15 P.M.; (3) east of Comanche between Buena Vista and Sunset there appeared to be about eight women and men working in tying grai)evines, with uo toilets or handwashing facilities visible, on December 30, 1968, at 1 :35 P.M.
22. In a grape field located at the southeast corner of Cecil Avenue and the Famoso-i'orterville Highway, owned by M. Caratan, there was a crew working pruning grapevines on January 2, 1969, at 3 :40 P.M., and there were no toilet and handwashing facilities visible.
23. In a grape field near McFarland, apparently owned by Sandrini Brothers, on the northeast corner of Benner and Schuster, there was a crew of about 15 men engaged in pruning grapevines, with the nearest visible toilet over a mile away, at the following observation times : on January 2, 1969, at 1 :30 P.M. and at 4 :05 P.M. ; and at 10 :05 A.M. on January 3, 1969.
24. In grape fields apparently owned by a concern named Dulcich at three separate locations as follows: (1) at the northwest comer of Road 164 and Avenue 48 in Tulare County ; (2) between Avenue 48 and Avenue 52, bounded by Road 152 and Road 160 in Tulare County; (3) on either side of Avenue 52, between Road 176 and 184 in Tulare County. At (1) there were about 20 men pruning grapevines with no toilet or handwashing facilities visible at the following times : January 3, 1969, at 11 :00 A.M. and again at 3 :40 P.M. ; Janu- ary 6, 1969, at 2:30 P.M. At (2) there were about 15 men pruning grapevines with no toilet or handwashing facilities visible at the following times: at 10:50 A.M., and again at 3:25 P.M., on January 3, 1969. At (3) there appeared to be about 25 adults and children engaged in picking grapes for wine, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visiblCj, at the following times: at 3:05 P.M. on Janu- ary 2, 1969 ; at 11 :15 A.M., and again at 3 :45 P.M., on January 3, 1969 ; at 2 :45 P.M. on January 6, 1969.
25. In a field apparently owned by Lamanuzzi and Pantaleo, located in Tu- lare County east of Road 168 between Avenue 48 and Avenue 52, there appeared to be about 35 women and men pruning and tying grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible, at the following times : at 2 :55 P.M. on Janu- ary 2, 1969 ; at 11 :10 A.M.. and again at 3 :30 P.M. on January 3, 1969 ; and at 2 :50 P.M. on January 6, 1969.
26. On two fields, apparently owned by George Lucas and Sons, in Tulare County, there were as follows: (1) west of Road 176 between Avenue 48 and Avenue 52; (2) at the northwest corner of Avenue 48 and Road 184. At (1) there was a crew of about 40 men engaged in pruning grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible, at the following times : at 2 :50 P.M. on January 2, 1969; at 11:05 A.M., and again at 3:35 P.M. on January 3, 1969: at 2 :35 P.M. on January 6. 1969. At (2) there was a crew of about 20 men engaged in pruning grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible, at the following times : at 3 :15 P.M. on January 2, 1969 ; at 11 :20 A.M., and again at 3 :50 P.M. on January 3, 1969.
705
27. In a field owned by Jack Radovich, located at the northwest corner of County Line Road and Road 200, just over the line into Tulare County, where there were about 10 men pruning grapevines, with no toilet or handwashing facilities visible, on January 3, 1969, at 11 :40 A.M. and again at 4:10 P.M. ; and also at 3 :20 P.M. on January 6, 1969.
28. In a grape field in Tulare County on the northeast corner of Avenue 92 and Road 128 there were seven men engaged in pruning grapevines on Febru- ary 3, 1969, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible. The owner of the field is not known, but the crew was under farm labor contractor Bessie Wil- liams. On February 4, 1969, there was what appeared to be a toilet, but inside the four walls was merely a vertical plank for one to rest oneself upon, no toilet paper and not even a hole scraped in the ground.
29. In grape fields in Tulare County north of Avenue 24 between Highway 99 and Road 144, apparently owned by Vignolo Farms, on February 4, 1969, at 10 A.M. and again at 2 :45 P.M., there were 30 men and women engaged in pruning grapevines with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
30. On February 24, 1969, in nearby fields on the south side of Avenue 32, also apparently owned by Vignolo Farms there were observed about seven men and women tying grapevines, at 10 :40 A.M. and again at 2 P.M., with no visible toilets or handwashing facilities.
31. In a grape field in Tulare County, east of Road 168 between Avenue 48 and Avenue 52, apparently owned by Lamanuzzi and Pantaleo, there were about 60 men engaged in pruning grapevines with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible. Observations were made on February 4, 1969, at 11 :30 A.M. and again at 3 :10 P.M.
32. In fields also apparently owned by Lamanuzzi and Pantaleo, to the north- west of the intersection of Avenue 48 and Road 176, on February 11, 1969, at 1 :10 P.M. and again at 3 :25 P.M., a crew of about 30 men was observed pruning grapevines with no toilets or handwashing facilities available.
33. In fields apparently owned by George Lucas and Sons in Tulare County west of Road 176 between Avenue 48 and Avenue 52, and in a field just slightly to the west, bounded by Avenues 48 and 52 and Roads 168 and 164, there were about 15 men engaged in pruning grapevines with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible. Observations were made on February 4, 1969, at 11 :20 A.M. and again at 3 :05 P.M.
34. In the same grape field as mentioned in Paragraph 33, conditions were un- changed on February 11, 1969, at 10:30 A.M. and at 1 :15 P.M., when there were again about 15 men pruning and three women tying grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
35. In another nearby grape field, to the southwest of Avenue 56 and 176, and also apparently owned by George Lucas and Sons, there were observed on Feb- ruary 11, 1969, at li:25 P.M., and again at 3:35 P.M., about eight men making cuttings for planting grapevines with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
36. At a grape field in Tulare County at the northwest comer of Road 164 and Avenue 48 (previously mentioned in paragraph 24), apparently owned by John Dulcich and Sons, conditions seemed very much the same on February 4, 1969, at 11:25 A.M. and again at 3:00 P.M. There were seven men and women engaged in pruning and tying grapevines with no toilets or handwashing facili- ties visible.
37. At another grape field, (also previously mentioned in paragraph 24) be- tween Avenue 48 and Avenue 52, bounded by Road 152 and Road 160 in Tulare County, apparently owned by John Dulcich and Sons, conditions were again the same on February 11, 1969, at 10 :35 A.M. and 1 :15 P.M. There were about 17 men pruning, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
38. At the third grape field mentioned in pargraph 24, along Avenue 52, be- tween Roads 176 and 184 in Tulare County, apparently owned by John Dulcich and Sons, condtions were observed to be very much the same on February 4, 1969 at il :35 A.M. and at 3 :15 P.M. where there were more than 30 people, in two crews, engaged in pruning grapevines with no toilets or handwashing facili- ties visible. One worker was seen depositing fecal matter in the grape field on this date.
39. In another grape field apparently owned by John Ducich and Sons located in Tulare County on the northeast corner of Avenue 56 and Road 176, there were 12 men pruning grapevines with no toilets or handwa-shing facilities visible. Observations were made on February 4, 1969, at 11 :40 A.M. and again at 3 :20 P.M.
706
40. In another grape field apparently owned by John Dulcich and Sons, to the southeast of the intrsection of Avenue 52 and Road 176, there were observed on February 11, 1969, at 1 :30 P.M. and again at 3 :40 P.M. about 18 men pruning grapevines with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible within a five minute walk.
41. In a grape field, apparently owned by John Dulcich and Sons, on the south side of Avenue 48 slightly to the east of Road 176 in Tulare County, there was observed a crew of about 30 men pruning grai)evines on February 11, I960, at 1:05 P.M. and 3:20 P.M., with no toilet or handwashing facilities within a five minute walk. One man was seen depositing fecal materials in the grape field on this date.
42. On February 24, 1969, in another grape field apparently owned by John Dulcich and Sons, at the northwest of intersection of Avenue 48 and Road 168 in Tulare County, at 10:50 A.M. and at 2:10 P.M., there were observed to be about 25 men and women pruning, without visible toilets or handwashing facilities.
43. In grape fields apparently owned or worked by V. B. Zaninovich in Tulare County, north of Avenue 8 along Road 208 (previously mentioned in paragraph 6) the conditions were still very much the same. On February 4, 1969, at 12:15 P.M. and at 3 :45 P.M., there were about 60 men and women engaged in typing grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
44. On February 4, 1969, at 11 :05 A.M. and at 2 :o0 P.M. in what appeared to be a V. B. Zaninovich operation in grape fields located near Earlimart between Avenues 48 and 52 to the west of Road 144, there were six men pruning with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
45. In a field immediately adjacent to the one mentioned in the preceding paragraph, just to the north of Avenue 52, on February 4, 1969, at 11 :05 A.M. and at 2 :50 P.M., there was seen a crew of six men tying grapevines with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible. This land is apparently owned by B. F. Glover.
46. In grape fields immediately adjacent to those referred to in paragraph 43 above, on the south side of Avenue 8 and west of Road 208, on land appar- ently owned by Bruno Dispoto, there were, on February 4, 1969, at 12 :15 P.M. and at 3 :45 P.M., about 30 men pruning with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
47. On February 11, 1969, at 10:10 A.M. and at 1:40 P.M.. the conditions mentioned in paragraph 44 above (apparently a V. B. Zaninovich operation In Earlimart between Avenues 48 and 52 to the west of Road 144) were un- changed. There was a crew of about 12 men pruning and tying grapevines with no toilet or handwashing facilities visible.
48. On February 11, 1969, at 12:20 P.M. and at 3:00 P.M., in the fields mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 43 above (apparently owned or worked by V. B. Zaninovich in Tulare County, north of Avenue 8 along Road 208) there were two crews totaling over 100 men and women pruning grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
49. In the Delano area on the south side of Cecil Avenue and on either sidfe of Reed, on February 11, 1969, at 11 :55 A.M. and at 2 :45 P.M. there were observed to be about 40 men and women harvesting oranges, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
50. On February 11, 1969, and on February 24, 1969, at 3:25 P.M. on the former date and 11 A.M. on the latter, conditions were unchanged from those mentioned in paragraph 9 above in fields apparently owned by Mid-State Horti- cultural Company near Avenue 48 and Road 176. On February 11 a crew of seven women was engaged in tying grapevines, with no toilet within a five minute walk and no handwashing facilities visible. On February 24 there were about 11 women tying grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
51. A grape field in the Richgrove area located on the southwest of the intersection of Richgrove Drive and Fourth Avenue, apparently ovmed. by Louis Caric & Sons, was observed on February 11, 1969, at 12 :10 P.M. and again at 2 :55 P.M. to have a crew of about 70 men pruning grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
52. On February 11, 1969, at 11 :45 A.M. and at 2 :35 P.M. a grape field in the Delano area located northwest of the intersection of Garces Highway and Wallace, apparently owned by Anton Caratan, was observed to have a crew of about 80 men engaged in pruning, with but one toilet for all, and it was
707
more than a five minute walk away from the workers on both observations, and no handwashing facilities visible.
53. In a grape field apparently owned by L. Caratan in the Delano area on the north side of Cecil Avenue and slightly to the east of Zerker, on February 11, 1969, at 12 noon and at 2 :50 P.M. there was observed a crew of about 40 men engaged in pruning grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
54. In a grape field in the Earlimart area, apparently owned by W. L. Kiggens, there was observed on February 11, 1969, at 10 A.M. and at 1:35 P.M. a crew of seven men pruning, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible. The field is located on the north side of Avenue 48 and slightly to the west of Road 164.
55. On February 11, 1969, in a grape field apparently owned by Jack Radovich in the Delano area southeast of the intersection of Cecil Avenue and Brovpning Road, at 11 :30 A.M. and again at 2 :20 P.M., there was observed to be a crew of about eight men pruning grapevines, with no toilets or handwashing facilities within a five minute walk of the workers.
56. In a lettuce field in the Delano area located to the southeast of the intersection of Wallace and Woollomes, there was observed, on February 11, 1969, at 11 :50 A.M. and at 2 :30 P.M. a crew of about ten men and women thinning lettuce plants, with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
57. In a grape field in the Earlimart area, apparently owned by a concern known as Agri-Business, northwest of the intersection of Avenue 48 and Road 208, on February 11, 1969, there was observed to be a crew of about. 12 men, at 12 :30 P.M. and at 3 :05 P.M., pruning grapevines with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
58. In another grape field in the Earlimart area, also apparently owned by Agri-Business, southeast of Avenue 48 and Road 192, on February 11, 1969, at 12 :40 P.M. and at 3 :10 P.M., there was observed to be a crew of about 18 men pruning grapevines with no toilets or handwashing facilities visible.
59. In another grape field, apparently owned by Agri-Business in the Earlimart area, on both sides of Road 192 between Avenues 40 and 48, on February 11, 1969, at 12 :50 P.M. and at 3 :15 P.M., there was observed to be three crews pruning and tying grapevines, without adequate toilet or handwashing facilities visible, To the east of Road 192 was a crew of about 60 women tying grapevines, having but one toilet about three-quarters of a mile away. Several of these women were seen going across the street to relieve themselves among the vines in another vineyard, apparently because it was too far to the one distant toilet. Adjacent to those women was a crew of about 15 men pruning, who had to use the same one toilet, which was also about three-quarters of a mile from them. To the west of Road 192 was a crew of about 20 more women pruning ; the only visible fa- cility was a toilet half to three-quarters of a mile from them, well over a five minute walk away.
60. On February 24, 1969, at 12 noon and again at 2 :20 P.M., in a grape field in the Delano area, just north of County Line Road (in Tulare County) and west of Road 136, there were about 80 women and men tying grapevines, with- out visible toilets or handwashing facilities. One tin can had been provided to be used by all of the workers to drink water out of. It is not known whose farm this is, but the workers were under the direction of farm labor contractor Pete Velasco.
61. On March 7, 1969, at 10 :20 A.M. and 1 :30 P.M. we observed a crew of 16 working under farm labor contractor Joe Medina in Delano on the corner of Driver Avenue and Cecil. The crew was pruning table grapes. There were no toilet or handwashing facilities.
62. On March 7, 1969, at 10:40 A.M. we observed a crew of 50 tying table grapevines, also at 1 :23 P.M., in the Delano area on a ranch owned by Vincent B. Zaninovich east of Road 208 and south of Avenue 24. There were no toilets or handwashing facilities.
63. On March 7, 1969, at 10 :45 A.M. we observed a crew pruning grapes on Marco Zaninovich's ranch in the Delano area on the west side of Road 208 and north of Avenue 24. There were no toilets or handwashing facilities.
64. On March 7, 1969, at 11 :10 A.M., we observed a crew of 50 pruning grapes on a ranch owned by Lamanuzzi and Pantaleo in the Delano area on the corner of Road 168 and Avenue 56. There were no toilets or handwashing facilities.
65. On March 7, 1969, at 11 :25 A.M. and 1 :45 P.M. we observed a crew of 10 to 12 tying table grapes on the George Luean Ranch in the Delano area on
708
the east side of Road 164 between Avenues 52 and 48. There were no toilets or handwashing facilities.
66. On April 17, 1969, at 12:30 P.M. and 2:40 P.M. we observed 14 people suekering table grapevines (removing small leaves and suckers) on W. B. Mitch- ell's Ranch in the Delano area at the northeast corner of Avenue 24 and Road 192. There were no toilets or handwashing facilities.
67. On April 17, 1969, at 10 :30 A.M. and 2 :07 P.M. we observed a crew of 8 suekering table grapevines on land owned by the Railway Realty Investment, in the Delano area at Avenue 44, and County Line Road. There were no toilets or handwashing facilities.
68. On April 17, 1969, at 11 :30 A.M. and 2 :33 P.M. we observed a crew of 12 suekering table grapevines, on John Pagliarolo's ranch in the Delano area at the corner of Road 192 and Avenue 56. There were no toilets or handwashing facilities.
69. On April 17, 1969, at 12 :20 P.M. we observed a crew of 20 suekering table grapevines on Vincent B. Zaininovich's land in the Delano area north of Avenue 40 and west of Road 208.
70. On May 13, 1969, at 1 :30 P.M. we observed a crew of 20 budding table grape- vines in the Hanford area, on M. C. Maskant's land off Seventh Avenue between Elder and Excelsior. There were no toilets or handwashing facilities.
We declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
^Salvador Santos.
Gilbert Flores. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of July, 1960.
Bessie L. Gillard. Notary Public in and for said County and State. My commission expires Jan. 9, 1971.
Affidavit of Josephine Ortiz
Josephine Ortiz, being first duly sworn upon her oath, deposes and says she is a farm worker in the County of Kern, State of California.
1. During the period beginning on November 26, 1968, and ending on January 30, 1969, I was employed by William Mosesian Corporation in the farming operation of pruning table grapevines, in the Lamont area at the corner of Panama Road and Fairfax.
2. During the aforesaid period there were no toilets provided by the said Wil- liam Mosesian Corporation for the use of myself and the other farm workers em- ployed with me. As a result, all of us working for the said employer were forced to perform bodily functions in or near the fields in which we were working.
3. During the aforesaid period of time I worked for the said employer no hand- washing facilities of any kind were provided for our use. As a result, we were un- able to wash our hands after performing bodily functions.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 24, 1969, at Lamont. California.
In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed this instrument this 24th day of July, 1969.
Josephine Ortiz,
X (her mark). The name of Josephine Ortiz and the words "X her mark" were written by the first of the undersiened witnesses, following which Josephine Ortiz made her mark in the form of an "X". Dated July 24, 1969.
Salvador Santos,
Witness. Florentina Manigiz,
Witness.
I, the undersigned, say :
That I am the person named in the foregoing aflBdavit; that I have had a Spanish translation of the foregoing affidavit read to me and I fully understand its contents, as translated to me in Spanish, and know the contents thereof ; and that the same is true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on .July 24, 1969, at Lamont. California.
In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed this instrument this 24th day of July, 1969.
Josephine Ortiz,
X (her mark).
709
The name of Josephine Ortiz and the words "her mark" were written by the first of the undersigned witnesses, following which Josephine Ortiz made her mark in the form of an "X". Dated July 24, 1969.
Salvadob Santos,
Witness. Flobeintine Maneiquez,
Witness. State of Califobnia County of Kern, ss:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of July, 1969.
Salvadob Santos. Notary Public in and for said county and State. My commission expires June 2, 1972.
I, Salvador Santos, read a Spanish translation of the foregoing aflSdavit on July 24, 1969, at Lamont, California, to Josephine Ortiz. The Spanish translation which I read to her was a true and correct representation of the foregoing affi- davit At the same time and place I recited to Josephine Ortiz an accurate trans- lation into Spanish of the above verification, which she signed at that time and place.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 24, 1969, at Lamont, California.
Salvadob Santos.
Affidavit of Samuel Maneiquez
Samuel Manriquez, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says he is a farm worker in the County of Kern, State of California.
1. During the period beginning on November 26, 1968, and ending on Janu- ary 30, 1969, I was employed by William Mosesian Corporation in the farming operation of pruning table grapevines, in the Lamont area at the corner of Panama Road and Fairfax.
2. During the aforesaid period there were no toilets provided by the said William Mosesian Corporation for the use of myself and the other farm workers employed with me. As a result, all of us working for the said employer werej forced to perform bodily functions in or near the fields in which we were working.
3. During the aforesaid period of time I worked for the said employer no handwashing facilities of any kind were provided for our use. As a result, we were unable to wash our hands after performing bodily functions.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 17, 1969, at Lamont, California.
Samuel P. Maneiquez. State of Caxifoenia County of Kern, ss:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of July, 1969.
Salvadob Santos. Notary Public in and for said county and State. My commission expires June 2, 1972.
I, the undersigned, say :
That I am the person named in the foregoing affidavit; that I have had a Spanish translation of the foregoing affidavit read to me and I fully understand its contents, as translated to me in Spanish, and know the contents thereof; and that the same is true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 17, 1969, at Lamont, California.
Samuel Maneiquez. State of Califobnia, County of Kern, ss:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of July, 1969.
Salvadob Santos.
Notary Public in and for said county and State.
My commission expiree June 2, 1972.
710
I, Salvador Santos, read a Spanish translation of the foregoing aflBdavit on July 17, 1969, at Lamont, California, to Samuel Manriquez. The Spanish transla- tion which I read to him was a true and correct representation of the foregoing affidavit At the same time and place I recited to Samuel Manriquez an accurate translation into Spanish of the above verification, which he signed at that time and place.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 17, 1969, at Lamont, California.
Salvadob Santos.
Affidavit of Maeia Garcia
Maria Garcia, being first duly sworn upon her oath, deposes and says sihe is a farm worker in the County of Kern, State of California.
1. During the period beginning on December 15, 1968, and ending on January 6, 1969, I was employed by John J. Kovacevich in the farming operation of pruning table grapevines, in the Arvin area at the comer of Tejon Highway and Sycamore.
2. During the aforesaid period there were no toilets provided by the said John J. Kovacevich for the use of myself and the other farm workers employed with me. As a result, all of us working for the said employer were forced to i)erform bodily functions in or near the fields in which we were working.
3. During the aforesaid period of time I worked for said John J. Kovacevich no handwashing facilities of any kind were provided for our use. As a result, we were unable to wash our hands after perfonning bodily functions.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 17, 1969, at Lamont, California.
Mabia Gabcia, State of Califoknia, Cownty of Kern, ss:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of July, 1969.
Saxvadob Santos. Notary Public in and for said county and State. My commission expires June 2, 1972.
I, the undersigned, say :
That I am the person named in the foregoing affidavit; that I have had a Spanish translation of the foregoing affidavit read to me and I fully understand its contents, as translated to me in Spanish, and know the contents thereof; and that the same is true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 17, 1969, at Lamont, Cajifornia.
Mabia Gabcia. State of Oalifoenia, County of Kern, ss:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of July, 1969.
Salvador Santos. Notary Public in and for said county and State. My commission expires June 2, 1972.
I. Salvador Santos, read a Spanish translation of the foregoing affidavit on July 17, 1969, at Lamont, California, to Maria Garcia. The Spanish transla- tion which I read to her was a true and correct representation of the foregoing affidavit. At the same time and place I recited to Maria Garcia an accurate translation into Spanish of the above verification, which she signed at that time and pdace.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 17, 1969, at Lamont, California.
Salvador Santos. Affidavit of Juana Manriquez
Juana Manriquez, being first duly sworn upon her oath, deposes and says she is a farm worker in the County of Kern, State of California.
1. During the period beginning on November 26, 1968, and ending on Janu- ary 30, 1969, I was employed by William Mosesian Corporation in the farming
711
operation of pruning table grapevines, in the Lament area at the corner of I'un- ama Road and Fairfax.
2. During the aforesaid period there were no toilets provided by the said William Mosesian Corporation for the use of myself and the other farm workers employed with me. As a result, all of us working for the said employer were forced to perform bodily functions in or near the fields in which we were working,
3. During the aforesaid period of time I worked for the said employer no handwashing facilities of any kind were provided for our use. As a result, we were unable to wash our hands after performing bodily functions.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, Executed on July 17, 1969, at Lamont, California.
JUANA A. MaNBIQITES,
State of California, County of Kern, ss :
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of July, 1969.
Salvadob Santos,
Notary Public in and for said county and State.
My commission expires June 2, 1972.
I, the undersigned, say :
That I am the person named in the foregoing affidavit; that I have had a Spanish translation of the foregoing affidavit read to me and I fully understood its contents, as translated to me in Spanish, and know the contents thereof ; and that the same is true of my knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 17, 1969, at Lamont, California.
JUANA A. MaNBIQTJBZ.
State of California, County of Kern, S8 :
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17 day of July, 1969.
Sa&vaoob Saistos,
Notary Public in and for said county and State.
My commission expires June 2, 1972.
I, Salvador Santos, read a Spanish translation of the foregoing affidavit on July 17, 1969, at Lamont, California, to Juana A. Manriquez. The Spanish trans- lation which I read to her was a true and correct representation of the foregoing affidavit. At the same time and place I recited to Juana A. Manriquez an ac- curate translation into Spanish of the above verification, which she signed at that time and place.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 17, 1969, at Lamont, California.
Salvador Santos.
Affidavit of Feancisco Ortiz
Francisco Ortiz, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says he is a farm worker in the County of Kern, State of California.
1. During the period beginning on November 26, 1968, and ending on January 30, 1969, I was employed by William Mosesian Corporation in the farming opera- tion of pruning table grapevines, in the Lamont area at the corner of Panama Road and Fairfax.
2. During the aforesaid period there were no toilets provided by the said William Moesian Corporation for the use of myself and the other farm workers employed with me. As a result, all of us working for the said employer were forced to perform bodily functions in or near the fields in which we were working.
3. During the aforesaid period of time I worked for the said employer no hand- washing facilities of any kind were provided for our use. As a result, we were unable to wash our hands after performing bodily functions.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 24. 1969, at Lamont, California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument thig 24 day of July, 1969.
Fbancisco Ortiz.
X (his mark).
712
The name of Francisco Ortiz and the words "his mark" were written by the first of the undersigned witnesses, following which Francisco Ortiz made his mark in the form of an "X". Dated : July 24, 1969.
Salvador Santos, Witness. Florentina Maniquez, Witness.
I, the undersigned, say:
That I am the person named in the foregoing affidavit; that I have had a Spanish translation of the foregoing aflBdavit read to me and I fully understand its contents, as translated to me in Spanish, and know the contents thereof ; and that the same is true of my knowledge.
I declare under penaly of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 24, 1969, at Lamont, California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument this 24th day of July, 1969.
Francisco Ortiz.
X (his mark).
The name of Francisco Ortiz and the words "his mark" were written by the first of the undersigned witnesses, following which Francisco Ortiz made his mark in the form of an "X".
Dated: July 24, 1969.
Salvador Santos, Witness. Florentina Maniquez, Witness. State of California, County of Kern, ss : Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of July, 1969.
Salvador Santos. Notary Public in and for said county and State. My commission expires June 2, 1972.
I, Salvador Santos, read a Spanish translation of the foregoing affidavit on July 24, 1969, at Lamont, California, to Francisco Ortiz. The Spanish translation which I read to him was a true and correct representation of ^he foregoing affidavit. At the same time and place I recited to Francisco Ortiz an accurate translation into Spanish of the above verification, which he signed at that time and place.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 24, 1969, at Lamont, California.
Salvador Santos. Affidavit
I, Jerome Cohen, declare under penalty of pre jury as follows : I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the state of California. I have been the General Counsel for the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, since May of 1967. My offices are in Delano, California. During this time I have been in close contact with the members of our Union and with those iiersons who patrol our picket lines. It has been my duty to protect the First Amendment rights of all of the members of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee and it has been my duty to legally defend the organizational and boycott activities pro- tected by the First Amendment. At various time since May of 1967 grape growers have:
1. Used physical violence to intimidate those U.F.W.O.C. members who patrol our picket lines. This violence has included but has not been limited to the use of pick-up trucks to run at members of our picket line, physical beatings and threats with firearms. 2. Certain of the growers including but not limited to the Giu- marra Vineyards Corporation, Jack Pandol, Robert Sabovich, Eugene Xalhan- dian, John Kovacevich and William Mosesian engaged in an illegal attempt to form a company union the purpose of which was to interfere with and deprive members of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee of their First Amendment right to picket and of their right to conduct an orderly peaceful boy- cot of table grapes throughout the nation. As indicated in a report which was
713
filed with the Office of Labor Management and Welfare Pension Reports in San Francisco, the growers promoted activity which was designed to: (a) drown out U.F.W.O.C. pickets wherever they picketed any grape growers; (b) harras members of U.F.W.O.C. by following them and taking their pictures; and (c) halt and disrupt all planned U.F.W.O.C. functions. The details of this illegal grower activity are outlined in a letter to the Secretary of Labor signed by two officers of the Agricultural Workers Freedom to AVork Association, the illegal company union, which was formed by these growers. This letter together with the activities and Agreements Report and the Receipts and Disbursement Re port are attached to this affidavit.
Examples of growers attempts to interfere with protected First Amendment picket activities include but are not limited to the following: a. On July 12th, 1969 in Wasco, and on July 26th, 1969 in the Arvin-Lamont area of Kern County, economic poisons were used in such a manner as to make members of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, engaged in picket activities nauseated and sick. Mr. Rodney Penner on July 12th, at approximately 9 AM turned on a valve attached, to an amonia gas tank and allowed amonia gas to envelop a picket line at the Lost Hills Packing Shed in Wasco, California. With the aid of a policeman from the city of Wasco we were able to stop Mr. Penner's activities. On July 26th, 1969, while picketing the vineyards of S. A. Camp, 16 members of the U.F.W.O.C. picket line were sprayed with an economic poison known as Lindane by Robert Flores, personnel manager of S. A. Camp. b. On or about October 15, 1966, at a packing shed located in Delano, California at Garces High- way and Glenwood Street at or about 10 AM of that day, Lowell Jordan Shy acting within the scope and course of his employment, maliciously and deliber- ately assaulted U.F.W.O.C. picket, Manuel Rivera, by driving a flatbed truck loaded with grapes ; California license number W49-554 over Mr. Rivera's body thereby causing him great injury including the crushing of his pelvis and break- ing of his legs ; thereby removing him from the picket line for approximately 9 months, c. During August of 1969, shots were fired at pickets who were picketing- the Prospero packing shed of the Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, d. On August 29th, 1967 while attempting to talk to workers at the Sylvia Carranza labor camp, located between Panama Lane and Panama Road in Kern County, Marcos Munoz and Jessica Govea were threatened by a private guard of the Giumarra Vine- yards Corporation who assaulted them with a gwa.
e. On June 16, 1968, Jose Mendoza and Gilbert Rubio who were then on the payroll of the Giumarra Vineyards Corporation held a meeting in the Delano Memorial Park and issued a call to use violence to destroy the picket and the organizational activities of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee. Sub- sequent to that, Mr. RubiO' and Mr. Mendoza were involved in instances in which pickets were threatened verbally, were beaten and were assaulted with guns.
f. Shortly before testifying at a House of Representatives Committee. Hearing on Labor and Education in Delano, California on August 15th, 1968, Mr. Manuel Rivera was heated by members of the Agricultural Workers Fi-eedom To Work Association which was at that time financed by local grape growers.
g. During a strike which occurred in Coachella in June of 1968, I participated, in picket activities of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee. It was my duty to cooperate with the local police in an effort to see that law and order were maintained. At that time Mr. Peter Williamson was employed in my office as a law clerk. He also served as a picket on the United Farm Workers picket line. Mr. Ralph Jacobs a foreman in the Charles Freedman Ranch, in the Coachella Valley assaulted and beat Mr. Williamson with a "no trespassing" sign causing Mr. Williamson to leave the picket line and go to a hospital. Another picket, Mr. Bill Richardson was dragged into the fields by the crew boss of Mr. Charles Freedman and was beaten within the field. Furthermore, the foreman of this ranch constantly issued verbal threats to members of our picket line informing them that if they continued to picket they would "get the same treatment that Williamson and Richardson got."
h. During the opening weeks of the strike against the Giumarra Vineyards Corporation in August of 1967, there were numerous instances in which employees of the Giumarra Vineyards Corporation drove their pick-up trucks directly at members of our picket line in an effort to intimidate them and injure them.
In addition to the instances which have been specified above, I have in my flle.s in Delano over 150 instances in which members of our picket line and those helping to organize our boycott activities have been physically mistreated or threatened by growers or those working on behalf of growers. This has tended
714
to reduce the number of people who are willing to participate in picket activities and has also had a marked chilling effect on the activities of those who do par- ticipate in our picket activities.
In addition to the kinds of violence which has been above specified, grape grow- ers have engaged in a pattern of illegal activities designed to circumvent and sub- vert our organizational efforts which have included but have not been limited to :
1. The deliberate mislabeling of struck grape in violation of state and federal law in an effort to persuade the public that this grape was picked as Union grape.
2. The deliberate recruiting of green card workers who being permanent resi- dents of Mexico are by federal regulations prohibited from working behind picket lines in the United States.
3. Massive and deliberate violations of the basic sanitation laws of the state of California.
4. Recruiting workers and not informing them that there is a strike in progress, which is a violation of 973 of the California Labor Code. This activity on the part of the Giumarra Vineyards Corporation was enjoined in August of 1967 by the Kern County Superior Court.
5. Participation in the organization of an employee group including but not limited to the Agricultural Workers Freedom to Work Association, Mothers Against Chavez, Men Against Chavez which were dominated, controlled and financed in whole or in part by an employer, which is in violation of 1122 of the California Labor Code.
6. Deliberate firing of workers solely -because they are members of the United Farm Workers Organization which is a violation of Section 923 of the California Labor Code and which is also a violation of those workers' First Amendment rights to organize as guaranteed by the United States Supreme Court in Thomas vs. Collins. I am currently handling cases against the Giumarra Vineyards Cor- poration on behalf of farm workers Felipe Garcia and Ambrosio Gallegos Hernandez who were fired because they attempted to talk to their fellow workers aibout the merits of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee.
In Tulare County various grape growers dismissed farm workers for having Kennedy bxMnper stickers on their cars just prior to the primary election in June of 1968. In addition to these activities there are certain grai)e growers such as S. A. Camp who are currently maintaining a "black list" which list indicates workers who are members of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee for the purposes of using this as a factor in the hiring and firing of such workers.
Executed at Delano, California on August 26, 1969.
Jerome Cohen.
Agricultube Workers Freedom To Work Association,
Delano, Calif., February 22, 1969. Secretary of Labor,
c/o Office of Labor Management and Welfare Pension Reports, 11.8. Department of Labor, San Francisco, Calif.
Dear Sir: The undersigned oflBcers of AWFWA herewith submit an Agree- ment and Activities Report (Form LM-20) and a Receipt and Disbursements Report (Form LM-21) as required by Section 203(b) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclsoure Act of 1959.
The reports may be incomplete but they reflect all the information currently available to us. We are instituting action to recover financial records of AWFWA, if they still exist, and the reports will be amended to reflect any further informa- tion as it becomes available.
AWFWA was an outgrowth of an untitled group led by the growers which hired Jose Mendoza and Gilbert Rubio to persuade the workers that there was two sides to the union story, don't be afraid of Chavez, be united and we will protect and support you. The employees and members of the group were to try to get information on plans of UFWOC. This group and others became AWFWA which was incorporated by Jose Mendoza, Gilbert Rubio and Shirley Fetalvero on July 1968. The three incorporators became the directors of AWFWA. The first public actions of the new organization were counter picketing of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFD-CIO, pickets at the homes of Giumarra foremen crew bosses at McFarland and Earlimart, California in May of 1968, also at a public picnic attended by 1,500 people was held at Delano Park on June 16, 1968.
715
Until recently AWFWA never had a meeting of the Board of Directors or an election of officers. Jose Mendoza called himself General-Secretary and some- times Gilbert Rubio was identified as chairman. Mendoza acted as the chief- executive of AWFWA. Mendoza was advised by Mr. Baseco of the Department of Labor that a consultant report was required if AWFWA had an agreement with employers connected with the grape labor dispute and boycott. Mendoza denied any agreement existed or that AWFWA was being supported by the growers.
So far as we know all of AWFWA's records were maintained by first Fernando Marquez, then by Jose Mendoza and then turned over to Donald Garaniga. We are making efforts to recover these records.
In late 1968, Jose Mendoza left Bakersfield on several trips, on his return he contacted Shirley Fetalvero and Gilbert Rubio wanting them to agree to dis- solve AWFWA so it would be legally out of existence. We, with advice from Cornelio Macias, refused to sign to dissolve the corporation. Mendoza advised he was no longer associated with AWFWA and Cornelio Macias could be a Director in his place. He threatened to send the Department of Labor after us, In October or November 1968, Shirley Fetalvero and Gilbert Rubio informally met as a Board of Directors and elected Cornelio Macias as Director of AWFWA.
We have been interviewed by Robert H. Holland of the San Francisco office of the office of Labor Management and Welfare Pension Reports, U.S. Department of Labor. Mr. Holland advised us that AWFWA was covered by the filing require- ments of Section 203(b) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 and had been delinquent in filing an Agreement and Activities Report (LM-20) since July 3, 1968 or earlier. He also advised us that a Receipts and Disbursements Report covering the fiscal year ending 12/31/68 was due by March 31, 1969.
On February 22, 1969 Shirley Fetalvero and Gilbert Rubio held an emergency meeting of the Board of Directors of AWFWA, Cornelio Macias could not be contacted. Gilbert Rubio was elected president and Shirley Fetavero was elected for the purpose of 1. ) submitting the required reports to the Secretary of Labor, 2. ) obtaining records of AWFWA to complete this filing and other filings which may be required and 3. ) to make plans as appropriate to dissolve AWFWA or to decide on future activities.
In line with the preceding the attached reports are forwarded. This letter should be considered an integral part of the filing.
Gilbert Rubio,
President. Shxeley Fetalveeo, Secretary-Treasurer.
716
W«K«r»-P»n»»»n RuporN
U.S. C>«p«rtm*trt of LafMT
Wcthlngten, D.C 70210
Uuly 1&66)
|
No. «« Kl |
70. |
|
nUMa. |
c. |
I. H*m« and mairing addrMt (Inclutf* ZIPjCod*):
AWFWA, aka
Agricultural Workers Freedom to
Work Association
c/0 (See attached sheet)
KR30N FILIfJO
2. Any olhcr Addrcfct wh«r« rtcorcll ncc«^SAry to varlfy this report are kept:
Donald Gazzaniga, PRI 6408 Sally Avenue Bakersfield, California
>. Dale ftftcel year endt:
Dec. 31, 1968
4. Type of penon:
*. Q INDIVIDUAL b Q PARTNEHSHir
^ CORPORATION d. □ OTHER (Specifyl
B.— FUTURE OF AOREtUEMT OR AenANOEIiCEKT I and address of employer with whom made (Include ZIP code); 6. Dale entered mto:
(See attached sheet)
On or abou t May, 1968,
7. Nam*s of perwins throwgh wKom mado:
Same as above
t. CtMck 1h* approprlato boi to indicoU wMihtr an obitct of tha activilia* underiakco. •» dtractty or indxactly:
•. or To P«r*uad« amptoy*** lo aK«rc>»* or not to %unrcii: 6t p»r%uMd» amployaat a» to the m*nn«t of •larciftins. Iha rifht I
choottna.
ns tha acuviliat »t amployei •ololy in coniunclMA wilfa an i
coUactivaly throufih r*s>r*»«nUtiv«« of th«lr b. (T To supply an amptoyvr wtth informati
9. Tvrmt and conditions fCvpfam tn i$mt»ii; a«« Part B-9 of inat/ucfion*.):
(See attached sheet)
O— SPZCiriC ACTIVITlKft TO BS PCIVfOllUEO
to. For aftch •cllvity, Mp«fatoty IM in dataH Iho Inforniation raquirad (Saa P«rt C-10 of intlrvd'ona): o. Natur* of activity:
(See attached sheet)
b. Porlod durtftf which parfermod:
(See attached sheet)
c C>taflt poHormod:
(See attached sheet)
4. Namoa and addrota** of pon^a Ihrowsh whom parlonnod:
(See attached sheet)
It. Idantify (») Subjoci omployao*. groupt of omployaoa. and (b) labor org«nual*on».
(See attached sheet)
^— VCmnCATIOH and SIGNATURC. Tha parum In itam 1 abova and aoch of h't um Mformaiton n thi« rvport. inelwdinn all attachmania Mcorporatad tharain or r«l«rrad to bMwtadga and baltaf. trua. cmrocl. and compUla.
•MMspi :U>.ZJS^j:.y...j!s.A^l .,
V\ t -^. ' . ^Z-, . ' <" off»»r litfa.
at: rt-.-^-^*^-^-- ^ ■■^>-. o*»: ■^... ...-,.....„. <«" »*" •"«'
^t- City stou ooto rr''** '" «<»"•««
titl9 abova.)
PRCSIDCNT
li^m'^^h^.^ii^'^^.i^.i-::^. TTKASUWR
J i' i ' r\ ,.-^ ^ t. Of othar liKa,
SIONIO
717
1. Shirley Fetalvero, 117 W. 15th Avenue, Delano, California 93215.
5. John Giumarra Jr., John Giumarra, Senior, Joseph Giumarra operating in whole or in part as Giumarra Vineyards Corp., Giumarra Farms, Inc. and Giumarra Bros. Fruit Co., Edison Highway, Bakersfield, California.
Jack Pandol, Rt. 2, Box 388, Delano, California 93215.
Pandol & Sons, Rt. 2, Box 388, Delano, California 93215.
Robert Sabovich, Melvin Sabovieh, Sabovich Bros., P.O. Box 577, Lamont, California.
Eugene Nalbandian, Eugene Nalbandian Inc., P.O. Box 665, Lamont, Cali- fornia.
John J. Kovacevich, P.O. Bin 488, Arvin, California.
William Mosesian, Lamont, California.
9. During early 1968, the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL- CIO, UFWOC, was engaged in a labor dispute with several table grape growers in and around Kern and Tulare Counties in California including the Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, Highway #58, Edison, California, and Pandol & Sons, Rt. 2, Box 388, Delano, California. In May, 1968, a meeting was held at Sambo's Restaurant on Union Street in Bakersfield attended by John Giumarra, Sr., John Giumarra, Jr., Treasurer and General Counsel respectively of Giumarra Vine- yards Corporation, Teresa Arrambide. a labor foreman for Giumarra, Paul Marrufo, head foreman for Sabovich Bros., grape growers, Vine & DiGiorgio Roads, Lamont, California, Louis Barazza, a former associate of Cesar Chavez, Robert Flores, personnel manager of Di Giorgio Fruit Corporation, Jess Marquez, who runs a camp for DiGiorgio, Fernando Marquez, brother of Jess, an account- ant with an oflSce in Lamont, Jack Pandol of Pandol & Sons, Gilbert Rubio, Jose Mendoza, and others. This meeting was to outline activities of AWFWA. We were to tell workers not to be afraid of Chavez to be united and we as an organization would support and protect workers ; we were to oppose UFWOC efforts to organize and boycott. This meeting and other meetings decided AWFWA would also try to enlist workers and obtain information on UFWOC's plans and activities. The meeting decided to get funds from the growers and hire Mendoza and Rubio at $120.00 a week to start opposing Chavez. AWFWA started counter-picketing UFWOC pickets at the homes of Giumarra's foremen in McFarland and Earlimart. The Giumarras furnished oflSce space for Mendoza and Rubio in the conference room at the Edison Highway headquarters with typewriter and other oflBce supplies.
Arangements were made to pay Mendoza and Rubio and then Aurelio Rios through Fernando Marquez first through MADRA then thorugh an AWFWA bank account. Several meetings involving many persons were held but only John Giumarra, Jr., Robert Sabovich, and Jack Pandol gave orders to Mendoza and AWFWA.
10. A. AWFWA was to :
(a) Counter-picket and try to drown out UFWOC pickets wherever they picketed any grape grower or they picketed any grape grower or their employees, using sound trucks, jeers, etc.
(b) Hold picnics for mass of agricultural workers giving free food, beer, and music and raffles to get them to listen to speeches against Chavez and UFWOC.
(c) Enlist the aid of all growers and their foremen in enrolling workers into AWFWA without cost with the idea that we would represent them.
(d) Try to settle grievances or disputes between farm workers and the grape growers.
(e) Picket advertisers of Catholic Register which supported Chavez and UFWOC until John Giumarra, Jr. told us to stop.
(f ) Appear on radio, TV and the news with propaganda against Chavez and UFWOC.
(g) Opposed Teamsters-UFWOC boycott of Coors beer by counter-picketing, (h) Try to get information on all UFWOC planned activities to take action
to halt or disrupt them (Sanger picnic, labor day parade).
(i) To keep track of all people associated with and helping UFWOC using friends, papers, and taking pictures of people in and around UFWOC head- quarters.
(j) To put out mimeographed notices, flyers, message and reports on flyers to be widely distributed to the workers and the public in Spanish and EngUsh. Obtain bumper stickers attacking the boycott and UFWOC.
(k) Counter picket stores selling New York products after New York City boycotted the table grapes, including picketing of Sachs .5th Avenue in Los Angeles.
718
(1) Picket news media and TV stations in Los Angeles wlio were giving biased coverage for Ohavez and UFWOC.
(m) To use all of the above methods to get headlines, newspaper and TV coverage with statement of farm workers are not on strike and boycott is just another trick to force the Union on the workers.
lOB. These activities were i)erformed between May and October 1968.
IOC All activities were performed to the extent possible.
lOD. All activities were carried out under the name of AWFWA or MADRA (Mexican-American Democrats for Republican Action) by the following people:
(1) Jose Mendoza— 2421 I Street, Bakersfleld.
(2) Gilbert Rubio— 217 Clife Street, McFarland.
(3) Shirley Fetalvero — 117 W. 15th Avenue, Delano.
(4) Mary Matt — 371 Oleander Drive, Bakersfleld.
(5) Wanda Hillary — Baker Street, Bakersfleld.
(6) Donald Gazzaniga — Sally Drive, Bakersfleld.
(7) Robert Flores — DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation, Lamont.
(8) Jess Marquez — DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation, Lamont.
(9) Fernando Marquez — 4212 Alexander, Bakersfleld.
(10) Comelio Macias — Newark Rod., Sanger.
(11) Teresa Arrambide — Moffet St, Wasico.
(12) Louis Baraza —
(13) Aurelio Rios — Dover Street, Delano.
(14) Paul Maruffo—
( 15) Helen Murillo— 7616 Delight Avenue, Lamont.
(16) Anna Mariano — 822 Kensington, Delano.
(17) John Giumarra, Jr.— Edison Headquarters, Edison, Oa.
(18) Robert Sabovich— P.O. Box 577, Lamont. (19 Melvin Sabovich— P.O. Box 577, Lamont.
(20) Eugene Nalbandian— P.O. Box 665, Lamont.
(21) William Mosesian — Lamont, California.
(22) John Kovacevich— P.O. Bin 488, Arvin.
(23) Sabovich Bros.- P.O. Box 577, Lamont.
(24) Jack Pandol— Rt. 2, Box 388, Delano.
Many people were interested to picket and to come to picnics, etc.
11. Employees of all table grape growers in Kern, Tulare, and Fresno Coun- ties of California, including fleld workers, both members and non-members of UFWOC, AFL-OIO and unorganized employees in the sheds. We were supposed to be active in the Coachella Valley but we never wont.
719
Ofnc« or Lebor<Manftfftfnent i
W*tfsr*-P«ntlon Raportt
U*Sl Dap«rtm*nt of Labor
Wolhlngton. O.C 20210
(July 1966)
RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS REPORT
FORM LM-21
RMuind of P«ru>ni, (ncludlni litwr Reliliens
ConsulUnb and OIKer Individual! and OfCanljallona.
Undar Sactlon 203(b) of tha Latror-Uanaiamant Raportinc and OiKlnura Ad of 19S9
F^vrm Approved — Budcet 1 No. 44-R117I.
A. — PERSON FILING
I. NAMC AND AOORCSS (Incfuda ZIP coda)
AWFW/V, aka
Agriculture Workers Freedom To Work
Association
c/o Shirley Fetalvero
117 W. ISth Ave.
rv>l.-7nr., Calif. 9i215
Donald Gazzaniga, Public Research Institute f,i()R Sally Ave , R;-
4. PERIOD COVERED DY THIS fnm- REPORT To:
I connection with labor rolatio
§, NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER (Includa ZIP coda)
ice or services raflardless of the purposes of 6. TERMINATION DATE 7. AMOUNT
|
* |
||
|
This information is gWen to the best of our |
||
|
loioivledee at this time. As mnrp. information hfirr)inp.<; |
||
|
avai1flhl«> wp win <;iihmit it |
||
|
<;aa RttprhH «^heet ^^^^ ntmhprt; ■;, f^ P, i . |
||
|
TOTAL |
t |
C^— frATEHCNT OF DISBURSEMENTS. Report nil disbursements made by the regortliig orxaniiatlon In connection with labor relations advice <
%, PISBUWgJtfEKTS TO OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES:
9. Office and AdmlnMraltm CwwiMt _i
10. PukllcHy
11. Faaa for Profaatlofial t«n(4c—
12. Laana Made
13. Other Olabursaments
|
(al Name |
(b) Salary |
(c) Expenses |
(d) Totals |
|
$ |
I |
( |
|
|
■ See attached sheet. |
|||
|
Total Dlsburaements to o(7l^rs erfd eanployeos; |
t |
ff9 through 14 See-attached sheet. —
|
P, — SCHCOULC FOR STATCMEHI OF DISBURSEMENTS. Use this Schedule to report only disbursements made for tha purposes described In Part D of tha Instructions. It. EMPLOYER 16. TO WHOM PAID 17. AMOUNT IS. PURPOSE |
|||
|
See attached sheet. |
S |
||
|
TOTAL |
S |
||
|
IF MORC SPACe IS NEEDED ATTACH ADDITIONAL SMECTS |
C.— VERIFICATION AND SIGNATURE. The person In Item 1 ebove and each of his underslfned aulhoriied offlcera declares, under penalty of lew. that all fatlormatlo'n In this report, including all atlachmonts Incorporated therein or rafarred to In this report, has been examined by him and Is. to the best of his hnowledce and bpflaf, true, correct, and complete:
write \n correct tftia above.J
aHa>i.?h/(\l^^,.'.L.7^lk^ok.-.y^IMS~:.. THEASU
.4 ^- (If other trtle.
■ Mu.k'..;>.^c^Ca.( «,= 4Z^.:.-;;/.<C:...:.i.. SST.'rco'™
city State ' Data title abava.>
36-513 O - 70 - pt. 3A - 12
720
The checks below were deposited in the M.A.D.R.A. Account #0208686 at the Community National Bank at 6th and Chester Avenue in Bakersfield.
Date of check Name and address of account
Signed by
Amount
Juna 18, 1968 Kern Valley Farms, Inc., P.O. Box 505, Lamont, Calif., Office:
Wheeler Ridge Rd., Mettler, Calif., phone 858-2874; United
California Bank, Bakersfield. June 19,1968 Dalton Richardson, Richardson Farms, Route 2, Box 520;
Valpredo Rd, Mettler, Calif., phone 858-2520; Bank of
America, Arvin, Calif. ■ Do Muzinich Farms, 207 Panorama Dr., Bakersfield, Calif., farm
on Le Gray Rd., phone 858-2555, phone residence 323-2252,
United California Bank, Bakersfield. Do Gagosian Farms, 2455 Produce St., Greenfield, phone 323-
9493, also on DiGiorgio Rd., phone 845-1561, Bakersfield
National Bank, Greenfield, Calif. Do Griffin Spray Co., 3104 St. Mary's St., phones 871-8000 and
366-3308, Community National Bank, Bakersfield, Calif. June 20, 1968 Eugene Nalbandian, I nc, P.O. Box 665, Lamont, Calif., phone
845-0729, shed on DiGiorgio Rd., Bank of America, Bakers- field, Calif. June 22, 1969 C. Scarrone and Marie Scarrone, Route 1, Box 640, phone
858-2510, Arvin, Calif., Bank of America, Arvin Branch. June 28, 1968 Bianco Fruit Corp., P.O. Box 1801, -Delano, Calif., phone
725-3215, Bank of America, Delano, Calif.
June 30, 1968 HariHnd and Berling, G St., Wasco, Calif., made out to MADRA Research.
James Trino, Jr $200
Dalton Richardson 200
Anthony L. Muzinich. _ 200
Leo Gagosian _,_ 200
Thomas E. Griffin 200
Eugene Nalbandian 200
C. Scarrone.. 200
Bianco Fruit Corp., machine 200
stamp initials not discernible
on microfilm copy.
Harley Berling 200
Check #1335, 7/8/68 from General Distributors Fresno, Ca., East Fresno Branch of the Bank of America to the amount of $250.00 payed to Berge Rirk^rian c/o P.O. Box 202, Arvin, Calif. Endorsed and deposited to M.A.D.R.A. account.
Check #325, 7/21/68 from Calpine Containers, 1875 Olympic Blvd., Walnut Creek, California to the amount of $250.00 to John Kovacevich, endorsed and deposited to M.A.D.R.A. account.
The checks listed below were deposited in AWFWA Account #0647802166, Bank of America at "H" & Broad, Bakersfield, California. Account was opened July 25, 1966.
Bank Number
Amount Issued by
Date
Payable to—
90-142, check No. 2276 $300
90-142, check No. 52641 100
90-139 100
90-90, check No. 793 100
90-142, check No. 015703 200
11-55, check No. 140860. 200
Deposit check No. 236, Sept. 10,
1968. Check No. 174
150 400
500
Mazzie Farms, Derby Rd., Arvin, Calif July 11,1968 AWFWA.
San Joaquin Tractor Co., 1201 Union Ave., June 28,1968 AWFWA.
Bakersfield, Calif.
Kern County Equipment Co July 3,1968 AWFWA.
Central California Ice Co., 3401 Chester St., July 1,1968 AWFWA.
Bakersfield, Calif. California Box & Lumber Co., DiGiorgio Rd., July 6,1968 AWFWA. " Lamont, Calif. Blake Moffit & Towne, 2225 16th SL, June 20, 1968 AWFWA.
Bakersfield, Calif. 0. D.Handel & Son Farms, 413 Central Ave., Aug. 5,1968 AWFWA.
Shatter, Calif. D. A. Gazzaniga, expense account, 6408 Sept. 11,1968 Jose Mendoza.
Sally Ave., Bakersfield, Calif. California for Right to Work 300 27th St., Oct. 9, 1968 Do.
Suite C, Oakland, Calif. Account closed out Oct. 25, 1968 ..do.... AWFWA.
NOS. 8, 9-14, AND 15
(a)
(b)
(0
No. 8a:
Jose Mendoza Unknown
Gilbert Rubio _ do
Aurelio Rios " do
Nos. 9-14: Unknown.
No. 15: These are disbursements currently available to us. Additional information will be furnished when available.
Unknown Unknown.
do Do.
do Do.
721
M.A.D.K.A. WITHDRAWALS — 6/28/68
$700.35 for Cashiers check to PRI endorsed Donald A. Gazzaniga for return to AWFWA.
6/28/68 Wonderly Electronic $84.08 for tape recorder.
6/28/68 Roundtree Camera for camera & supplies $58.70, check #103.
Check #104 7/2/68 County of Kern— $100.00— Reservation for Hart Park.
Check #108 Radio Station KWAC $&40.00, 7/16/68 Radio advertising AWFWA.
Check #105 $477.07 Davenports 7/2/68 Copying machine.
Check #106 7/10/68 Smith Radio Service $50.00 Public Address Service.
Check #107 7/10/68 $300.00 Cash endorsed by Jose Mendoza.
Check #109 7/9/68 A. B. Dick Co. $168.99 for mimegraph & supplies.
Check #110 7/19/68 Delano Ambulance— Service Ambulance for Gilbert Rubio for $37.00.
Check #111 7/19/68 $20 Mrs. Rubio, repair for Gilbert Rubio's car.
Check #112 7/19/68 Golden West Telephone Company $79.86 for payment of Jose Mendoza's telephone bill.
Check #113 $300.50 to Bank of America.
A.W.F.W.A. CHECKS
Check #117 9/9/68 Gilbert Rubio. Expenses $21.00.
Check #119 9/17/68 Pacific Telephone Co. $119.00.
Cheek #116 9/10/68 Kern County Patrol. $30.00. Bodyguard for Mendoza.
Check #120 10/14/68. Merchants Printers. $78.59.
Check #121 10/14/68 Golden West Telephone Co. $337.71.
Disbursements were made by PRI for AWFWA for salary and expenses of Mendoza, Rubio and Rios.
Telephone bills of Shirley Fetalvero and Gilbert Rubio of over $500 were paid in cash by Wanda Hillary and Jose Mendoza.
1. Zellerbach Paper Company contributed a check for $200.00 to Farm Workers' Rally which was not deposited in the above bank accounts.
2. Jack Pandol lent AWFWA his 1968 Chevy pick-up for two months for AWFWA use.
3. Bob Sabovich gave AWFWA a 1958 Chevy station wagon for AWFWA use.
4. DiGiorgio furnished mimeograph machines and supplies to print AWFWA flyers on DiGiorgio property.
5. The Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, Edison Highway #84, Bakersfield, California, through John Giumarra, Sr., and John Giumarra, Jr., paid the fol- lowing :
(1) A salary in an unknown amount for Jose Mendoza.
(2) Two $50 "loans" to Gilbert Rubio and one $50 "loan" to Aurelio Rios totalling $150.
The Giumarras also allowed use of conference room at Giumarra headquarters with telephone, tyiiewriter, and oflBce supplies.
6. They also allowed free access to the yard gas pump to obtain gas for vehicles for AWFWA business. They provided repair of automobiles in the corporate garage.
7. Fernando Marquez furnished expense money in cash and checks to Mendoza, Rubio, and Rios.
8. Don Gazzaniga paid salary to Mendoza, Rubio, and Rios through the Public Research Institute (PRI) with the cover that they were researchers for PRI. Information and pictures obtained by AWFWA were used for PRI.
7122
AGRICULTURAL LABOR DISPUTES, CALIFORNIA (CURRENT: OCT. 21, 1968)
Date Employer Address determined
Giumarra Vineyards Corp -. - Edison July 28,1967
W. B. Campjr - Bakersfield Jan. 31,1968
Anton Caratan & Son .- Delano Do.
M. Caratan do _ Do.
Jake Cesare do _ Do.
Louis Caric & Sons do.. Do.
Bruno Dispoto... do Do.
P. J. Divizich Fruit Corp Ducor, Calif __ Do
Frank Gallo McFarland Do.
George A. Lucas &Sons Earlimart Do.
Frank A. Lucich Delano. Do.
John Pagliarulo - - do Do.
Pandol &Sons._ do Do.
Gene Radovich do Do.
Jack Radovich Richgrove Do.
Sandrini Bros.. McFarland Do.
D. M. Steele &Sons Delano Do.
Tudor &Sons - -- do Do.
A & N Zaninovich - do --. Do.
George Zaninovich -.- do _ Do.
Marko Zaninovich, Inc _ Earlimart.__ Do.
Marion Zaninovich _ Delano Do.
Vincent Zaninovich... do Do.
Vincent Zaninovich & Sons — do Do
Chuchian Farms Coachella June 18,1968
David Freedman Co., Inc.. Thermal 1 June 20,1968
Ara Herbekian/Mel-Pack Ranch do. June 26,1968
Coachella Vineyards -do Do.
John Zaninovich Indio Do.
Ross Cariaga Coachella Do.
H & M Ranch Company Oasis. Do.
Richard Badgasarian Mecca Do.
Richard Glass & Co., Inc _. Indio Do.
Cy Muradick & Sons ..do July 2,1968
Carl Joseph Maggio, Inc Salinas Do.
R. W Blackburn & Sons Thermal... ..iJuly 5,1968
Karahadian & Sons do Do.'
Eugene Nalbandian, Inc Arvin 'July 19, 1968
John Kovacevich. Bakersfield. Do.'
I Date reported by telephone; dated copy not returned.
Declaration Undee Penalty of Perjury
My name is Jane Brown. I am the National Boycott Coordinator for the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC), AFL-CIO, at 103 First Street, Delano, California.
I am responsible for coordinating and evaluating the effect of the UFWOC boycott of California table grapes. In evaluating the boycott statistically, I consider two factors : California table grape unloads in major U.S. and Canadian cities and F.O.B. prices of California table grapes. Information on unloads of California table grapes in major U.S. and Canadian markets is available on a weekly basis. Information on F.O.B. prices of California table grapes by variety and by shipping point to major U.S. cities is available on a daily basis.
The California table grape harvest begins approximately in June of each year. Although picking is over by November, a portion of the harvest is held in cold storage and shipped out during the rest of the season through May until the next harvest begins.
To evaluate the effect of the boycott during the 1968 season — June through March — we compare it with the 1966 season. (April and May figures were not available when this report was compiled, but since the amount of California table grapes shipped in these months equalled about only 3% of the total shipped, the omission of these months does not significantly distort the results of the following report.)
It is generally agreed that 1967 was a very light harvest and is not useful for comparative purposes. My research indicates that although nearly the same number of railroad carlot equivalents of table grape was shipped by California growers in the 1966 and 1968 seasons, in the 1968 season, unloads of California table grapes in major U.S. and Canadian markets were down 15% from 1966.
Entering the 1969 season, we find that the boycott continued to be effective. There are five major shipping points for California table grapes : Indio,
7123
(Coachella "Valley ; Arvin ; Delano ; Fresno ; and Lodi. The harvest begins each year in the Coachella Valley and runs there for approximately eight weeks. In spite of the fact that the Coachella harvest was predicted to be 17% to 20% larger this year, at the end of eight weeks of harvest, only 7.8% more carlots of table grapes had been shipped from Coachella compared to the same harvest period in 1968, (i.e., 2524 carlot equilavents in 1969 as compared to 2363 carlot equivalents in 1968.) Furthermore, shipments to 41 major U.S. cities, where the boycott is concentrated, were down 6% from last year for the same harvest period, (i.e., 1380 carlots in 1969 as compared to 1469 carlots in 1968).
Although the Coachella growers were forced to leave 750,000 boxes of unpicked grapes on the vines — according to a report by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner — there is no doubt that the growers can sell all the grapes they pick, although because of the boycott they must sell at lower prices. The major impact of the boycott is to decrease demand for grapes in traditional markets and thus force the price down on all boycotted grapes that are sold.
The boycott is definitely depressing prices. Thompson seedless grapes ac- counted for 43% of all table grape packages shipped from Coachella in the 1969 harvest. Last year F.O.B. prices for #22 lugs of Coachella Thompson grapes opened at $6.50 and closed at about $5.00. This season, the F.O.B. prices on this variety opened at $4.75 and closed at $2.75. Most of the Coachella Thompsons were sold at least $2.00 less per lug than last year. I stress the words "at leas-t" because these F.O.B. prices are for top quality grapes shipped prepaid by rail. Second label grapes shipped by trucks and/or on consignment probably went at even lower prices. A June 14, 1969, report on the Coachella harvest in the Los Angeles Times said that, "One prominent grower reported grape production this season is costing between $5.50 and $6.00 a lug (22 pounds). But he is selling the product for between $5.00 and $5.50 a lug."
Directly because of the impact of the table grape boycott, on June 13, 1969, ten growers from Coachella and Arvin, representing approximately 12% of the Cali- fornia table grape industry, agreed to enter into collective bargaining negotia- tions with UFWOC. After two weeks of negotiating the growers called for a recess on July 4, 1969. To date these negotiations have not been resumed.
It is diflScult to explain why growers under such pressure should suddenly cease negotiations. One of the unknown factors in their decision is the impact of Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 1970 (harvest year 1969) purchases of grapes. On the basis of a D.O.D. fact sheet of June 10, 1969, it is clear that D.O.D. purchases of U.S. fresh table grape production jumped from 1.3% of total production in FY 1966 (1965 harvest season) to 2.4% in FY 1969 (1968 harvest season). D.O.D. purchases of such a large percent of fresh table grape production — equal to 11 million pounds, or as much as the entire Detroit area with a population of 4 million i)eople purchased in the 1968 season — must have had a substantial effect on maintaining high prices for the grape growers in spite of a successful boycott.
Finally, in testimony on July 15, 1969, before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, a representative of the D.O.D. testified that principal con- tractors from whom D.O.D. has purchased table grapes during recent years include Heggblade Marguleas Co. (Coachella grower-shipper) and Eiugene Nal- bandian Inc. (Arvin grower-shipper) with whom the UFWOC was involved in collective bargaining negotiations, as well as the R. A. Glass Co., a major Coachella packer-shipper.
Recent increased purchases of California table grapes concentrated among the above mentioned and other Coachella-Arvin grower-packer-shippers could be the major factor for the break off of negotiations and for other major Coachella and Arvin growers not negotiating at all.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated : August 26, 1969 in Delano, California.
Jane C. Brown.
Fact Sheet — Department of Defense Use of Table Grapes, June 10, 1969
1. The ba.sic policy of the Department of Defense with regard to awarding defense contracts to contractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to DoD procurement needs to maintain a sound work-
|
7.5 |
1.04 |
|
8.3 |
1.25 |
|
6.9 |
1.32 |
|
11.0 |
1.98 |
724
ing relationship with both labor and management. The resolution of labor dis- putes involves complex and delicate areas of judgment and interpretation for which the responsibility has been vested by the Congress in other agencies of the Government. From the diverse opinions that have appeared in various news media, it is quite apparent that the dispute over California table grapes falls in this category.
2. In addition to the above policy, the General Accounting Office has stated that it is only to the extent that a contractor's labor practices interfere with the potential performance of a contract that a contracting officer may consider the labor practices of a contractor (43 Comp. Gen. 323 (1963)). Also, the Comp- troller General has ruled that there is no authority to reject bids on the basis that an employer does not employ union labor (31 Comp. Gen. 561 ) .
3. The Defense Supply Agency, which is responsible for the purchase of food for military dining halls and commissaries, reports that procurements of table grapes have been as follows :
Million Million
Fiscal year pounds dollars
1966 - - -
1967 --- - -
1968
1969'.-..
I This figure is projected on the basis of actual totals for the 3 quarters of fiscal year 1969 and the rate of decline of seasonal procurements as experienced during the last half of fiscal year 1967 and fiscal year 1968.
The total Defense Supply Agency purchases of table grapes represent less than one percent of U.S. table grape productiion.
4. There is no record of any grape shipments to Vietnam prior to fiscal year 1967 ; siubsequent shipments have been as follows :
Fiscal year : Pounds
1967 468, 000
1968 555, 000
1969 * 2, 500, 000
*This figure is projected on the basis of actual totals for the 3 quarters of fiscal year 1969 and the rate of decline of sea.sonal procurements as experienced during the last half of fiscal year 19i67 and fiscal year 1968.
The increase in the Vietnam requirement for grapes during FY 1969 was in- fluenced by the following factors: (1) the high troop acceptability of this sea- sonal item; (2) tJtie reduced availability of export quality fresh oranges, with a substitution of table grapes ; and (3) the improved capability of shipping perish- able items, including grapes, to Vietnam by refrigerated vans. In this connection, it is significant that the quantities of all fresh produce shipped to Vietnam have greatly increased during the past three years.
5. The Department of Defense does not purchase grajjes merely because they have been made more available and lessi expensive due to the effects of the boy- cott. Grape purchases are made by the Defense Supply Agency in response to requisitions from the Military Senices. These requisitions are based on planned menus which reflect numerous factors, among them being troop acceptability; nutritional requirements ; variety ; and item availa,bility, perishability, and cost. In the interests of objective and systematic management, menu planners (often working a year to eighteen months in advance) should not be required to con- sider whether a labor dispute exists when making these decisions.
Press Conference of Manuel Vasquez, Washington Representative, United Farm Workers, September 12, 1969
The United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, headed by Cesar Chavez, announced here today that it was filing a formal protest with the Comp- troller General of the United State.s with respect to the continuing Deiwirtment of Defense procurement of fresh California and Arizona table grapes. The Comp- troller General has overall resix>nsibility for the review of government procure- ment actions. In a press conference called here, Manuel Vasquez, Washingtou
725
representative for the Farm Workers, stated that the Department of Defense had almost doubled its dollar purchases of table grapes from fiscal year 1966 to fiscal year 1969 at the very time that the public was buying some 20% less grapes as a result of the boycott. From fiscal year 1968 to fiscal year 1969 D.O.D. table grape shipments to Vietnam increased from 555,000 to 2,500,000 lbs., Vasquez said, an increase of over 350%. The Defense Department's purpose, Vasquez charged, was to help the growers by buying up grapes which the public would not buy because of the grape boycott. The D.O.D. purchases were brought to light in recent hearings conducted by the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor.
The protest is based on several independent grounds.
First, Vasquez said, the Armed Service procurement regulations require that the Department of Defense remain neutral and not take sides in a labor dispute. The available evidence suggests that the increase in D.O.D. purchases since the strike began was deliberately intended by D.O.D. to help the grape growers in their dispute with the farm workers. The protest refutes the reasons advanced by the D.O.D. to justify its increased grape purchases since the strike began. For ex- ample, the principal reason advanced by the Department for last year's increase was the shortage of fresh oranges in that year. However, when the shortage be- came known, the Defense Supply Agency cabled all D.O.D. food requisitioners suggesting that grapes be considered as a substitute. No other fruit was suggested although, of c*ourse, many other fruits were available.
The Farm Workers contend that even if the Defense Department's purchases were not intended to help the growers, their effect was definitely to help the growers, and thus to violate the neutrality requirement contained in the regulations.
The protest also alleges that the Defense Supply Agency has been paying more than mid-season market prices for the grapes it purchases, and that it is buying grapes produced under unsanitary conditions, in violation of the Armed Ser\ices Procurement Regulations.
Finally, the Farm Workers' protest argues that the Defense Department's pur- chases violate the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that labor's right to organize, and to carry out a strike Ls protected against undue governmental interference by the First Amendment. In the current dispute which is now entering its fifth year, the Farm Workers allege that the employers have resorted to a variety of violent and unlawful means to break the .strike. Pickets have been beaten, shot at and run over by employer representa- tives, the union charged. The union argues that by underwriting these and other unlawful actions through the exercise of its purchasing power, the government violates the First Amendment.
The protest asks that all further Department of Defense procurement of Cali- fornia and Arizona table grapes be suspended until the General Accounting oflTice can make a full investigation of the charges made.
Statement of Manuel Vasquez, Washington Representative, United Farm
Workers
We have called this press conference this morning to discuss a very serious matter and to tell you what we are trying to do about it. We have been very disturbed for a long time that the Defense Department has been taking the side of the growers in our labor dispute.
In the last three years the Defense Department has nearly doubled its pur- chases of table grajies. Yet. at the same time, the general public is now buying almost 20% fewer grapes as a result of the boycott which has developed all over the country. Just in the last year, shipments of table gra,i>es to our troops in Vietnam has increased over 350%, from 555,000 to 2,500.000 pounds. We understand that these are as many grapes as would normally feed a city of 2% million.
There is only one conclusion that can be reached from these facts. The De- fense Department's purpose is to help the growers by buying up grapes which the American public will not buy because of the grai)e boycott.
We know that every American worker including farm workers has a Con- stitutional right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, to organize and carry out a strike without unfair Grovernment interference. We know that the laws and regulations of the Defense Department require it not to take sides in a labor dispute.
726
One of the Defense Department's answers is that there was a shortage of oranges last year. But the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor recently brought out tiiat the only substitute for oranges that the Defense Department suggested was grapes.
The grape purchases also violate government regulations on buying un- sanitary products. Attached to this protest are reports of over 70 instances were grapes were picked without adequate field toilets or other sanitary facilities. In addition, the Defense Department seems to be paying more than is necessary for these huge quantities of grapes that it is buying.
The facts coaild not be plainer. The Government is taking sides in a labor dispute. Instead of doing what it should be doing — preventing pickets from being beaten, shot at. and run over, preventing the growers from using harmful and dangerous iwsticides in the fields, and protecting the safety of our workers — the Government is doing just the opposite. It is helping the growers.
Today we are filing a formal protest with the Comptroller General of the United States demanding that he exercise his authority to make the Defense De- partment cut down on its purchases of grapes, and stop helping to bail the growers out of a bad situation.
Fact Sheet — Department of Defense Use of Table Grapes, October 15, 1969
1. The procurement of grapes by the Department of Defense is a very normal practice, essentially the same as the purchase of other perishable food items for military personnel located in the United States and overseas, and every attempt has been made to remain completely neutral in the labor dispute between certain California grape growers and the United Farm Workers Organizing Oomlmittee of the AFI^OIO.
2. The basic policy of the Department of Defense with regard to awarding defense contracts to contractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to DoD procurement needs to maintain a sound working relationship with both labor and management. The resolution of labor disputes involves complex and delicate areas of judgment and interpretation for which the responsibility has been vested by the Congress in other agencies of the Government. From the diverse opinions that have appeared in various news media, it is quite apparent that the dispute over California table grapes falls in this category.
3. In addition to the above policy, the General Accounting Oflice has stated that it is only to the extent that a contractor's labor practices interfere with the potential performance of a contract that a contracting officer may consider the labor practices of a contractor (43 Comp Gen 323 (1963) ). Also, the Comptroller General has ruled that there is no authority to reject bids on the basis that an employer does not employ union labor (31 Comp Gen 561) .
4. The Defense Supply Agency, which is re^sponsible for the purchase of food for military dining halls and commissaries, reports that procurements of table grapes have been as follows :
Million Million
Fiscal year pounds dollars
1966 _ -
1967 --
1968 -- --
1969 ---
5. Allegations that the Department of Defense has reflected partiality toward the grape growers by increasing purchases of table grapes during the boycott fail to recognize that there was an over-all decrease in DoD grape purchases in FY 1968 as compared Avith FY 1967 ; the FY 1969 procurement is only slightly higher than the FY 1967 figure, indicating that the long term trend is not toward greatly increased grape procurements. It should also be noted that total DoD purchases of table grajjes comprise less than one percent of U.S. production. (The annual sales of table grapes as reported by the May 1969 copy of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Statistical Reporting Service, Crop Reporting Board, is 1,105,000,0(X) pounds. )
|
7.5 |
1.04 |
|
8.3 |
1.25 |
|
6.9 |
1.32 |
|
0.42 |
1.7 |
727
6. There is no re<?ord of any grax)e shipments to Vietnam prior to fiscal year 1967 ; subsequent shipments have been as follows :
Pounds
1967 468,000
1968 555,000
1969 2, 167, 000
The increase in the Vietnam requirement for grapes during FY 1969 was in- fluenced by the following factors: (1) the high troop acceptability of this sea- sonal item ; (2) the reduced availability of export quality fresh oranges, with a substitution of table grapes; and (3) the improved capability of shipping perish- able items, including grapes, to Vietnam by refrigerated vans, 'these figures are significant only if kept in i)erspective. The consurhption of 2,167,000 pounds of grajtes by 500,000 troops amounts to only 4.33 pounds per man over An entire year, or, about one-third pound per month.
7. The Department of Defense does hot purchase grapes merely becahse they have been made more available due to the effects of the boycott. Grape purchases are made by the Defense Supply Agency in response to requisitions from the Military Services. These requisitions are based on planned menus which reflect numerous factors, among them being troop acceptability ; nutritional require- ments; variety ; and item availability, perishability, and cost. In the interests of objective and systematic management, menu planners (often workihg a year to eighteen months in advance) should not be required to consider whether a Idbor dispute exists when making these decisions.
Defense Supply Agency^
October 15, 1969. DSAH-LC
Memo for : Sidney Johnson, Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on Migra- tory Labor, Senate Committee on Labor & Public Welfare. Subject : Department of Defense Use of Table Grapes.
The following information is substantially that which was furnished to CJon- gressman James G. O'Hara (D, Mich.) by letter of 8 October 1969 from Captain J. A. Warren, Director for Food Service, OASD :
The Defense Supply Agency, through its Defense Personnel Support Center in Philadelphia, is responsible for the bhlk of the procurements of food commodities as requested by the military services for troop feeding. It is also its responsi- bility to advise its customers (militaty service requisitioners), through its re^ gional offices, of market conditions to assist the requisitioners in subihitting their requirements.
As to your request for a report of monthly purchases of grapes by the military services, I am enclosing a copy of our latest fact sheet. This fact sheet is cur- rently undfer revision and tvill reflect the following quarterly figures for FY 1970 w^hen ui)dated :
Total purchases, 1st quarter, fiscal year 1970 (pounds) _^___ 2, 550, 000
Dollar value — — $464, 000
Shipments to Vietnam, 1st quarter; fiscal year 1970 (pounds) 289, 000
Daniel A. Vabley, Congressional Matters Offi/ier. Enclosures.
Office of the Assistant Sex^retary of Defense,
WAshmgton, D.C, October 8, 1969. Hon. James G. O'Hara, HoUse of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. O'Hara : As a result of your letter to Secretary Laird dated October 1, 1969, I have been asked to inform you that the Director of the Defense Supply Agency has been provided a copy of the news article on the record crop of Florida citrus products. AIpo, I have requested that Agency to provide yoU a report of procurement plans in support of requirements of the military services on the basis of this anticipated increased availability of oranges and grapefruit.
As you know, the Defense Supply Agency, through its Defense Personnel Sup- t)Ort Center in Philadelphia, is responsible for the bulk of the procurements of food commodities as requested by the military serA-iCes for troop feeding. It is also itn responsibility to advise its customers (hiilitary service requisitioners).
728
through its regional offices, of market conditions to assist the requisitioners in submitting their requirements.
As to your request for a report of monthly purchases of grapes by the military services, I am enclosing a copy of our latest fact sheet. This fact sheet is cur- rently under revision and will reflect the following quarterly figures for FY 1970 when updated :
Total purchases 1st quarter fiscal year 19T0 (pounds) 2,550,000
Dollar value $464, 000
Shipments to Vietnam 1st quarter fiscal year 1970 (pounds) 289,000
We do not have an established reporting system for providing this information specifically as requested.
I appreciate your bringing this anticipated availability of citrus products to our attention.
Sincerely,
J. A. Wabben, Captain, SC, U8N, Director for Food Service. Enclosure.
Fact Sheet — Depabtment of Defense Use of Table Gbapes
1. The procurement of grapes by the Department of Defense is a very normal practice, essentially the same as the purchase of other perishable food items for military personnel located in the United States and overseas, and every attempt has been made to remain completely neutral in the labor dispute between certain California grape growers and the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee of the AF1>CI0.
2. The basic policy of the Department of Defense with regard to awarding defense contracts to contractors involved in labor disputes is to refrain from taking a position on the merits of any labor dispute. This policy is based on the premise that it is essential to DoD procurement needs to maintain a sound work- ing relationship with both labor and management. The resolution of labor dis- putes involves complex and delicate areas of judgment and interpretation for which the responsibility has been vested by the Conrgess in other agencies of the Government. From the diverse opinions that have appeared in various news media, it is quite apparent that the dispute over California table grapes falls in thi.g category.
3. In addition to the above policy, the General Accounting Office has stated that it is only to the extent that a contractor's labor practices interfere with the potential performance of a contract that a contracting officer may consider the labor practices of a contractor (43 Comp Gen 323 (1963) ). Also, the Comptroller General has ruled that there is no authority to reject bids on the basis that an employer does not employ union labor (31 Comp Gen 561) .
4. The Defense Supply Agency, which is responsible for the purchase of food for military dining halls and commissaries, reports that procurements of table grapes have been as follows :
|
Fiscal year |
Million pounds |
IVIillion dollars |
|
|
l%fi |
7.5 |
1.04 |
|
|
1%7 |
8.3 |
1.25 |
|
|
19R8 |
6 9 |
1.32 |
|
|
19fi9 |
10.42 |
1.7 |
|
5. Allegations that the Department of Defense has refiected partiality toward the grape growers by increasing purchases of table grapes during the boy- cott fail to recognize that there was an over-all decrease in DoD grape pur- chases in FY 1968 as compared with FY 1967 ; the FY 1969 procurement is only slig'htly higher than the FY 1967 figure, indicating that the long term trend is not toward greatly increased grai)e procurements. It should also be noted that total DoD purchases of table grapes comprise less than one percent of U.S. production. (The annual sales of table grapes as reported by the May 1969 copy of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Statistical Reporting Service, Crop Reporting Board, is 1,105,0(X),000 pounds.)
729
6. There is no record of any grape shipments to Vietnam prior to fiscal year 1967 ; subsequent shipments have been as follows :
Fiscal year : Pounds
1967 468, 000
1968 555, 000
1969 2, 167,000
The increase in the Vietnam requirement for grapes during FY 1969 was in- fluenced by the following factors : ( 1 ) the high troop acceptability of this sea- sonal item; (2) the reduced availability of export quality fresh oranges with a substitution of table grapes; and (3) the improved capability of shipping perishable items, including grapes, to Vietnam by refrigerated vans. These figures are significant only if Icept in perspective. The consumption of 2,167,000 pounds of grapes by 500,000 troops amounts to only 4.33 pounds per man over an entire year, or, about one-third pound per month.
7. The Department of Defense does not purchase grapes merely because they have been made more available due to the effects of the boycott. Grape pur- chases are made by the Defense Supply Agency in response to requisitions from the Military Services. These requisitions are based on planned menus which reflect numerous factors, among them being troop acceptability ; nutri- tional requirements ; variety ; and item availability, perishability, and cost. In the interests of objective and i<ystematic management, menu planners (often working a year to eighteen months in advance) should not be required to con- sider whether a labor dispute exists when making these decisions.
CESAR CHWEZ
DIRtCTOR
LARRY ITLIONG A9ST. DIRECTOn
JEROME COHEN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
730
UNITED FARM WORKERS
ORGANIZING GOMMIT-TEB AFL- CIO
P.O. BOX 130 DELANO. CALIFORNIA 93215
lOS ;2i-lll4 ADMINISTRATIVE
T2S-liil MIUIERSHir. HIRING HALL 72S-0175 ACCOUNTINO 7IS-01I1 SERVICE CENTER
GEORGE MEANY
PRESIDENT
WM. F. SCHNITZLER SECRETARY-TREASURER
WILLIAM L. KIRCHER DIRECTOR OF ORSANIZATION
December 11, 1969
Senator V/alter P. Mondale Room l).!4.3
Old Senate Office Building v;a3hington, D.C. 20^10
Dear Sena^tor Mondale:
I am enclosing a paper written by as a senioo thesis at the Massachu Technology, entitled "The Delano G Boycott: Inroads to Collective Ba ture," When I first picked it up, reading until very late that night finish it. The account is very ac it very interesting. It seems to to have someone take the time to w movement without finding many inac
Because Mr. Georgi has made such a v.'ell-planned presentation of some of the verious facts behind our struggle, I would like to respectfully request that it be inserted into the record as a guide to other student's at some appropriate point in your hearings on Migrant and Seasonal Farm V/orker Powerleasnesg under the sub-heading, "Efforts to Organize."
Sincerely yours.
an Economics student setts Institute of rape Strike and rgaining in Agricul- I found myself so that I could curate, and I found be rather unusual rite about our curacies.
CEC/nc
opeiu-30 afl-cio
731
THE DELMO GRAPE STRIKE AlID BOYCOTT: INROADS TO COLLECTIVE BARGAIIIING IN AGRICULTURE
by
PETER HUGH GEORGI
SuMitted in Partial Fulfillnent of- the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science at the
I4ASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OP TECHNOLOGY August, 1969
Signature of Author . .^■^.^^ /''1^/:^ ./-.->K
Department of Economics,' August 15, 1969
Certified by
Thesis Superv-isor
Accepted by... »
Cftiairman, Departmental Coromittee on Theses
732
We ovight to te ashamed of the fact that this nation, for all its vealth and prosperity, is far "behind most other industriaJ-ized countries in giving farn ^;orkers the forms of protection and security they need and other American workers have long had. But shame, understanding, syapathy, moral indignation, are not enough*
V/hat the farm workers need most of all is action — . in V/ashington, in state capitals and in the fields~- to end the hypocritical double standard by vrhich this whole nation has conspired, actively or throvigh ignorance and indifference, to keep farm v;orkers and their families from their full hujnanity.
The choice before this country today, after Delano, is not vrhether American farm workers are to have unions. Those of ns \iho went through similar tmion struggles in the 1930 's are going to continue to help them to organize and, if necessary, to strike to secure their basic rights.
The choice is whether they are going to have them the hard vfay, after a long period of strife and chaos and suffering because of employer resistance and governmental — which is to say public — callousness. That is the vray it has been going; but there is an easier, more rational, more democratic and more humane way.
The journey of farm workers and their families into the mainstream of Ajnerican life has begun with a struggle to build their o\m commimity imions and through them to reach out for the elementary rights so long denied them. The challenge to the rest of us is to insist that the Congress let this better futxire for farm workers be born without long agony and travail, by giving their unions the protection of NLRA and thereby a chance to bring order and Justice into the industry and into their lives.
-—Walter Reuther President
United Automobile Workers, APL-CIO
(i)
733
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
INTRODUCTORY QUOTE i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
DEDICATION v
PREFACE vi
CHAPTER 1 A HISTORY OF CALIFORITIA FARI-I LABOR
BEFORE 1 882 1
1 883 TO THE END OF WORLD WAR I 3
THE DEPRESSION TO THE BEGINNING OP WORLD WAR II 7
DURING AND AFTER THE WAR 10
CHAPTER 2 THE STATUS OF THE FARI<I WORKER TODAY
INCOME 15
WAGES 15
THE FARI4 LABOR FORCE •. 17
HOUSING 18
EDUCATION 19
. HEALTH 19
PESTICIDES 21
CHAPTER 3 FEDERAL AND STATE LABOR LEGISLATION
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT 24
OTHER LEGISLATION 26
CHAPTER 4 A PORTRAIT OF AGRIBUSINESS
A PERSPECTIVE OF NATIONAL AGRICULTURE 32
CALIFORNIA AGRIBUSINESS 34
THE GRAPE INDUSTRY 35
THE GROVrERS 37
GIUI-IARRA: THE LARGEST DELANO GROV/ER 38
IRRIGATION AKD THE FEDERAL
EECLAI-iATION LAW OF 1 902 40
CHAPTER 5 THE STRIKE AlTD BOYCOTT
DIFFICULTIES OF FARI-I LABOR ORGANIZATION 42
INITIAL ORGAITIZING .43
PUBLIC LAW 414 45
THE STRIKES BEGIN 47
THE BOYCOTT BEGINS 51
THE UNION CONTRACT 56
(ii)
734
CHAPTER 6 CONTINUATION OF UP\-/OC EFFORTS
A CHANGE OF SCOPE 59
THE BOYCOTT Al^ID PUBLIC REACTION 60
RESULTS OF THE BOYCOTT 63
TABLE GRAPES AND THE DEPARTI-IENT OF DEFENSE 68
THE STRIKE CONTINUES , 71
CONTROL OF MEXICAN LABOR 75
CHAPTER 7 THE GROVrSRS ' CASE
INTRODUCTION 78
THE ARGUI4ENTS 78
DISCUSSION 80
CHAPTER 6 THE NEGOTIATIONS
THE CONTRACT DISCUSSIONS 95 '
PROPOSALS IN WASHINGTON 98
CHAPTER 9 , CONCLUSION
APPENDICES 112
APPENDIX A: SUI^-LARY OF MAJOR LABOR LEGISLATION. .1 1 2
APPENDIX B: DEFINITION OF A STRIKEBREAKER 114
APPENDIX C: MAJOR LABELS OF BOYCOTTED TABLE
-.^GRAPES 115
APPENDIX D: RESULTS OP UNION REPRESENTATION
ELECTIONS 116
735
ABSTRACT
The thesis that fann vforkers deserve the equal protection of the National Labor Relations Act which applies to industrial workers is especially worthy of consideration and analysis. Farm workers have been and are the lowest-ranking occupational group with respect to average annual income, educational attainment, health, and adequacy of housing. For over one hundred years, attempts to organize farm labor have met with violent opposition from grov;erq who had a vested interest in retaining the ability to exploit their workers. The recently-formed United Farm V/orkers Organizing Committee in Delano, Galifprnia is engaged in a strike and boycott effort which poignantly demonstrates this phenomenon. V^ithout the inclusion of agrictiltural labor imder federal provisions similar to those vrhich have allowed unions in the industrial sector to flourish, it does not seem there is much hope that the plight of the farm worker can be meaningfxilly remedied.
36-513 O - 70 - pt. 3A - 13
736
ACKNOWLEDGI'IENTS
I am indebted to the follov^ing sources for generously providing research materials for this thesis: the Administrative Office of the United Farm V/orkers Organising Committee in Delano, California, Gary Hamelin of the UPV/OC office in Boston, Massachusetts, Charlene Bohl of the UFv/OC office in Madison, Wisconsin, the Reverend Eugen© Boutilier (director of the National Campaign for Agricultural Democracy, Washington, D.C), Professor D, Qtiinn Mills of M.Ij^T,, Randy ar^4 I^ed Georgi, Mark Rosenfeld, and the National Advisory Committee on Farm Labor, Nev: York City. I am also grateful to Mary Elliott for her help with preparation.
(iv)
737
TO CESAR CHAVEZ PREFACE
To date, no thoroxigh analysis has "been \Tr±tten of the unique farm labor movement in Delano, California and its relation to the prospect of national unioniza- tion of agriculture. The average consumer gives little if any thought to the operations involved in getting the farm-grown food he eats from the fields to his table. It is of coiirse the fann worker who begins the process by conditioning a crop for growth and then picking it. The history of agricult^^ral employer-employee relations in America is as interesting as it is depressing. A genuine understanding of the events in Delano cannot evolve without the awareness of those which have preceded it since the beginning of farm labor organizing over one hundred years ago.
(vi)
738
CHAPTER 1 :
A HISTORY OF CALIFORNIA FARI-I LABOR
BEFORE 1882
The large-scale influx of farm laborers into the fertile valleys of central California began shortly after the war with Mexico ended in 1848. The war had begun in 1846, prJjnarily because of a dispute about the attempted annexation of Texas in 1845. By the end of the war, there was speculation and hope in Washington that, because victory over Mexico v;as so complete, not only the annexation of Texas, but that of California, New Mexico, and the entire coxmtry of Mexico co\ald be secured. President Polk settled for all but Mexico and agreed to pay $15,000,000 to cover the "purchase" of California and New Mexico. This set the stage for the acqxiisition by several hundred Mexican and American speculators of over eight million acres of land in California. The land was consigned by the Federal Government after presentation of some eight hvmdred land grants, most of which were obtained by fraud, forgery or bribery. The courts, however, upheld most of the transactions.
During the next twenty years, the railroads brought
*
in many settlers from the East as well as almost 50,000 Chinese coolies to help build additional road-beds. By
-1-
739
1870, railroad right s-of-iray land holdings amovmted to 20,000 acres. The farm lahor force prior to the arrival of the coolies vras composed primarily of American Indians and some mestizos (part Spanish and part Indian). The Indians "began working for Ptanciscan missionaries, but were grad^ially incorporated into the Spanish haciendas and large farms where they were paid only half the wages the mestizos were paid. By the end of the Mexican War, the Indians were a dispossessed minority, having had their lands legally expropriated and their labor additionally exploited because of the arrival of large contingents of eager-to-work coolies.
Growers preferred foreign labor because it v;as malleable and cheap. The Chinese were culturally isolated and despised in the cities, and hence v^ere v/iUing to work at below-subsistence wages on the farms. By the mid-1870' s, the Chinese made up more than 755^ of the farm labor force in California. Because of constant intimidation by white growers, the Chinese were never able to form into collective bargaining units, but they did establish associations knoim as tongs, essentially private agencies which recruited and hired Chinese workers. These tongs were very similar to the labor contractor systems v/hich emerged over the years when other minority groups .suffered similar oppression. According to contemporary description, the tongs "are very rarely heard of, but nevertheless exist and are very powerful. In case of
-2-
740
a strike or boycott they are fierce and determined. ..making
2 a bitter and prolonged fight." In 1882, grovrer interests
lobbying in V/ashin^ton broiight about the passage of the
Chinese Exclusion Act. When the Depression of 1893 set
in, many banks were failing and white persons were
losing their jobs. The Chinese were made scapegoats as
their labor camps v;ere leveled and their businesses looted.
188;^ TO THE EI'ID OF VfORLD V/AR I
After 1882, the ntimber of Chinese laborers dwindled considerably and grov/ers began importing Japanese contract workers. At first, they were willing to work for only thirty-five to forty cents a day', less than the remaining Chinese demanded, and even supplied their oim transportation and board. Over time, the Japanese got such a foothold in the labor market that they pressed for higher wages. They had been able to form into "associations" like the Chinese, ostensibly to find and coordinate farm work, but their strength allov^ed the workers to stage "quickie strikes" and "slow-do'vms", often at harvest time, and thereby exact higher wages. Again, grower resentment culminated in the passage of a lavr, this time the Immigration Act of 1924, wnich forbade Japanese immigration into the United States and allowed Mexican entry. Mexicans had already been •crossing the border to work in California dxiring the Mexican Revolution of 1910. It was virtual policy to allow the stealing workers to enter illegally and fill up
-3-
741
the ranks of workers at the huge ranches at low cost. Because of their illegal status, they vrere less prone to form into antagonistic unions and hence v;ero nore vulnerable to exploitation. V/hen the Depression of 1929 arrived, however, many Mexicans were deported.
Growers had tapped two other sizeable national groups, Hindustanis and Filipinos. Different wage scaJLes were established according to nationality. This engendered considerable racial strife and competition for available jobs and the opportvuaity to be the cheapest source of labor to get the jobs. This of course assureci the lowest possible v^age bill for the growers. The Fili- pinos rebelled with a vengeance against their vrorking conditions and wages. The response of the growers to the tmrest was callous: The Filipino worker was denounced as "the most worthless, unscrupulous, shiftless, diseased semi-barbarian that has ever come to our shore, "-'^
Because each successive national group received the same repressive, exclusionist treatment, and because each served as the undercutting competition of the previous group, large-scale farm tinions were not able to emerge, or begin to emerge, in California. The first organizing efforts were made by the Industrial Workers of the V/orld, known as the "Vobblies". The movement originated in 1905 in Chicago v;hen the Western Federation of Miners and the American Labor Union merged to oppose "centralizing power at the top" and to organize "the
-4-
742
skilled and vmskilled, urban and rural v:orkers across the covmtry into 'One Big Union*, with the aim of achieving eventual worker ovmership of indvisti'ies." California's migratory labor camps were prime targets for initial organizing. By 1913. although less than B>fo of the migratory laborers in California were members of the V/obbly organiza- tion, V/obbly influence was felt throughout the state. Offices v;ere set up in Fresno, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento. Hostile Yigi- Isjite Committees also sprung up and took matters into their own hands to control the V^obblies. They conducted their own trials, maintained an armed force, and meted out their OTroi brand of punishment:
The vigilantes rounded up all persons even remotely suspected of being V/obblies and marched then, one night, to Sorrento. There the V/obblies v;ere made to kiss the American flag and sing the national anthem, vfhile hundreds of vigilantes stood about armed with revolvers, knives, clubs, black jacks, and black snake v;hips. Then they were marched to San Onofre and driven into a cattle pen and systematically slugged and beaten. After e. time they were taken out of the pen and beaten with clubs and whips as, one^at a time, they vrere made "to rim the gantlet."-'
In the summer of 1913. at the height of the I.V/.W.
campaign, a riot broke out at a labor camp in V/heatland,
California. According to a commission of inquiry which
investigated the cause of the riot, the camp's owner,
E. B. Durst, had advertised for one thousand more workers
than he had jobs for. This was a usual practice to keep
wages depressed. The destitute extra workers had to
-5-
743
remain idle for the entii'e season for lack of work elsewhere,
while the eighteen himdred workers who were given work vere
paid a maximvua of one dollar per day. The conditions at
the camp made for an explosive sittiation:
The caitip was in such a foul condition that some of the v;orkers, unable to take it any longer, left "before the end of the season, thereby for- feiting the ten percent of their wages IXu^st with- held when they signed on. Tents were rented to the workers at seventy-five cents a week. Many had no blejikets and others slept in the open fields. One group of fortj'-five men, vronen, and children slept huddled together on a single pile of straw. Dysentery v;as raapant. There were only nine outdoor toilets for t?ie 2,800 people, creating a stench that hung over the caiap like a pall. There v;as no garbage disposal, no organization for sanitation. Nor was- there enoxogh water, v/hich v;as a boon to Durst 's cousin, who had a lemonade concession, selling the juice to the v/orkers at five cents a glass. Local merchants vrere forbidden to send delivery wagons into the camps, so that the workers v/ould "buy their provisions from the company store. Many of the v/orkers who went into the fields were children, and there were n\jnerous instances of children from five to ten years old suffering from siclcness and prostration,^
During a mass protest against these conditions, the
sheriff, his several deputies, and a district attorney
arrived on the scene. One deputy shot his gun into the
air to quiet down the crowd, but instead triggered a riot.
Foxir persons v;ere killed. The National Guaxd was called
out and V/obblies all over California were arrested. The
Wheatland Riot attracted national attention to the V^obbly
movement and the plight of the farm v^orkers, but on the
local level, organizers still met with fierce animosity,
fear, and repression. After 1915, the Agriculttiral
-6-
744
Workers Organization of the I.V/.V. continued the membership and unionization drive, and by 1917 total Wobbly membership in the nation was reported to be over 70,000. Because the I.W.V/, organizers posed a continuing threat to the economic and political system, however, they had to cope with a rising tide of violence and intimidation. Their opposition to involvement in World War I led to Federal prosecution under the Espionage Act d\iring the war. Syndicalist laws passed during the war prohibiting certain types of organizing activity dealt a death blow to the Wobbly movement. .
THE DEPRESSION TO THE BEGIimiNG OF WORLD WAR II
During the war years, a general shortage of labor guaranteed relative calm on the farms. The elimination of the V/obblies meant little organizing after the war. The onset of the Depression of 1929 brought thousands of xinemployed workers from the cities to the farms. Job competition was bitter and collective bargaining efforts were non--existent for seversil years. If was not uncommon
for a 1929 wage level of fifty cents per hour to drop by
7
more than two-thirds by 1933. Moreover, the 1930's saw
the emigration of over 200,000 poverty-stricken farm
workers to California, encoxiraged by the promise of imne-
Q
diate employment. These masses were welcome to the growers as yet another means to dampen wages, but the
-7-
745
accessibility and receptivity of these masses to labor organizers eventually left the growers with little "to be enthusiastic about. The living conditions of these emi- grants left subsistence to be desired:
One investigator reported that he had foxmd a two-rooa cabin in v:hich forty-one people from southern Oklahoma vfere living; another described a one-room shack in which fifteen men, women, and children, "festering sores of htunanity," lived in "VLnimaginable filth." One ranch provided a single bathhouse and a single shov;er in connection with a block of houses capable of housing 400 people. Most of the boasted model camps maintained by the growers were found to be without baths, showers, or plumbing. In most districts, • the workers bathed and drank from irrigation ditches. Eighteen families were found living in Kingsburg, under a bridge. V/orkers in large numbers were foxmd living in shacks built of linoleum and cardboard cartons; in tents improvised of gunny sacks on canal banks with coffee cans serving for chimneys on their makeshift stoves. In some cases, bits of carpet or sacking had been tacked against a tree for shelter. Health and sanitary conditions were found to be equally appalling . ^
To compound matters for farm laborers, the ITew Deal legislation vrhich v^as passed between 1932 and 1933 (see Chapter 3) had virtually no direct or indirect effect on their miserable standard of living or bargaining position, whereas the status of their industrial counterparts was revolutionized. By mid-1933, the farm labor market across the nation was in an upheaval: a total of 56,800 farm workers had gone out on sixty-one strikes in seven- teen states by the end of the year. In California, the Communist-led Cannery and Agricultural Workers' Industrial
-8-
746
Union, formed in 1951» had spearheaded twenty-five strikes
involving 37,550 vforkers. Partial v;age increases vere won
1 2
in tvi'enty-onc of these twenty-five. As in the past,
the California gro^;/ers formed vigilaiite posses to combat, and in several cases kill, the strikers, C.A.W.I.U. offices in Sacramento were raided in J\ily 1954, and in April 1935, several of the Union leaders were imprisoned for violations of the Criminal Syndicalism Law, The Union formally dissolved.
The first modern farm lahor \mion emerged in 1939. The Filipino Agricviltural Laborers Association grevf out of a protest against a California asparagus grower's threat to cv.t the v;ages of his pickers. The Union was formed by the concerned workers themselves, rather than by labor organizers , as had been the case with the I.W.W, and the C.A.V/.I.U. The Union membership was helped initially by the Congress of Industrial Organizations
(CI.O.) and the American Federation of Labor (A,F, of L, )
1 ^5
and later obtained a charter from the A,F, of L. '^ Under •
a new name, the Federated Agricult\iral Laborers Association (FALA), the union won several strikes, union recognition, wage increases, improved conditions, and written contracts, PALA also saved several thousands of dollars for its members when it discovered several farmers illegally deducting workmen's compensation i»3Tiients from their wages, whereupon the authorities were alerted. The union was
-9-
747
unable to survive the competition of Mexican vrorkers
whom the grov/ors brought in during World War II, and therefore
collapsed. IronicaJ.ly, FALA had earlier helped Mexican
workers on strike by agreeing not to tal:e their places
in the field 8-nd break the strike.
DURING /jTD._AFTER_TEB WAJR
As had happened twenty-five years before, war broke out before prossure could be put on the grovrers to improve the lot of the majority of workers who were not able to communicate with their employers, much less bargain with them. V/orld V/ar II drained off much of the farm labor force into the vajr factories and military forces. Japanese- American workers were put into detention compounds until the end of tho war. Growers found themselves in desperate need of labor, for once, and had to turn to Congress for help. Congress agreed to enter into an informal agreement with Mexico on August 4, 1942, whereby Mexican workers (braceros) would be imported for the d\iration of a harvest and then be returned home. After the end of the war, American growers in the Southwest claimed (unjustifiedly) that there were still not enough American workers to handle the harvest, so the Federal Government allowed the Informal bracero program to continue.
In 1946, the American Federation of Labor granted a charter to the National Farm Labor Union, a successor to
-10-
748
the Southern Tcnpjit Farmers Union, v.-hose organizing efforts
in the deep South began in 1954 and met vrith violent oppositioi
and little success through its twelve-year history. The
first strike by the NFLU in California was conducted by
Local 218 against DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation in Kern County.
The strike involved vrorkers from Arvin, Lament and V.'eedpatch,
DiGiorgio v;as easily able to recruit bracero strikebreakers
and secvire an injunction against Union picketing, which
led to the fail\ire of the strike one and a half years later.
The Cotton Strike of 1949 vas successfxil, hov/ever. The
basic issue was the cutting back of wages to the 1948 level,
which was later rescinded. Subsequent strikes in the 1950'b
by various farm worker-oriented unions in California were
few and generally unsuccessful. Between 1954 and 1959r
one of the more active unions concerned with farm labor,
the United Packinghouse V/orkers of America, AFL-CIO
...conducted perhaps ten or tv;elve strikes in California. Virtually every one of UPV/A's strikes v?as broken by the vmrestricted use ^ . of braceros behind the union's picket lines.
The obvious advantages of the docile, cheap, alien
labor force which the bracero program supplied impelled
growers to lobby for the' program's continuation in spite
of its original intent of alleviating the war-time labor
shortage until the end of the war, Grov:er interests were
able to prevail upon Congress to extend the program year
'after year with only minor revisions. Althovigh many
grov;ers v;ere legally entitled to these Mexican workers
-11-
749
at low wages, they went a step ftirther said sotight to
poptxlate their fields with "wetbacks" (illegsJL Mexican
workers, so called because a common means of entry to
the U.S. was to swim the Rio Grande) who would work for
even less. Furthermore,
Braceros themseD.ves brought back teJ.es of vranton discrimination throughout California, and the Southwest. Too many growers had reneged on wage payments and trajisportation back to Mexico. . .illegal labor slipped across the border often vrith the connivance of the Border Patrol. Before the tide vras stemmed, as many as one million illegal laborers were caught ejid deported back to Ilexico in a given year. G-rowers said they did not knov; who ve,B legal and who v;as .. not. But there was scarcely a grower who did not knovr a labor contractor who vrould supply' illegal seasonal help. V/etbacks, because of their illegal status, co-old not complain if they vrero cheated. More than one grower v;ould inform the Border Service at the end of a season that there were illegaJls on his ranch, in the hope that Immediate deportation of the workers v.- ould save him the need of paying their vrages.^^
Because of these abuses of the bracero program, Mexico informed Washington in 1951 that if the program was to be continued, the informal arrangement would have to be formalized. Thus Congress passed Public Law 78 on July 12, 1951 » which provided that no braceros were employ- able in any areas where domestic laborers were available. Again the growers attempted to assxire for themselves the lowest possible wage level by circumventing this stipulation;
Domestic workers were told that a ranch was not hiring, when obviously there was work available, or they were offered one v/age by the Farm Placement Service and a lover wage by the grov;er when they arrived in the fields. In one to\n\, the Farm Placement Service advised asparagus cutters that
-12-
750
the black peat land was an irritant to fair-skinned people, V/orkers dependent on a single automobile to get to V7ork v;orc sent to different farms so- that those v/ithout a car were without transporta- tion and hence vrithout a job. Grov/ers neglected to give domestics notice of transfer to other fields, so that when they finally arrived on the job they fouiid that they had been replaced by braceros. So great vras the harassment, so slim the chances of employment, that thousands of domestic v;orkers simply stopped seeking farm work, leading grov/ers to contend even more vigorously that domestics would not do stoop labor.'"
The abuses of the bracero program led to such an influx of Mexican labor that Congressional press\ire finally began to build up in 19^4 to discontinue the program. The rationale heard was not so much that the nearly 300,000 braceros employed each year during harvests were depriving domestics of jobs (and hence were by and large imported illegally), but that almost §100,000,000 in gold was leaving the U.S. to pay for them (and hence the economy - was being adversely affected) . The growers fotxght to save P.L. 78, but this time their arguments did not carry much weight: domestics v:ould not do stoop labor; the braceros were therefore indispensible; without them, California and national agriculture would collapse; the braceros • families would starve without "foreign aid", etc. The bracero program v;as discontinued on December 31. 1964.
The lapsing of P.L. 78 immediately stabilized Cali- fornia's farm labor force, 80?^ of which was novr Mexican- American. Nine months after the termination of the bracero program, two fledgling California farm labor
-13-
751
organizations, the Agricultural Workers Organizing Comnittee and the National Farn V'orkers Association, joined forces into the United Farm V'orkers Organizing Committee and embarked on a united strike effort against the grape growers of Delano, California. That effort continues today.
-14-
36-513 O - 70 - pt. 3A - 14
752
CHAPTER 2: . ,
THE STATUS OF THE PARI>I WORKER TODAY
INCOr^
The hired farm worker (as distinguished from the farm worker who o\^ns his own farm) ranks lovrest in average annual income of all occupational groups. It has been said that "no other group of vrorkers labors so hard, produces as much, and
receives so little for its labor." The average annual
2
earnings for adult male farm workers in the nation are S1307.
3
Farm workers in California earn an average of 32024. Income
varies considerably according to race as well as state. In
1966, whites averaged 139 days of work at 39.45 per day,
earning S1322 per year, whereas non-whites averaged 134 days
at $6.25 per day, earning S838 in a year.^ Mexican-Americans
in California comprise QCffo of the work force there and earn
SI 380 per year. California Negroes averaged SI 437 and whites
e S2110 per year."^ 84?° of the nation's migratory workers have
incomes below the federal poverty level (S3100).
WAGES
The national average hoiirly wage for farm workers is SI. 33 as compared to an average of 31.62 in California.' These levels can be contrasted with industrial wage averages
-15-
753
of 32.83 per hour for iaanufact\iring and S4.09 for construction.® This gap betvfeen farm wages and industrial wages ig widening. In 1948, the average California farm worker earned 62^ of the average hoiirly wage of his coimterpart in manufacturing. In 1965, however, the figure had fallen to 46?5.^ The agricultural wage has failed to keep pace with productivity changes. Between 1951 and 1963, the average percentage rate of increase in agricuJLtiiral productivity was 3»QQ'f°, while hourly earnings rose 2.91^ or 2.10 per hour per year.
Wage averages do not really give a good idea of annual income because:
1 ) The migrant farm worker works an average of only
82 days per year.'^ (Full employment is considered to be approximately 250 days per year in farm v/ork.) The California farm worker averages 134 days per year.^*^
2) Transportation, room and board charges eire often deducted from wages, usually on a weekly basis. '^ The average weekly room and board charge is about S17.50.
3) V/orkers are .often at the mercy of labor contractors who sometimes cheat them out of their actual wages. ^^
4) It is a common practice for crew foremen to subtract rent for hand tools workers use in the fields. ^5
5) Enforcement of minimum wage lavrs, if applicable, is is often lax.
6) Sometiiaes pickers are forced for various reasons to , repack boxes at the end of the day without pay.
Average wages also do not convey the general economic hardships
which accompany farm v;ork.
The vast majority of farm v;orkers do not have contracts; they do not get overtime pay; too often they do not even know their rate of pay while they are working. Farm workers go to work not knowing how long the day will be or how many days of v7ork there will be in that v;eek. They are laid off in the middle of the week, for days
-16-
754
or vreeks at a tine with no notice and' no clear indication of when work will be available. Workers do not have health or pension plans; . there sire no holidays or vacations v^ith pay; in many instances they must provide their own tools and equipment; safety provisions are minimal; toilets and sanitary drinlcing v.'ater may or may not be provided; there are no regular rest periods. Speed-ups and abusive supervision are all too common. Farm workers can be fired at any time without explanation. "I"
THE FAR!-! LABOR FORCS
The total farm labor force has been decreasing over
time. In 1967, agriculture employed 3.8 million persons,
1 7 "but hired only 2.9 million for cash wages. Farm laborers
faJ-l into two categories: about 1.1 million v^orkers are
described as casual, i.e. employed less than twenty-five
1 8 days per year. 1.8 million are non-casual workers, i.e.
engaged in more than or exactly twenty-five days annually.
Three-fifths of hired farm workers do not do farm work as
1 9
a major activity. About forty percent of all farm
workers are non-white, mostly including Negroes and persons
20 of Latin American origin.
Workers tend to have a great many different employers
during a year. Only ten percent of farm workers have
permanent . employers , while twenty-five to thirty-three percent
21 have more than ten in a year. Of the 2.9 million persons
who during 1967 did farmwork for wages at any time, 276,000
,or 95^ left their home county to do such work. These migratory
workers were only a small proportion of the total farm wage
-17-
755
force in the U.S., but they reprecented a large proportion of the hired farmvrorkers employed on labor-intensive crops
in areas whei*e local labor vas not available in the quantity
22
demanded. Because of lov; wages and long periods of
unemployment, migrants generally do not remain permanently migratory.
HOUSING
A survey made in California in 1 963 indicated that
farm workers consider housing second to higher wages in
importance. This is not surprising considering the resxilts
of a study made by the Governor's Advisory Commission on
Housing in the sane year in California:
Fewer than twenty percent of the California farm worker families lived in dwellings v;hich coixld be considered adequate by present standards of health, safety and comfort. Sixty-three percent of the dv/elling vmits occupied by general field workers v/ere dilapidated or deteriorated. For thirty-three percent of the dv;elling luiits occupied, the only toilet facilities v;ere pit privies. Thirty percent of the dv:ellings had no bathing facilities, and tv/enty-five percent lacked even so basic a necessity as a kitchen sink v;ith running water. These conditions offer little evidence of improvement in the relative economic and social position of the agricultural worker in California. He remains among the most poorly paid, poorly fed, and poorly housed of California's citizens. 23
These conditions are not universal, however. Some employers
are unusually sensitive to their workers' needs. But most
.others, having paid more attention to their own interests
than their workers', have propagated the misery which is
experienced by the majority of California's and the nation's
workers .
-18-
756
EDUCATION
The farm worker ranks lowest in educational aitainiaent of all occupational groups. This of course seriously affects his ability to find non-farm work dvuring periods of \inemployment . The national median of years completed
in school by the average farm worker is 8.6. Over seventeen
25 percent of the farm labor force is functionally illiterate.
Among California and Texas vforkers of Latin American descent,
the median education is only 4.9 years.
Educating children of migrant farm workers is especially
problematic. Free public schooling is often jnot available
to these children. The average migrant usually will have
attended dozens of schools within a fev; years without
receiving a coordinated and effective education by the time
he leaves school. School and health records are usually
not collected in a systematic way. A few educational
programs have been established with the implementation of
the Migrant Branch of the Office of Economic Opportunity,
but adequate funds have been lacking. Day care and pre-school
programs have been stressed, but little has been done to set
up migrant schools, which may be the only answer to the
problem of migrant education.
HEALTH
The incidence of farm worker and especially migrant health problems is expect edly high. The life expectancy
-19--
757
for migrants is 49 years, as compared v/ith 70 years for
27
the national average. Death rates, as veil as nen-fatal
disease rates, as a percentage of national rates in 1967
are as follows :
infant mortality 125/"
maternal mortality^ 1 25/°
influenza and pneumonia 200/a
tuberculosis and other infectious diseases" 2605^
accidents^ 30a/o^®
a) More than 1 6 , 000 pregnant mothers vfere vrithout pre-natal care.29
. b) There vere approximately 5,000 untreated cases,
c) Fatal farm worker accidents account for 22^3 of all fatalities in all work accidents in the nation. ^^ . Agriculture employs less than T/o of the U.S. worker force .
In 1962, there were ahout 2700 reports of non-fatal oeeupational
disease coming from 230,000 farm employees. Dermatitis,
pesticide poisoning, food poisoning, and heat stroke v/ere
most frequently reported. From 1955 to 1962, a total of
29 cases of fatal occupational disease were reported, most
of which were attributable to heat stroke, pesticides, or
^1
tetanus.-'^ Occupational injury accounted for far more deaths
than this in 1962 alone, v/hen 76 persons were killed in
32
work-related accidents.
Employers have generally not abided closely with state health laws. In one report, it was noted that 1,869 violations
of state health laws were recorded in one year in California,
33
In one coimty, over 90?^ of the farmers committed violations.^-'
-20-
758
California agriculture experiences the highest occupational disease and accident rate of any industry in the state, and three times as high as the average of all national industries. Several reasons accoi-int for this. There are formidable hazards, both new and old, on the farm (the most dangerous of which is the use of pesticides). Control of these hazards is more difficult on the field than in the factory. Safety supervision is inadequate. Sanitary facilities are extremely lacking in both living and v^orking quarters.
PESTICIDES
According to a recent report, four hundred v^orkers and . three thousand children are poisoned each year by pesticides in the U.S. Well over half of these poisonings occur in California. Over a dozen cases of fatal poisoning are reported each year in CaJ.ifornia, and over 150 are recorded nationally. Newer pesticides (like parathion) are so potent that a few drops, entering the body orally or dermally, are lethal. Over 35,000 applications of pesticides, including one hundred tons of DDT, were made in the Delano, California area in 1968 alone. -^ Non-fatal cases generally involve such symptoms as impairment of vision, severe skin rashes and burns, acute nausea, respiratory problems, and dizzyness. Several thousand cases involve less serious symptoms. When 'water is available for use, it is often polluted v.'ith pesticides and fertilizers in farm areas. In Delano, much
-21-
759
"57
of the water is unsafe for a child under six years old.
Recent research indicates that some pesticides by "be
38 carcinogenic, moreover.
Regulation of the use of pesticides has been virtually non-existent. A billion-dollar per year pesticide industry, which, is concentrated in California and growing at a rate of about sixteen percent a year, has been able to block even minimum steps toward control. A recent proposal in the California State Legislature to ban DDT was killed, despite the endorsement of the California Farm Biireau. Public pressui'e is increasing, hovrever, especially in light of a recent statement by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare that the average American diet contains ten percent more DDT than the limits recommended by the V/orld Health Organization.-'^-^ At a recent Congressional hearing, testimony was given by an independent laboratory which indicated that grapes marketed in the Washington, D.C. area were foimd to contain one hvindred eighty times the level of Aldrin (another strong pesticide) considered safe for humans.
One University of California study has shown that several crops contain potentially dangerous levels of DDT. This has been denounced by the State Agricjjlture Director as "completely untrue and irresponsible. Fruits and vegetables are remarkably free of chemical residues,"^ It has also been revealed that chemicals containing arsenic have been
-22-
760
used as pesticides. Efforts to "ban the use of propanil, a weed killer, were successfvil, however, after prxme and almond grov;ers in CaJ-ifornia complained that other growers were damaging their crops "by careless spraying. Pesticide usage still remains a delicate subject to broach with growers. Self-regulation of grov;er use of dangerous chemicals is therefore not likely to occur.
-23-
I
761
CHAPTER 3:
FEDERAL AND STATE LABOR LEGISLATION
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
As Chapter 1 shows, the obstacles to long-term labor organizing have been prohibitive and have generally derived from farmer determination to maintain the status quo of worker exploitation. By the early 1930's, it was obvious that the Federal Government had to do something constructive to divert the tvirbulence and frustration of the labor move- ment in both the industrial and agricultural sectors. The major breaJcthroxigh came with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935. (A summary of major labor legislation appears in Appendix A, )
The NLRA established that an employer must sit dovm and bargain with elected representatives of his employees in order that they can participate in the decision-making which affects the conditions of their employment. The Act fxirther set up the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which is composed of five Presidentially-appointed members who are vested with the responsibility to administer the law. The NLRB conducts worker elections to determine con- sensus and investigates charges of xmfair labor practices. The law prohibits employers from interfering with union activity or discriminating against workers on the basis
-24-
762
of union membership. When the Taft-Hartley Amendments to the lUiRA were passed in 1947, tmions were forbidden to v^age secondary boycotts, refuse to collectively bargain in good faith, or engage in various kinds of coercion.
As the original bill v;as written in 1 955 , its provisions applied to all workers, farm and industrial alike. But when it came out of committee, it was revrritten to exclude all agricultural laborers. Explanations were vague: "admin- istrative reasons". . ."one mouthful at a time", . ."Farm work-
2
ers are not engaged in interstate commerce." But it appeared
that the farmers vrielded enough influence with President
•5
Roosevelt and Congress to stay the inclusion,-^ One writer
speculated that the law was passed at the expense of farm
labor: _^ . ;
The agrictilturists were willing to approve of the Act as lonig as farm labor was excluded. Thus a bill passed v/hich could not pa?^s the year before and probably not a year later. ^
In spite of the oft-heard pronouncements about both the necessity and inevitability of farm worker coverage, it has yet to be extended despite two amendments of the NLRA.
Without the protection of the NLRA, a farm labor iinion is virtusilly doomed at the outset. Growers can ignore the existence of the union and thv/art any worker- grower commiinication it attempts to establish. V/orker self-organization in most states is therefore at the 'stxinted level of frustration that prevailed during the 1930's. Only Hawaii, Kansas, and V/isconsin have state
-25-
763
labor relations bills which afford their farm labor ITLRA-
5
type collective bargaining rights. The low socio-economic
status of the farm worker today, his often migratory nattire, and his disadvantageous bargaining position all create a great dependence on social legislation which might provide some of the benefits which he cannot obtain xmilaterally. The follovring sections discuss the extent to which such legislation has been forthcoming.
OTHER LECtISLATIOU
In 1966, the Fair Labor Standards Act was amended by Public Law 89-601 to extend federal minimvim wage provisions to farm v/orkers. Only one percent of the nation's farms and 30^ of the farm labor force, hov;ever, are covered because of a stipulation that workers must be employed at a farm v;hich uses more than 500 man-days of labor dviring any calendar quarter of the preceding year, or about seven full-time employees. The Act further excludes piece-rate "workers (those whose wage depends on the quantity of a crop they are able to pick) and casual workers (those who work less than 25 days per year) . Workers who do qualify receive about 300 less per hotir than the minimum industrial wage, end they are exempt from the Act's over-time pro- vision of a 505^ v;age bontis beyond a forty-hour work week. ■Since most of the larger farms are in areas where the prevailing wage rate already matches or exceeds the minimiom
-26-
764
wage (SI.30 per hour in 1969)» the Act is presently not affecting many poorly paid workers. Indeed it is not uncommon to find smaller farms paying less than 500 per ho\ir near larger farms which pay as high as S1 .50. As more small farms are absorbed by the larger ones, the average wage scale can be expected to increase.
California's minimum vrage law covers only female and minor farm workers, who are supposed to be paid S1.65 per hour, the minim\am set by the State Industrial V/elfare
Commission. Male farm workers, even at harvest time,
7
usually receive only $1.40 or S1.50 per hour.' The Civil
Rights Act of 1965 requires that a person who performs the same job as another person must receive the same minimum vage regardless of sex. But this provision is seldomly enforced .
The Migrant Health Act v^as passed in 1962 as an amendment to the Public Health Service Act, Original author- ization was for S7 to S8 million per year in grants, but fvmding has fallen far short of this amount. Projects already completed provide medical diagnosis and treatment, immtmizations, family planning, pre-natal care, c\irative and preventative services, nursing services, sanitation programs, health education, and dental treatment. These services reach only about 25'fo of the total migrant worker .population because of the limited appropriations. Average per capita health care expenditure in 1967 was SI 2 in
Q
program benefits for a migrant population of one million.^
-27-
765
The Migrant Health Act has yet to reach 60^ of the counties in which migrants work or make their homes.
The Housing Act of 1965 authorized S50 million through 1969 for the construction of low-rent housing for farm workers, but again, fxmding has been belov^ the level origi- nally intended and not much impact on farm housing condi- tions has been made. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 allocated about S60 million in 1967 as a measixre to wage the "war on poverty" in the farm sector. The Office
of Economic Opportunity v^as able to set up day care,
12
housing, education and sanitation programs in 35 states.
The main beneficiary of the Act, hovrever, has been the impoverished small farmer. The Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act was designed to provide some insxirance coverage and better living conditions for the farm worker. It also regulated wage practices of the labor contractor, but because many labor contractors did not register with the State Employment Service as the Act required, the law was not uniformly enforced. The Social Security Act of 1935 also did not help farm workers very much. It specifically provided that workers must earn $150 with or work twenty days for one employer before they are eligible for benefits. It has been difficult for most workers, especially migrants, to obtain coverage. They have been unable therefore to provide for their old age or for their families in case of death or disability.
Farm workers are included in workmen's compensation
-28-
766
coverage in only fourteen states, including California. The rationale of the majority of states for exclusion has been that farm v;ork does not entail as much danger as industrial work which is characterized hy heavy and complex equipment and diversified activity. The fact is that the
accidental death rate in agriculture is only third after
13 those in the mining and construction industries. In
1964, farm work accounted for 22.5?^ of all worker fatalities but only Ifo of total employment, California has several farm worker protection lav/s, including disability insurance, farm labor camp regulation, and transportation laws, but enforcement is often not sufficient.
Aside from coverage in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, farm v^orkers are also bypassed by the unemployment insurance extended to industrial labor. The difficulty of uniform coverage for all farm workers is the unemployment inherent in a seasonal and migratory Industry like agriculture. Althoxigh access to foreign labor has been severely limited, there is still a general over-supply of all types of farm labor: casual, migratory, temporary and year-round. Most vrorkers seek work in non- agricultural occupations when they cannot be accomodated on the farm, but often have trouble because of restrictive tmion policies or their lack of skills. The logistics of any kind of legislative policy taking up the slack, however, are fairly formidable. Farm mechanization is rendering the farm labor situation more chaotic day by day.
-29-
767
Use and abuse of child labor has been a continuing problem on farns. In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed to set up wage and child labor standards for industries in v;hich goods v;ere produced for interstate commerce. More stringent standards \iere set up in 1949 by an amendment of the Act. Employers vrere not allowed to compete v;ith schools for children under sixteen years of age. Children who were fourteen or fifteen years old were allowed to work in Jobs only after school hours. All minors under eighteen years of age were protected against employment which endangered their health or safety. In spite of these provisions, it is estimated that at least
300,000 children yearly hold haivesting jobs which farmers
1 '^ fill in violation of the law. -^ i •
Growers have been knovm to arrange for "crop vacations"
from school which allow legal employment of child labor.
Their rationalization for such practice points to their
insensitivity :
We believe that the prohibition against employ- ment of migratory minors tvrelve or thirteen years . of age is a prohibition that woiild do more harm than good. V.'e do not share the view that employ- ment of young people is "exploitation" of their labor. Exposure to vrork at a comparatively early age is an important part of the educational process and the development of maturity. ^6
(Despite the grovrers' high regard for work experience at
such an early age, surprisingly few of their offspring
are f ovmd in the fields . )
Most violations of child labor lav/s go unnoticed.
-30-
36-513 O - 70 - pt. 3A - 16
768
rhe Department of Labor reported that only 5f487 children tinder sixteen years of age were found illegally employed
in 1966. The violations occurred on 1,725 of 2,880 farms
1 7
inspected, many of which were in California (which has
1 R its own child labor law).
Unfortxmately farm labor exemption from minimum wage
legislation probably encourages migrancy by attracting
needy families who want to find jobs for their children.
This interrelation betv^een the lack of one law and the
problems vath another is also observed in another situation.
Because most states' residence requirements abnegate voting
rights of migrants, such v^orkers are unable to affect the
decisions-making process and possibly expedite protection
from grov/er abuses of laws already on the books. Thus the
major problem with at least migrant workers is the disen-
franchisement they experience from the channels through
which they might be able to affect their lives.
-31-
769
CHAPTER 4:
A PORTRAIT OF AGRIBUSINESS
A PERSPSCTIVE OF NATIONAL AGRICULTURE
"Agribusiness" is the name coined to describe the
relatively few mammoth mass production fanns which stand
out above the more conventional \mits of the farming
industry. There are over 3,000,000 farms in the U.S.
today. Their niimbers are rapidly decreasing, hov.'ever,
as the larger farms are absorbing those which cannot
compete on their level of efficiency.
As late as 1910, one out of every three Americans lived on a family farm. Today the 11.5 million people living on the nation's farms represent less than 6 percent of the population. In the last eight years, 25 percent of America's small fanns have disappeared, but farm land has decreased only 4 percent.
As the number of farms has decreased, so has the number
of vrorkers. Since 1947, there has been a 60^ decrease in
the farm labor force as one to two himdred thousand workers
leave it each year.-' There are presently 2.9 million hired
farm workers, 1.8 million of whom are "regular" workers and
1.1 million of whom are migrant and seasonal workers. Half
of the nation's farms do not hire any outside labor at all,
.while 89?^ of total v^age expenditures for hired workers is
accounted for by only 29/^ of the farms which do.-' Only lOjJ
I
-32-
770
of the nation's farms accoimt for two-thirds of total produce sales.
A continuing disadvantage of the small farmer is his dependency on market conditions. It has become increasingly difficult for the smaller farms to remain independent and hold their ovm against the agribusinesses v;hich have spread themselves from the production level to the marketing level. The pov/er of production vrhich the large farms attain through economics of scale is enhanced by their ability to "vertically integrate" growing and processing, thus allowing control from the field to the store. Vertically integrated growers can fairly easily sustain losses on their farms since farming is only one area of their opera- tion. Moreover they can apply these losses to reduce taxa- tion on other income. The large farmer, unlike the small grov/er, also has the power to sell land, get easy credit at the bank, and generally use his influence to affect the decisions concerning his enterprise. It is the large farms which have generally benefited from government subsidies ($3.9 billion in iges*^).
Based upon these large payments it is obvious that the small family-type farmer is not the real beneficiary of otir present farm program. The government through these large payments is in reality subsidizing an expansion of the corporate-type of farming operation. 8
Hence it is not surprising to find that farms are increas-
g
JLngly being taken over by food processors.
-35-
771
CALIFOPJTIA AGRIBUSIIIES.S
California has a soaring agriciiltural industry with sales presently surpassing S4 billion annually. By the time California's more than tv;-o hvmdred conmercial crops are harvested, packaged, and transported, their market value exceeds S16 billion. Over 40?^ of the nation's fruit, vegetables and nuts are produced in California.
In fifteen crops, California groves more than 90?o of the
12 nation's total. California farms and related industries
/ 13
acco'unt for J>y/o of the state's employment. The Califor- nia farm labor force varies betv:een 126,000 and 246,000 depending on the time of year.
The 1964 Census of AgrictG-ture states that there are 81,000 farms in California, abo\it G(yfo (49,000) of which have no outside labor (and therefore are not involved in the union movement). These latter farms average about
fifty acres each in size, and comprise only 5/° of the total
1 S
farmland in California. '^ Not only is California agriculture
becoming an increasingly lucrative enterprise, but it is also becoming one which is increasingly concentrated in the bands of a few landholders. S'/o of the farms o^m 75?° of the
land. 5.250 of the farms pay 60.2^0 of the farm wages,
1 7 Vhlle i of 1% pay over 305^ of the wages.
The average farm income in California increased from
•$10,600 per family in 1959 to 315,000 in 1969. Average
feirm acreage Increased from 378 to 458 acres during the
-54-
I
772
1 R ■
same period. The national phenomenon of decreasing farm popxilation is obsei*ved as well in California:
Table 1^^
year number of farms
1954 123,000
1964 81,000
1968 65,000
The total amount of land under production has remained fairly constant, as figures for the grape industry show:
Table 2^^
year grape acreage nxunber of farms and vineyards
1945 469,561 ^26,193 (table, wine, and
. 1964 500,576 12,117 raisin grapes)
1964 106,303 . 3,355 (table grapes only)
THE GRAPE INDUSTRY
The California grape industry normally produces over $40,000,000 worth of produce annually. ^^ Approximately 340,000 tons of table grapes per year are grown and harvested,^' accoxmting for 95?^ of the national total. ^^ Control of production, like in other crops, has largely passed into the hands of incorporated family enterprises, large conglomerate- ■corporations, and non-fann interests. 95*0 of table grape farms produce 62?S of the harvest. ^^ Kern County, in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, is the heart of the table grape industry. The average farm gize in Kern County increased 549 acres betv/een 1959 and 1964.^^ The total crop value of Kern Covmty and nearby Fresno County is over
-55-
i
773
81 billion annually. Delano, a city about 130 miles
northeast of Los Angeles with a population of 14,000, is
the center of grape production in Kern Co\mty,
Although soE\e agricultviral industries are somewhat
mechanized, grape production remains predominantly labor
intensive. (Grape harvesters are available for about
320,000, but they cannot be used with table grapes.)
Grape-growing is almost a year-roijind process becatise of
the many separate and delicate operations involved: pruning,
spraying, trimming, girdling, etc.
Each year the vines must be nvirsed through several delicate hand operations beginning with the mid-winter pruning and continuing periodically through the late fall harvests. Each step is vital to the production of full, well-formed bunches of grapes which are sweet and bruise-resistant. 26 i
The work is more than hard:
The workers hvmch under the vines like ducks. There is no air, making the intense heat all but . tmbearable. Gnats and bugs swarm out from \inder the leaves. Some vrorkers wear face masks; others, handkerchiefs knotted arovuid their heads to 6atch the sweat. 27
The 1968 grape harvest in California involved a work
force of 66,000. Figures for the Kern Coianty labor
turnover from December 1967 to November 1968 are as foliov:s:
TABLE 3:^^
December 2
December 18-January 27 •February 24 March 30 May 13-June 1 July 13
200 workers 3200
400
0
3500
800
rhaarvest) (pruning) (prvining)
(thinning) (thinning)
-36-
774
Aio^st 7-September 2 September 21 November 25
6000 workers 1500 50
[harvest) hetrvest) (harvest )
Thus a small percentage of work is year-ro-und, while the majority of work involves seasonal migrant or local workers. The average Kern Coiinty farm v/orker sees only 119 days of
employment per year
30
Pull employment is considered to be 250 days,
THE GROWERS
Delano grape grov/ers were the initial target of the many strikes which were called in the area in 1965 and which continue today. The following list includes 17 out of the 58 growers which have been struck, including 12 other California growers:
31
TABLE 4
company
Kern Coun-ty Land Company (KCL)
Standard Oil
Southern Pacific Railroad
Tejon Ranch (Los Angeles Times)
Vista de Liana (Anderson Clayton)
Boston Ranch (J. G. Bo swell)
Russell G if fen
J. G. Boswell
South Lake Farms
Everest Salyer
Miller and Lvtx
Del Monte Properties
The f ollovring are in the Delano strike area
DiGiorgio
Giumarra
Bianco
V. B. Camp
Steele
Elmco
|
acreage |
1966 subsidy |
|
548,026 |
$652,057^ |
|
218,485 |
|
|
201,851 |
$121,096^ |
|
168,531 |
|
|
52,000 |
$622,840 |
|
37,555 |
$506,061 |
|
55,000 |
$2,397,073_ |
|
52,364 |
$2,807,633 |
|
30, 478 |
$1,468,696 |
|
25,220 |
81,014,860 |
|
25,313 |
$299,051 |
|
18,000 |
|
|
:e area: |
|
|
21 ,400 |
$56,100 |
|
12,459 |
$246,882 |
|
6,795 |
|
|
4,908 |
|
|
4,187 |
|
|
3,610 |
. |
-37-
I
775
Schenley 3,500
Caratan 3,000
Divicich 2,500
Pandol 2,283
Perelli-Minet-ti 2,100
Zaninovich 1 , 1 50
Mid-State 900
Dulcich 900
Bianco 800
Lucas 600
Pagliarulo 400
Radovich 400
a) subsidy was 8838,000 in 1968
b) subsidy was 3155,000 in 1968
c) subsidy was 34,091,818 in 1968, the largest subsidy in the nation that year
KCL, the largest "grower" in California, had a 1966 gross
revenue of approximately 3170,000,000, up about 520,000,000
32 from 1965. KCL is described as "engaged primarily in
oil and gas production, the manufacture of automotive
parts, and 'land use* including agriculture, cattle, and
33 real estate. "^-^
GIUI4ARRA; THE LABG3ST DELAITO aRQV.rgR
The Gitunarra family controls two corporations and a partnership, the combined value of v;hich is 525,000,000, Giumarra Vineyards Corporation is the largest of the three
enterprises and ov/ns the largest area of grape vineyards
34
in Delano and the nation. It also operates a v.'inery,
V/ith 812,000,000 in annual sales, the company employs 2,500 men at harvest time (about half the total harvest employment ■in Delano), and has an annxial payroll of 552,500,000. Gixomarra ranches are scattered throughout Tulare and Kern
-38-
776
Coimties. The company maintains the nation's second largest cold storage (after Ed Kerzoian's, another grovrer)*. Its tremendous volume allows it to underbid its competitors without losing much of its profit.
Gi\Jiaarra's quality grapes usually bring 500 to S1 more per lug (box) than most other growers, however. The company's biggest buyers include Safeway Stores, A&P Foods, Kroger Markets, Food Fair, Topco Associates, Pacific Fruit ejid Produce, Grand Union and National Tea, each customer buying close to 250 railway carloads per year. Each 250-car lot is vforth about $1,000,000. Most profits are invested in stocks to provide stable assets: Bank of America (3500 shares), the Temiessee Gas Transmission Company (1000 shares). Cutter Labs (100 shares), American Murietta, V'est
Coast Transmission, Exeter Oil, Windgate Manganese, and
35 Calzona Box Company. The last of these, when it fore- closes on one of its loans to a small farmer, allows Gixunarra to buy up the debtor's property at a low price. Several small farmers are directly in debt to Giumarra and in jeopardy of being similarly absorbed.
Giumarra Brothers Fruit Company loaned SI ,500 at 6 percent interest to a Watsonville straw- berry farmer upon condition that he market his strawberries through Giumarra. When he cotildn't make his payments, Giumarra success- fully sued for the <J1,500 plus 390 interest, S7,200 lost selling commission, and S2,750 in lawyers' fees. 37
-39-
777
IRHIGATIOII AlTD THE FEDERAL RECL-IMATION LAVf OF 1902
Development of the Delano area for grape -growing was begvin in the 1920's by Sicilian end Yugoslavian immigrants.'^ After several decades, serious depletion of underground v^ater which had been dravm up by irrigation wells had occurred and there vjas a question about whether the communal vfater table would support continued farming. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation had begun work in the J930's on the vast Central Valley Project. In 1951, it succeeded in bringing water to Delano from some one hundred miles away via the Friant- Kern Canal. The water table has since risen and the industry survived.
The Delano-Earlimont irrigation district, virtually a single giant vineyard, stretches north and east from Delano for 120 square miles. Of the district's 48,000 irrigated acres, 30,000 are planted with endless miles of six-foot high vines. An average of 140,183 acre-feet of water are delivered annually by the federal government, supplying the area with more than an adequate amount of irrigation. The estimated cost of supplying this water is S700 per acre, of which SI 23 is paid by the growers. The balance is paid almost entirely by tax-payers. Users of the Central Valley Project electric power also make a minimal contribution for irrigation costs.
The Federal Reclamation Law dictates that each land- owner is entitled to irrigation of no more than 160 acres
-40-
778
for each person in the grower's family. A proviso in the law allows a grower unlimited irrigation if he agrees in writing to make all land in excess of this acreage allowance available for sale at the end of ten years. Some of the large Delano growers made such agreements vrell over ten years ago, but the sale of their property has not been effected because of vreak enforcement of the law. Other growers received the benefit of unlimited irrigation but refused to sign any agreement. If excess irrigation is cut off from these grov/ers, they will now be able to tap the high water table at.lov; pumping cost. Present plans, however, are to expand the irrigation projects. The billion-dollar Federal-State V^estlands Water Project will soon be in full operation on the west side of the Saji Joaquin Valley.
-41-
779
CHAPTER 5: .
THE STRIKE AlTD BOYCOTT
DIFFICULTIES OF FARI'I LABOR ORGANIZATION
The plight of the California farm worker and tho poirer of his employer are the basic ingredients of the present struggle for agricultural union recognition. Since John Steinbeck's Depression era novel Grapes of Wrath, there has "been a general public concern about the conditions in the fields, but it seems that the social, economic, political and logistic problems of amelioration have proven too complex, Without helpful labor laws or generous social legialation, the average farm worker has little to look forvrard to beside a continuation of his abject existence.
Labor organizers have been continually rebuffed by grower recalcitrance. They are hampered by the natiire of farm work itself. The seasonality of the work load and the migratory nature of the work force have not been condu- cive to any long-term employer-employee relationship. Hence getting leverage against the grovrers has been a battle against the hesitance of workers to unite on a common front and possibly risk their jobs. Braceros have .been ready and willing replacements at the grovrers' behest.
Other factors have proven problematic. Growers are usually one step removed from the labor supply market,
-42-
780
I
since most have labor contractors who hire and lease workers
to them. Migrant farm labor is usually housed on ov.Tier
property. Consequently, organizers have to trespass to
gain access to the camps because grower permission is unlikely.
There has also been a lack of trust by Mexican-American
workers tovraxd v/hite labor organizers. The big xinions had
often discriminated against Mexican-Americans, and they
were suspected of trying to fill their ranks only to collect
the farm worker's dues to help the industrial union. Farm
labor, in contrast to industrial labor, had indeed been
the compromised beneficiary of many state and federal laws.
A lasting farm labor movement in California was therefore
bovmd to evolve only under indigenous leadership. AFL-CIO
dedication to this end was voiced at a convention in 1961
when affiliated xinions were officially called upon
to support the organizational xmdertaking financially, by publicity in their nev;spapers and magazines, by cooperation in the legislative effort on behalf of the hired farm workers, and by direct coordination with the actual organiza- tion effort. 1
INITIAL ORGAITIZING
In 1959 the AFL-CIO formed the Agric\iltural Uorkers Organizing Committee (AV/OC). Offices v^ere set up in Stock- ton and several thousand members vrere soon enrolled. AWOC .led severeil important strikes, one dviring the lettuce harvest in 1961. This strike did not succeed, however, for the same reason previous strikes in California v;ere
-43-
I
781
tinsuccessful:
For nearly two months the Agricultviral Workers Organizing Committee, the United Packinghouse Workers of Anerica, and the Government of Mexico insisted that the Department of Lahor enforce the lav;, and remove braceros from the struck area. It did not do so. The lettuce harvest was completed by braceros and the strike was "broken, 2
The strikes that were staged and the threats of strikes
that were made exacted moderate wage increases in many areas
of California over the next fev; years. By the end of 1961,
farm wages in California rose about 25/^ from their mid-1958 levels. The nvmber of Mexican . Nationals employed in the state dropped as higher wages attracted more domestic workers. Public pressure generated by the campaign helped to extend disability insxirance to agricultiire in California. 5
Efforts to v/in a \inion contract with growers did not meet
with the sane success. Hatred of xinions was so great among
growers that one near Stockton let his cherry crop rot at
a loss of several hundreds of thousands of dollars rather
than negotiate with the striking AWOC.^
Membership in AWOC was mostly Filipino-American. The
Mexican-American popxilation remained rather indifferent
to the union and had reason to be disenchanted. Instead
of working directly with the farm workers, AV/OC tried to
organize labor by approaching the labor contractors (who
act as the growers' middlemen and representatives). Not
having faith in the contractors, the Mexican-Americans
could not have much faith in the union. Subsequently, the
AFL-CIO withdrew most of its support (which had amoxmted
-44-
I
782
• to over 5500,000 by J\me 1963) and AV/OC was considerably weakened.
y<- In 1962 Cesar Chavez, the director of the Mexican- American ComauJiity Organization (CSO) and a former grape picker himself, organized the predominantly Spanish-speaking National Farm Workers Association (NFV/A) in Delano, Cali- fornia. The NPvfA rapidly established offices around the southern San Joaquin Valley and adjacent areas. Retaining some of the intents of the CSO, Cesar Chavez designed within the NFi/A a credit imion (the first one ever established for farm workers in the U.S.), a biv;eekly newspaper (El Malcriado — The Misfit), a death benefit insurance plan, a cooperative store and garage, and later a health clinic. Seventeen hundred families, about half of them from the Delano area, were enlisted within three years. Monthly dues were S5.50 per month per family. Mexican-American political awareness and a new civil rights movement — La Causa — were beginning to grow.
PUBLIC lAV/ 414
The decision by Congress not to renew the bracero program in I964 was a great boon to California's tvro new farm unions. The usual grower practice of tmdermining strikes by importing "scab" labor was novr conceivably •undermined itself. But employers immediately began to hunt for a loophole to renevr access to Mexican nationals,
-45-
783
and they foxond it in the McCarran-V/alter Immigration and Nationality Act (Public Law 414). The Act established tvfo criteria which had to be met before importation was allov^ed: 1 ) no labor dispute could exist between the grovfer v/ho needed additional workers and his employees, and 2) a so-called "adverse effect" wage (varying according to state) had to be offered to domestic workers as proof of an attempt to attract them.
If it appeared that a domestic labor shortage existed, according to P.L. 414 the Secretary of Labor would so certify and then allov: importation of foreign vrorkers into the shortage area. Upon entry into the U.S., aliens were given green cards (they are no\i blue) which declared their status as immigrants who were to establish permanent residence and citizenship in the U.S. These "green-carders", hov;ever, have systematically returned to live in Mexico to take advantage of the lower cost of living and to support their families v^ho remained there.
Many growers supposedly shov:ed good faith by offering the "prevailing" wage rate to domestics before hiring braceros, whereas that rate vras really an artificially depressed one because of previous, \m justly low wage levels set by growers to discourage domestic labor from working. Moreover, the California state government in •many cases woxild either decertify labor disputes at struck —ranches or refuse to recognize that there were any, thereby
-46-
36-513 O - 70 - pt. 3A - 15
784
allowing growers to import cheaper labor. The gradual increase in employment of braceros indicated that the Department of Justice, the Department of Immigration, the Depai'tment of lahor, and the Border Patrol were all remiss in enforcing importation regulations and guarding the rights of the domestic workers.
THE STRIKES BEGIN
In May 1965f the adverse effect v/age in California vas SI ,40 per hour and many growers, intent on keeping the •'new" bracero program going, paid this wage to both the domestics and the braceros they hired without a loss in retail profits. Grov;ers in the Coachella Valley, hov;ever, 250 miles southeast of Delano near the Mexican border,' were paying brazenly discrininatoiy wages of S1.10 an hour to Mexican-American grape pickers, SI. 25 an hour to Filipino- Americans, and $1.40 an hour to braceros. In addition, 150 per lug vras paid as incentive. AWOG called a strike in May at three large vineyards after efforts to contact the grovrers were futile. One thousand workers left their Jobs. The union won the crew foremen and labor contractors over to its side, who in tttm won the workers over to the union position. After ten days, the growers agreed to pay a , uniform wage of SI .40 an hour and raise piece work incentive \ from 150 to 250 a lug, but they refused to sign any contracts,
In the same month, the Tulare County Housing Authority
-47-
785
decided to raise the rents in two public housing projects — Linnell and V/oodville Labor Camps — from SI 8 to S25 'per month. The projects, located just outside Delano, were built as temporary housing in 1937, and consist of one-room metal shacks with no v;indows or rxinning v;ater. They measure eight by fourteen feet and are described as ovens in the
7
summer and refrigerators in the winter. Each hut commonly houses a man, a wife, and up to four children, A rent strike and picketing v:ere organized by the NFJA. In mid-summer, the Housing Authority agreed to "compromise" at a ne\r rent of 822 per month, and agreed to make a few housing improve- ments .
When the grape harvest in Delano began in August 1S65, some of the same growers who agreed to pay S1,40 an hour plus incentive in the Coachella Valley were paying only S1,20 an hoiir plus 100 a lug on the average for the same vrork in the Delano area. Again the bracer os in Delano were paid $1 ,40 an hoxir, as were most domestic workers in other parts of California. On September 8, after growers were completely unresponsive to AV/OC's demands for a wage increase, the chief AV/OC organizer in Delano, Larry Itliong, called strikes on thirty-fotir ranches which affected about 1500 workers. The demands escalated to include improvement of working conditions and a \inion contract. Eight days later, on •Mexican Independence Day, 1100 NRiA workers met to decide whether to participate in the strike, which by that time had removed about 1300 Filipino-Americans from the fields.
-48-
786
Cesar Chavez addressed the congregation:
A hundred end fifty- five years ago, in the state of Guanajoto in Mexico, a padre proclaimed the struggle for liberty. He v;as killed, but ten years later Mexico won its independence. V/e I'Iexic3-ns here in the United States, as v/ell as all other fara v/orkers, are engaged in another struggle for the freedom and dignity vhich ' poverty denies us. But it must not be a violent struggle, even if violence is used against us. Violence cexi only hurt us and our cause. The law is for us as well as the ranchers. The strike vas begun by the Filipinos, but it is not exclusively for them. Tonight ve must decide if we are to join our fellovr v/orkers.^
The vote to strike was xinanimous. Support from the clergy and civil rights groups was welcomed to strengthen the strike and turn it into a vmique movement. The strike split the to-^vm and united tvfo ethnic groups which had often ^een antagonistic to each other. "Viva la huelga!" (Long live the strike!) was heard in the streets as was "Communists ! " ,
Cesar Chavez only reluctantly decided to join the strike. He thought his union was not up to the task, especially with only S100 in the strike fund and the possibility of having to feed up to 1500 persons each day. The imions soon received support from the Industrial Union Department, AFL-C 10,. which contributed S2000, and from the "United Automobile Workers (UAV), which pledged S5000 per mQnth for the strike fvmd. A few other large donations were received, but the strike was primarily sustained •dviring the early months by individual contributions v/hich averaged S5.56.
-49-
I
787
The initial tactic of the strikers vras a sit-in v;ith no picketing. But when growers were able to obtain some strikebreakers, organized crews of pickets were set up. Some traveled out of Delano as far as Texas to describe the situation, solicit support, and keep potential strike- breakers away. They were quite effective. Another tactic was picketing the homos of "scab herders", contractors who recruited the strikebreakers. Picket lines set up at packing houses and cold storage plants were honored by truck drivers and railroad workers to the extent their contracts allowed. Their unions vrere not able to officially sanction the secondary boycotts, but many drivers and engineers chose to honor the lines on their ovm. They would stop their trucks or railvray cars at the lines, thus forcing supervisors to finish driving them to the loading ramps and then back to the lines again. In mid-lTovembar, the InternationaJ. Longshoremen's and V^arehousemen's Union (ILWU) refused to load Delano grapes at the shipping docks in San Francisco. A resolution was passed at an APL-CIO
convention in December condemning the "arrogance, greed,
12
and inhumanity" of the grape growers.
The growers had responded to the strike with a severely trying campaign of harassment: pickets were sprayed with insecticide or choked with dust intentionally stirred up •by trucks and tractors, picket signs were riddled with bullets, workers were frequently roughed up by growers' "private police", and harsh injunctions limiting free speech
-50-
788
15
and assembly were delivered by the Delano courts. Elec- tricity, gas and vater vere often turned off in worker camps to force strikers "back into the fields. Many v/orkers were evicted, some of whom had lived in the barracks for close to thirty years. Their belongings were throvna out onto the ground and the buildings were nailed and padlocked. The history of the casual breaking of strikes by determined growers seems to have given them an impetus to keep doing so to save face.
Gradually, some of the strikers did rettirn to the fields because of the stringency of their sacrifice:
The average farm worker in Delano has seven children, lives in a house which he rents for $55 a month, makes payments on a car, ftirnitxire, and to a finance company. Before the strike, he worked eight months of the year at S 1.10 an hoxir, and his v:ife worked four months beside him. On v;eekends and in the summer, his children worked too. The average farm worker bu^ys food at the same stores at the same prices as the rancher does. So nov/ these average workers are strikers; they've been willing to lose their cars, furni- ture, to live on beans and more beans, to work "on the line" seventy hours a week for the right to a living wage.H
The total number of strikers, however, remained larger than the number of "non-scab" woi*kers in the fields.
THE BOYCOTT BEGINS
Public Law 414 together with occasional "wetbacks" .supplied the growers with an ample nvimber of strikebreakers to significantly weaken the impact of the strike. Estimates
-51-
789
of the nvimber of strikers ranged from several hundred to five thousand v^orkers, but it seems that about thrfee thousand is most likely. The strike was nevertheless not a sufficient long-range v;eapon. The NFWA realized this and began to plan a nation-wide consumer boycott effort. Cesar Chavez decided in early December 1965 to aim the boycott at the two biggest grape ranches in Delano at that time: DiGiorgio Corporation (4400 acres) and Schenley Industries, Inc. (3350 acres). Both were absentee landlords with minimal interests in farming compared to their aggregate holdings. Only a fraction of DiGiorgio 's 3232,000,000 and Schenley 's $500,000,000 annual sales accrued from farming. Both companies had agricultviral operations which were only marginally profitable. They were therefore especially suited to a boycott since neither was likely to jeopardize the majority of its non-grape sales just to maintain its rather meagre table grape profits.
Most of DiGiorgio 's investment was in the processing and marketing of canned goods (S&W brand). Schenley' s chief retail products vrere wine and distilled spirits, which were easier to boycott than table grapes. For this reason, the boycott was directed more tovrard Schenley* s products than at DiGiorgio 's grapes. ^ It was also tho\ight .that men, who usually buy liquors, would be more sympathetic to labor than v^omen, who do most of the household shopping.
-52-
790
The "boycott plans got a boost vhen V/alter Reuther of the UAV? declared that his union "will put the f\ill- support of OTQaxilzed labor behind yovcc boycott and this is a pov;er- ful economic v:eapon." Unfortunately the economic effects of the boycott were negligible. But the adverse publicity of several million leaflets distributed nation-wide did have an effect on the decisionmakers at both boycotted companies according to ITFWA informants stationed in both, Cesar Chavez thereupon set about to publicize the boycott even more dramatically by staging a. march by both unions in March 1966 to Sacramento, California's capital three hTJndred miles north. The twenty-five-day march, culminating in an assemblage of eight thousand persons in Sacramento, also culminated in Schenley's offer on April 6 to negotiate. Public pressure, the refusal of Teamsters to cross WF\IA picket lines outside a company warehouse, and a false rumor of a bartenders ' strike in support of the tinions finally swayed the Schenley management. A contract was signed on December 21 and provided for a mifiimujn wage of S1 ,75 an
hoiir and 250 per Ixig, various fringe benefits, a \inion
17
shop, and a hiring hall.
Gaining recognition from DiGiorgio, a far more estab- lished and pov^erful grovrer than Schenley, was more difficult despite a stepped-up boycott effort. The company's public relations man issued the following statement:
DiGiorgio is not opposed to tmionization under conditions v;hich assTxre the rights of both parties. Our analysis of the current Delsjio disturbance, however, has convinced us that
-53-
791
those who have requested meetings v.'ith us do not represent our employees. Chir employees have so informed us. ^8
When the unfavorable publicity built up to an unanticipated level though, DiGiorgio finally indicated that it was v;ill- ing to hold an election at its Sierz^a Vista ranch in Delano to determine v;orker sentiment about union representation. While DiGiorgio, the NF'JA and AV/OC were attempting to nego- tiate the ground rules of the election amid charge and coimtercharge , the Teamsters Union entered the picttire. Union politics and the threatening prospect of potentially unfriendly tmions representing the farm workers were the main motivations for Teamster interest. Teamster cannery and packingshed workers, as well as truck drivers, cotild be thrown out of work if a farm strike vrere called, Delano growers, having reluctantly accepted unionisation as some- what inevitable, welcomed the Teamsters as &. so\irce of revenge on the hated unions, DiGiorgio openly allowed the Teamsters to use its foremen and supervisdry petsohhel to proselytize the farm workers, many of whoti v;ere threatened if they did not show the proper allegiance. To strengthen their unity jeopardized by the arrival of the Teaniters, the NF\fA and AV/OC then decided to merge, under the direction of Cesar Chavez, into the United Farm Workers Oi*ganizing Committee, which was able to obtain a charter from the APD- CIO. Larry Itlioilg became assistant director.
When DiGiorgio on Jime 21 called for an election to be held within two days, catching the unions by surprise,
-54-
792
It was determined that the election sho\ild be "boycotted. Of the 732 eligible to vote, 347 did not vote, 281 -voted for the Teamsters, and 3 specified they sinply desired union representation, A government-appointed referee disal- lowed the results.
The situation in Delaho having reached the boiling point, on June 28 California Governor Pat Bro-ivn appojjited the American Arbitration Association to look into the problem of representation. On Jvily 13 a new election was aimo\mced for August 30 at Sierra Vista, and all parties agreed to participate in it. On July 17» when DiGiorgio laid off 190 workers, including tvrenty Ur\v'OC organizers » at Sierra Vista, the situation became very abrasive. Al- though, under the terms of the election, any person who had worked for DiGiorgio for fifteen dayd dviring the pre- vious year was eligible to vote, it Was not expected that most workers who were dismissed sufficiently prior to the election, as July 17 was, wo\xld forfeit their opportunity to find other work, or to leave any new jobs they might have found. As it turned out, 513 former workers did come to Delano , including some braceros. One caine two thousand miles on his ovm money just for the election; another made a trip only to find he was not eligible. The UFWOC won the election (which was supervised by the American ^bitration Association) with 530 votes to the Teamsters' 331, Three hundred ballots v;ere challenged and uncoimted,
-55-
793
and nineteen expressed the desire for no \mion. In a separate vote for shed workers, the Teamsters won the right of representation 94 to 43.
THE imiOIT CONTRACT
Negotiations with DiGiorgio resulted in similar "benefits to those won from Schenley, and according to the president of DiG-iorgio, they established "precedents
for collective "bargaining agreements in California and
1 9 other agric\iltural states," ^ The ITFV/OC won a minimum
wage of S1 ,65 an hour to be scaled. up each ye'ar, a
"guaranteed payment for a maximum of four hours for
"reporting and standby" (many growers hire workers who
find themselves still without work at mid-day and without
compensation for waiting since early morning), provisions
for holidays and leaves of absence, a week's paid vacation
for workers employed at least 1600 hours per year, and a
two weeks' vacation for those who have been with the company
for at least three years. The DiGiorgio contract, vrhich
includes two other ranches in addition to Sierra Vista, also
provides for a tuiion shop and a hiring hall. Strikes,
boycotts and lockouts are prohibited, with binding arbitration
required in case they do occur. The contract covers about
three thousand field workers , irrigators , tractor drivers ,
'shed and maintenance workers, and pipeline repairmen. There
is a four-step grievance procedtire and a formulation for
-56-
I
794
employment and promotion by seniority. Discrimination
on the basis of race, creed, color, religion or national
20
origin in hiring, wages and housing is forbidden.
A jointly administered fund to which DiGiorgio contrib- tributed S25,000 was set up for medical, dental, welfare, and pension benefits. The company additionally agreed to pay 50 psr hour for the total number of hours employees worked to continuously augment the fund. The contract is in force tmtil 1970 when stipulated reopeners on benefits including v:ages can be renegotiated. Hence the contract, like that v^ith Schenley, strikingly resembles those obtained by industrial unions, and even includes a provision for arbitration on openers in case of dispute which industrial contracts seldom contain.
The shed v;orkers who voted for Teamster representation were included \mder somewhat similar contractual arrangements between DiGiorgio and the much smaller Teamster Farm Workers Union (TFV/U). Early in October of 1966 Perelli- Minetti, one of the biggest Delano growers, signed a contract with the TP^ra. The UPV/OC announced that it did not recog- nize the agreement and began picketing Perelli-Minetti vineyards, thus bringing about considerable UFV/OC-TFV/U conflict. The continxiing battle between the AFL-CIO and Teamster upper echelons only prolonged the Delano competi- tion until a compromise was worked out in July 1967. The UF\"/OC received jurisdiction over the field workers, TFVHJ over workers in the canneries, creameries, frozen- food and
-57-
795
dehydrating plants, and warehouses. Teamster opposition has since "been negligible.
The imion movement also began to make headway with grape-growing wineries. During the Perelli-I'Iinetti dispute, E.&J. Gallo V/inery (the world's largest), Paul Masson Vineyards, Mont La Salle Vineyards (Christian Brothers Vinery) , and the Novitiate Vfinery of Los Gatos voluntarily recognized the \xnion and agreed to hold representation elections for their field and processing workers. Contracts very similar to that signed by DiGiorgio were secured. Thus the farm labor xmion effort had made a far greater indenta- tion on grower intransigence than had been conceived as possible in the early 1960's:
■Unionization of the agriciiltural work force seems, in view of past attempts, almost as hopeless as autonomous correction. To date, there has been virtually no lasting or signif- icant organization of agricultviral field vrorkers in the United States. For tmionization, the future appears as dismal as the past . 21
-58-
796
CHAPTER 6:
CONTINUATION OF UPWOC EFFORTS /
A CHANGE OF SCOPE . .
The goal of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee has evolved beyond the representation of a majority of Delano farm woi'kers at a handfiQ. of ranches to the complete democ- ratization of grov;er-worker relations every^ihere in Califor- nia and the nation. It has become increasingly obvious to the many persons who have Joined La Causa that the focus of the movement had to be redirected to bring about sweeping changes on the national level in order to bring about any profound changes on a local level. Some public cognizance of the deprived conditions of the farm worker was engendered by the UF\'/OC's previous tactics, but it appeared that most pressing of all now was 1 ) informing an \mav;are public and its legislative representatives that farm labor needs usefvil labor legislation to effectively better its lot, and 2) ex- horting the public on a massive scale to pressiire grape growers by not buying their product. It has been hoped that public support of the latter objective and the success of the former wovild sufficiently influence Congressional pleaders and elicit the necessary legislation. If this were the result, national agric\ilttire would be greatly affected by the end result of the commotion in Delano agriculture.
-59-
797
THE BOYCOTT AITO PUBLIC REACTION
In May 1967, with six contracts von, the UPWOC began an organizing campaign among the workers of Giimarra Vine- yards Coi'poration. In Jtme, the UF\'/OC gent a registered letter to Giixaarra requesting a representation election, but it received no response. It then contacted the Cali- fornia State Conciliation Service and several other inde- pendent parties, asking that they arrange a meeting, but the company remained adamant about not having any contact with the \anion. On August 3, after two months of these efforts, 950 of Giumai'ra's 1000 employees walked out on strike. The grape fields were nearly emptied and the packing shed was virtually shut do'.m. As expected from precedent, the company began recruiting green-carders and wetbacks as strikebreakers and obtained an injunction against union picket line activity. The UFV/OC thereupon began promoting a boycott against Giumarra table grapes.
Shortly after the boycott commenced, other growers loaned their own labels to paste over Gitimarra's to reader his grapes unidentifiable. By November, Giumarra was shipping grapes in the U.S. and Canada under sixty-five
different labels, and by December the number had increaeed
2
to over one hundred. The Food and Drug Administration
was alerted to this fraudulent practice, but by the time an investigation was completed and a warning issued, Giumarra had already labeled and packed most of the harvest'!
-60-
798
grapes .
In January 1968, after the UFv/OC had sent telegrams %o all table grape growers in CaJLifornia requesting discus- sion about recognition procedui*es and received no response froin any pf them, a decision was made to expand the boycott- "to sll California grapes except DiGiorgio's. The decision vas prompted by the resistance pf the grape industry to th© union and the impossibility of boycotting Just Giumarra's grapes. Over thirty farm workers set out for fifteen major U.S. and Canadian cities tc prganize Ipcal boycott offices. Within pne year, boycott support activities were ^eing carried on in over twp hundred American and fcreign cities, including Tckyp, Mexicp City, and several in Western Europe an4 Ca?3fada,^ It was pointed out that vrines, jellies,
y§Lis|jis and i^he Hir-Color label of DiGiorgio grapes were
5
pot being boycotted. Some supermarkets began substituting
highier-priced grapes imported from Africa, Israel or Sgutjiei'n E\irope.
^S support fpr the boycott grew, so did the resent- ment against it. Most growers denovmced the boycctt as
7
"immoral and illegal". California Governor Reagan called
it "ill-advised" and an attempt to compel farm workers to
o
join a union against their wishes, Richard Nixon stated that the boycott was illegal, ptvblicly ate grapes, and said, "We have laws on the books to protect workers who wish to organize. We have a National Labor Relations Board to impartially supervise the election of collective bargaining
-61-
799
agents and to safeguard the rights of the organizers." The APL-CIO Executive Council responded to this, saying that "...ve are surprised at Var. Nixon's ignorance of the law, particularly since he boasts that he was one of the authors of Taft-Hartley. .. (Instead of being) on the side of the poor and doimtrodden, Nixon is automatically with the big financial interests,"
Senate restaxirants in Washington chose to continue serving grapes, while the House restaurants stopped doing BO, Some growers began sending letters. to chain stores
indicating that the labor disputes in California had been
12
settled. Many persons felt that more was at issue than
just the welfare of the grape workers:
If such blackmail tactics of the UFWOC are successful and the boycott of California grapes in eastern markets forces compulsory unionization of grape - workers, producers of all farm products in all states wovild be affected adversely. Other boycotts coxild be expected for other perishable, vulnerable, specialty crops. -^
The consttmer boycott has been accused of violating the
secondary boycott restrictions of the Taft-Hartley Act, It
is actually a "primary" or "product" boycott, hov/ever, which
is legal xander the Act. A secondary boycott woxild not be
a crime in any case, but only an "vinfair labor practice".
Since the farm \mions do not come Tonder the Jurisdiction
of the Act at present, even a secondary boycott by the UFV/OC
would be legal. If a non-farm •union, however, refuses to
deliver grapes or supply grocery carts to a store which
sells grapes, it wouJLd be engaging in a secondary boycott.
I
-62-
36-513 O - 70 - pt. 3A - 17
800
In spite of the "boycott's legality, organizers have carefully avoided violation of the secondary "boycott laws by -confining picketing to supermarkets which continue to sell grapes and by assxiring their activity does not impede the normal flow of customers,
RESULTS 07 TKS BOYCOTT
The immediate objective of the grape boycott effort has been the reduction of table grape sales to put economic pressure on the grape growers. The success of the consumer boycott is therefore measured by the extent to which a decline in the sale of grapes and a concomitant decline in their price affect individual grower profits. It is expected that a" sharp decline in grape sales will bring about a decline in grape prices. If grape grov;ers send more grapes to distributors than there is a demand for, a lower wholessile price will prevail because distributors would fear a surplus stock. A lower wholesale price to stores will mean a lower retail price to consumers. If growers decide not to harvest as many grapes, they will lose the unpicked grapes to spoilage. Consvmers heeding the request to boycott will probably not buy grapes at any price, so even if a smaller shipment of grapes can demand the original higher prices, the total revenue to 'growers will be low because the sales are not as strong. To evaluate the results of the boycott then, many
-63-
801
factors can be considered: the extent of decision and exhortation by public fig\ires and institutions to join the boycott, decline in shipments, prices, and sales, anoirnt of storage, total economic damage to grovrers, secondary boycotts related to the primary boycott, and the extent of grower concern and retaliation. Data on these criteria are not very complete, accurate or consistent. The follovfing compilation of reports shovrs the extent of correlation in the data and shoxild give a general idea of the important trends since the beginning of the boycott:
Eleven major city mayors have urged the people of their respective cities to refrain from piir chasing grapes from California until fxirther notice.'^
In Cleveland, over three hundred stores have agreed to display signs over their grape counters reading: "Please don't buy California table grapes. Help the California grape V7orkers better their living conditions," In rettim, boycott personnel have agreed not to leaflet or picket outside the stores.'-'
The Canadian Labor Congress pledged to withliold patronage from California grapes. "I"
In most cities, the local food trade unions have cooperated by bringing pressure to bear on food chains and other distributors and retail stores to stop handling California grapes. 17
U.S. Department of Agricultvire reports indicate a slowdo-i-m in transporting, wholesaling, and distributing of grapes. Prices are lower than in previous years and the number of sales on consignment has increased. ^ 8
After six weeks of the 1969-70 table grape harvest, ship- ments to thirty-six major cities in the U.S. are down 20% from the 1968-9 shipments. 19
'Sales in the nation's twenty largest metropolitan areas -Jiave declined an average of 15?^ below the 1967 level, although this year's crop is ^3fo larger. 20
-64-
802
UF\'/OC statistics show that shipments of California tahle grapes for Novemher 1 968 were 1 2% lov^er than the 1 960-66 average. For the three weeks before Christmas, total shipments to forty-one major cities v^ere dovm 19?o from a comparable period in 1966. (1967 was a bad season, so .1966 was used as a standard of comparison, ) 21
New York City shipments declined 58?J below fibres for 1967' Boston and Bsiltimore shipments were do\-m 48^.22
In Hew York City, a grape industry spokesman admitted that sales were do^m sharply. It was annoimced that the Nevr York City administration would no longer buy California grapes for its hospitals, prisons, and city institutions. It usually buys about fifteen tons per year. 25
Receipts in New York City for harvest grape sales for June 10 to July 15, 1968 plummeted. The city normally consumes about 20;o of the total California grape crop. 24
The Detroit city administration announced it would not buy California grapes "as a tangible indication of support for the legitimate aspirations of the farm workers". It normally buys three tons per year. 25
Nationvride sales were off 125o in 1986. 1969 grape prices xire dovm. as much as 155^.26 ^
Grovrers in the Coachella Valley during the Jxm.e 1968 harvest were packing and shipping only about 10?^ of the normal shipment. 27
One Coachella Valley rancher claimed he lost SI per lug on 37 f 000 lu^gs of fresh grapes. A Kern County grovrer estimated his loss for the season at 500 per lug. (The normal price for an average twenty-five pound lug is about $4.50. )28
The California Grape and Tree Fruit League reported that initial shipments of the Coachella Valley 1969 hai^vest of grapes were significantly higher than those during compar- able periods last year. Shipments as of June 21 were 1.8 million boxes as compared to 1.06 million in 1967 and .98' million in 1968. One Coachella Valley grov/er, however, criticized the comparison because it did not take accovint of a "vicious cost-price squeeze" inflicted on gi^owers because of the world-wide boycott. The grower also declared that "Every grape grower knows 1 969 is going to
^be a bad season, and we are losing maybe ZOfo of our market
'because of the boycott. "29
There were fifteen times as many grapes in cold storage at
-65-
803
the beginning of August 1968 ao the ten-year average for this same period, -^^
In Decemher 1968, more than 50,000 boxes of table grapes, worth more than 3200,000 vrholesale, jammed warehouses in Chicago. These grapes had to be sold within about one month, after which they would spoil. (Chicago normally consiunes about 225,000 boxes per year.p'
In mid-November 1968, officials at the Federal-State Market Nevrs Service in Sacramento, California said that the average price of grapes is doxm 250 per box worth S3 wholesale , On this basis, the cash loss at that time wo\ild be about S5 million. -^^
The UFV/OC estimated its boycott had cost growers S3. 7
million
hsirvest .
million in lost wholesale sales by the end of the 1968
British dock workers refused to unload more than 70,000 pounds of California table grapes in London in February 1969. The blockade on the grapes v^as extende.d to all English, Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian ports. English longshoremen, truck drivers, warehousemen, and other members of the transportation industry are all members of the Transport and General v/orkers Union (TG\/U), which has more than 1,500,000 members. The TGVru voted on December 28, 1968 to refuse to handle scab grapes. Swedish Transport Workers Union passed a similsx resolution on January 18, 1969 and has been Joined by many other Swedish unions in backing the boycott, 230,000 poimds of grapes were refused at Swedish ports earlier and had to be taken to Germany and sent overland. The grape boycott received much publicity in Sweden. The Swedish Consumer Coopera- tive, which accoTxnts for 30?^ of all retail grocery sales, agreed to stop buying California grapes. California grapes make up only 5/^ of Northern European grape imports. The blockade has been effective in convincing buyers and shippers that it is not worth the trouble involved to import grapes from the U.S. 34
The Mexican Confederation of Workers (CTM) stated that it would set up a program of local committees in cities along the U.S. -Mexico border. They v;ould attempt to halt the sale of California grapes in Baja California and the ship- ment of grapes to other parts of Mexico. (The CTM has in the past tried to halt the flow of Mexican strikebreakers into the U.S. and has generally succeeded in some measure.)-^-'
A California grower said that the boycott has turned the lush Coachella Valley into "a disaster area". He maintained that tinless a quick settlement is reached, one-half of the
-66-
804
Valley's eighty~five grov/ers nay "be driven out of business. Growers are losing S400 par acre of grapes, because at the present v/holesale rate of 33 per lug, they get only S300 for each acre vhich costs S700 to ciiltivate. In previoiis years, boxes sold for as auch as S7 per lug.. Because of the year's lovrer price, S3 to S4 million v;orth of grapes will be left on the vines. Some growers thought that the lower prices were due to the boycott, \7hile some thought they vrere low because there were "too many grapes. "36
In J\ms 1968, one hundred grov;ers filed a S25 million damage suit with the New York Regional Office of the NLRB. They charged six New York City imion locals with violating the secondary boycott laws and unlavrfully coercing the supermarket chains and brokers who had stood together in not buying grapes. The charges were dropped when the unions stated pxiblicly that they had not engaged in secondary boy- cotting in the past nor would they do so in the futvire. Notices to this effect v;ere to be put up on the union bulle- tin boards. The agreement opened up the New York market to a degree, but shipments continued to be below normal. 37
Senator George Miirphy (R-California) and Charles Schuman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest farm organization, asked the U.S. Attorney General to investigate the boycott of California grapes to determine whether it is a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the anti-trust laws. 38
In July 1969, a group of eighty-five California grape growers, represented by the California Farmers Committee, sued the UFVroC for 375 million in damages because of the boycott. Only one vreek before the suit was filed in Fresno Federal District Covirt, growers were saying that the boycott was a flop. Now they contended that their markets in Boston, New York and Chicago were severely cut and that prices every^rtiere v^ere lovr. The suit seeks an injunction against the boycott and triple damages grov/ers claim to have sustained. It is asserted that the UFV/OC had "unrea- sonably restrained trade" in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act because the union was
1 ) trying to "illegally force and coerce" growers and their workers to recognize the \inion as the representative of the workers.
2) attempting to "destroy totally" the sale of grapes in this country and abroad, in part by threatening retailers and others "vrith finan- cial ruin" and by using "various kinds of Illegal coercion and intimidation",
3) conspiring with operators of retail markets to prevent the sale of grapes.
4) depriving many consumers "of the opportunity to huy California table grapes of suitable condition and quality and at a competitive
-67-
805
price . "
UP\'/OC attorney Jerome Cohen called the suit "a hoax... their annual attempt to scare the chain stores." He said the union may bring a cotmter-suit charging that the groirers themselves have acted "in restraint of trade" by allegedly threatening to get markets to boycott the grapes of the tvrenty-thrce growers v7ho have contracts with the union or vho have agreed to negotiate with the \inion. On August 4 Federal Judge M.D. Crocker dismissed the suit on the groimds that it did not demonstrate sxifficient evidence for action. Growers were given thirty days, however, to gather additional evidence to amend the suit and refile it with the court. 59
The pattern which emerges from the above reports is
one which points to a generally successfxil boycott, Grovrers
have essentially admitted that they are hurting by filing
a suit which claims direct losses of S25 million. This
is expectedly exaggerated, but there is ample reason to
assvime that real losses are in the vicinity of about half
-that amotmt. No aggregate estimates have been ventured
yet since the 1969 harvest season is not over, but it is
likely that the boycott will cost grov^ers \fell over twice
the $3 million loss which had accumulated by the time the
1968 crop had been picked and distributed. Grapes from Arizona have now been added to the boycott as organizing activities in the state have been stepped up.^ Total
1969 season losses will therefore include the effects on the Arizona market. -
TABLE GRAPES AND THS DEPARTJIENT OF DEFENSE
The major factor threatening the constimer boycott over the last year has been increased government piirchases of
-68-
806
table grapes. The Defense Supply Agency of the Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for filling military menu needs. During the fiscal year 1968-9, table grape pujrchases increased over tvrice the magnitudes of previous years, as the following figures shov::
TABLE 1^^^"
change from fiscal year pounds purchased previoxis year
1966-7 7,500,000
1967-8 6,900,000 -8?S
1968-9 16,000,000 +232?$
The union claims the increase If.
-/
nothing short of a national outrage... an all-out effort by the military to bail out the growers and breai otir boycott. 42
DOD has insisted, however, that it is not taking sides.
It gives several reasons for the augmented orders: lower
grape prices, greater grape availability, better methods
of preserving and shipping grapes, and increased demand
A"? from the military services. ^
In addition to an increase in overall purchases, the
amount of grapes sent to military forces in Vietnam has
increased several-fold over previous years:
|
TABLE 2^^ |
||
|
fiscal year |
pounds shipped |
chan.Gie from previous year |
|
1966-7 1 967-8 1968-9 |
468,000 550,000 4,000,000 |
+I85S +628/» |
Private commercial grape shipments to South Vietnamese civilian importers have also been much larger:
-69-
807
|
TABLE 3^^^ |
||
|
year |
pounds shipped |
chein^e from previous year |
|
1966 1967 1968 |
332,000 1,195,000 2,855,000 |
+260/. +151/- |
These private shipments must have the prior approval of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It has been specu- lated that both the USDA and DOD have been encouraging the increased grape exportation to South Vietnam.
The above data do not really leave much room to give government purchasing policy the benefit of the doubt. The inordinate increases v/hich have coincided' vfith stepped- up boycott activity and more aggravated losses by grape grovrers hardly appear to be the result of "neutral decision- making" as DOD claims. The UFV.'OC finds it implausible that the demand for grapes in Vietnam is so great as that in a city like Detroit whose population is five times the number of American troops in Vietnam, It fxirther notes that close to 1 9/^ of the troops have Spanish surnames , that nearly 25/^ are Negro, and that both these groups have been
vocal about not wanting to eat grapes, which are now served
47 as often as three times a day.
The UFVi'OC's claim that grape prices are being "shored
up" meets with some corroboration. The respective amounts
paid for the 1966-7 and 1968-9 grape purchases in Table 1
are S1 .04 million and S1.98 million. Dividing these
payments by the ntimber of pounds of grapes bought yields
-70-
36-513 O - 70 - pt. 3A - 18
808
the price of one pound for each year: 140 per pound in 1967-8 and 180 per povind in 1968-9. It is surprising that grape prices which ohtain for govemnent purchases would increase while the vrholesale price level in the private sector has decreased. Also surprising is a comparison betvzeen the lu^ price which the governnent is paying and the cTirrent average wholesale lug price. At 180 per poxmd, the average tv;enty-five pound lug of grapes costs the government S4.50, v/hich is about what the average lug cost "before the boycott brought the wholesale price doi-m about SI. 50 per lug. Moreover, the UPWOC has accused the government of buying its grapes consistently from growers who were under the greatest pressure from the boycott. The \mion has aunotmced that it will seek an injvmction to half Federal grape ptirchases on the grounds that the
An
government is taking sides in a labor dispute. It would seem that DOD purchasing policy does fly in the face of President Nixon's executive order to Federal employees that the Administration "cannot tolerate favoritism — or even conduct which gives the appearance of (favoritism),"''
THE STRIKE COITTirTUES
When the boycott of all California grapes was announced
in August 1967, it was clear to the UFUOC that the ability
*of growers to import substitute labor was the sole factor
which was keeping the union from succeeding in its struggle
-71-
809
to be recognized and accepted as a "bona fide bargaining
51
agent. The strike was being \indermined from too "many
directions to be effective in maintaining pressure on the grovrers by itself. The growers had found an ally in Governor Reagan, vho early in the strike supplied inmates
from state prisons to help fill the broken rarJcs at
52 struck ranches. Since this was against the lav:, the
practice v/as later discontinued. The Governor's inter- vention vrith the California Department of Labor brought
about decertifications of about half of the more than
5'5
forty certified labor disputes. This allovred the state
employment agencies to supply strikebreakers to ranches, including Giumarra's, which were still being struck. The Governor has also supported legislation which lowered the minim\Am age at which students could work in the fields
and delayed the beginning of school in certain regions
54- xintil after the harvest season.
The strike effort had also run into financial diffi-
cxilty. Only S5 per week plus room and board covild be
paid to those who continued striking. Since 1966, the
cost of maintaining the UFv/OC has risen from about S25,O0O
to S40,000 per month (most of v;hich is being paid by the
AFL-CIO and some by the UAW).^^ Only about 105^ or 1700
56 Of the union's members are still able to man picket lines.
.Those who decide they must work try to find work in another
-area or in a crop other than grapes. The pickets, working
daily usually in teams of about one himdred, frequently used
-72-
810
megaphones to talk to workers in the fields about the benefits of imionization, civil rights, grovrer injustices, the brotherhood of the Mexican- American community, the Bible, and community events. Although some workers are won over to the union's cause, growers easily replace
them. Grov7ers have claimed that workers leave because
57
of intimidation by pickets, not out of sympathy v^ith them.
Another frequent claim of growers is "SOjo of the more than 5000 pickers hired at the peak of the harvest in
CO
Delano are residents of the area." By arguing that their workers are predominantly local, growers have tried to convey hovr tmsuccessfiil the strike effort is in keeping indigenous workers away from the fields. (It is interesting to note hovr growers at the same time stress the infeasibility of farm unions because of the large proportion of migrants in the labor force.) Independent
research, however, shovrs that about 60^ of the grape
59 harvest workers in Kern Coimty are migrants.
In Jtine 1968, UFV/OC organizers began v;orking in the
Coachella Valley. They drove throiighout the valley asking
field workers to join the drive for union recognition, and
got 90?S of the workers to pledge their support. The
same pattern of violence and legal repression prevailed
there, hov^ever, as in Delano. Reverend James Drake,
previously an active organizer in Delano who directed the
Coachella Valley activities, described the situation as
"a little frightening. This is tough covintry. It's close
-73-
1
811
to the border, and there is more disregard for hiiman
life." Violence has 1)600016 an increasingly troublesome
problem in the movement. Cesar Chavez tuidertook a long
fast in the Spring of 1 968 to coxmter at least spiritually
the militant tendency of some of his followers. He related
that
Some of our people accuse us of cowardice in following the path of nonviolence. They tell me: "If we go out and kill a couple of grovfers and blovr up some cold storages and trains, the grovrers would come to terms. This is the history of labor. This is hov; things are done." But we've said many times that one drop of htiman blood is worth more than all the contr8.cts. We'll use strikes and vre'll use boycotts to get recognition, but we'll wait as long as \ie must to get contracts without violence. 62
Nevertheless violence has occurred. Packing sheds
have been set on fire, foremen have been threatened, tires
have been slashed. The union has claimed that there have
been several incidents
that we know are being perpetrated by someone other than ourselves. . .to create a climate of fear and violence. One of the growers who agreed to negotiate with the xmion had 35 i 000 boxes burned two days after he made the announce- ment. Another grov/er who was negotiating with the union v^as attacked and almost had his eyes torn out. Several have received death threat s.°5
In the Pall of 1958, three Nev; York City supermarkets were firebombed. Since the stores were selling grapes at the time, some growers insinuated that the boycott organi- ,zers were responsible. It was later revealed, however, that the Mafia had committed the vandalism because the stores would not carry a product produced by a Mafia-backed
-74-
812
company. Union activities in Texas have met with the most hostility. The Texas Rangers have a history of "put- ting farm v;orkers in their place". Union success in Texas has therefore been rather fleeting. The strike did spread in June 1969 into Arizona, however, and the boycott now includes Arizona as well as California table grapes.
CONTROL OF I-IEXICAIT LAEOR
Since grov;ers tiirned to Public Law 414 to satisfy their need for additional v:orkers, almost 700,000 Mexican aliens have flooded the farm labor market. Up to 150,000 of these are estimated to commute between Mexico and the U.S., thus regarding their green cards as "work permits" instead of the "permanent residence visas" they were intended to be.^ The UPV/OC has conducted a propaganda campaign along the border lirging Mexican nationals not to break the strikes it had called. On the other hand, grovrers distributed leaflets encouraging them to commute. In 1967, an amendment to Public Law 414 v;as passed which barred the use of greencarders as strikebreakers. But growers were able to get an injunction by the 1968 harvest which prevented immigration authorities from enforcing the ban, A Los Angeles Federal Coxirt ruled that the ban violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth 'Amendment. ^^
In addition to the greencarders, wetbacks have
-75-
813
presented a big problem to the strike effort. In the jurisdistion of the Bakersfield, California Border "Patrol Station (about tvro and one half coionties where the grape strike is centered), the following niaabers of illegal Mexicans were caught monthly after the beginning of the strike against Gixmarra:
|
TABLE 4^'^ |
||
|
July, 1967 |
273 |
|
|
Aiigust, 1967 |
564 |
|
|
September, 1967 |
418 |
|
|
October, 1967 |
321 |
|
|
November, 1967 |
209 |
|
|
December, 1967 |
144 |
|
|
January, 1968 |
94 |
|
|
February, 1968 |
158 |
|
|
March, 1968 |
229 |
|
|
April, 1968 |
240 |
|
|
May, 1968 |
221 |
|
|
June, 1968 |
415 |
|
|
Jxily, 1968 |
397 |
|
|
August, 1968 |
502 |
|
|
September, 1968 |
519 |
|
|
TOTAL |
4,704 |
A Station official also estimated that about 40?^ of the
go ■
cotmties* farm worker force were greencarders. One grovrer in the area is alleged to have a false compartment
in his truck to smuggle Mexicans from the border, and
69
the Immigration authorities have up to now ignored him. ■
Two bills have been drafted to control the excessive flow of Mexican labor into American ranches. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) has proposed that each commuter alien be certified every six months by the Labor Department. Certification would not be renewed if the
-76-
814
presence of the alien had previously depressed wages or work conditions in any area, or if he had acted as' a strikebreaker. Senator Walter Mondale (D-Minnesota) has introduced legislation which woiild oblige greencarders to live in the U.S. The State Department has opposed the bills, however, because they vrould:
1 ) deprive Mexicans of their earning power
2) reduce trade along the Mexican frontier
5) perhaps make the Mexican government retaliate. 70
-77-
815
CHAPTER 7:
THE GROV/ERS* CASE
INTRODUCTIOIT
"A man sweats blood trying to make something. He's got a right to try and save it. These people are trying to take it av/ay from him. We ain't never had a war in this country and these people are trying to start one."
Behind the emotionalism of the above sentiment lies the basis of the struggle in Delano (not to mention a good grasp of American history) . The growers do indeed have something the farm workers want. The workers also have something the growers want: their labor, and as inezpsn- sively as they can get it. The unionization of farm labor, of course, threatens the farmer. To what extent is a running debate which this chapter will analyze and attempt to resolve.
THE ARGUIIEHTS
Widespread and comprehensive unionization of farm workers depends, as has been discussed, on the appropriate amendment of the National Labor Relations Act. Amendment "to include farm labor would essentially open the gates for all representative farm tmions to collective bargaining,
-78-
816
since growers would be forced to acknovfledge and come to terms with these vmions. Advocates of such amendment, by novr including most grov/ers, have especially varying views about hovr a new labor relations law shoxild be construed. As expected, grov/ers have fears v;hich they hope a new law wovild mitigate, vrhile unionists also have fears that grov/er-proposed legislation woiild leave them more Bhackled than wo\U.d the absence of a nev/ lav;. Thus the following arguments, vociferously voiced and spread by grovrer interests , represent the main reasons of the minority which is lobbying for no new law, as well as of the majority of farmer spokesmen desiring as restrictive a law as possible:
1) Agriculture is "different" from other indus- tries and is therefore not appropriately covered by analogous collective bargaining guidelines .
2) Farm workers do not want a union because they are happy and well-paid.
3) Cesar Chavez and the UI^'/OC demonstrate how a farm union and its leaders can be unrepresentative, untrustirorthy, and hungry for pov/er and money.
4) Unionisation of the farm worker only means his increasing obsolescence as mechaniza- tion proves to be less expensive and trouble- some ,
5) Collective bargaining vrould make farming unprofitable because of its small profit margin.
6) Collective bargaining is neither feasible nor possible because of the inordinate threat a harvest-time strike would pose to the farmer and the nation.
-79-
817
DISCUSS lOlT
1) The opinion that agriculture is "different" was
basically what exempted farm workers from the provisions
of the ITLRA. It has been conservatively argued that if
Congress • reasons for exemption were good in 1935, they
must still be good, since the nature of agriculture has
not changed that much. Recently, before the Senate
Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, the following testimony
was given:
Agricultvire in our opinion is not now, and never has been, an industry that can be made subject to the whim of a labor union or labor organizer. It is dependent entirely on nature — on varying temperatxares, rainfall, or the lack of it, insects, storms, weeds, and so many other items that it is impossible to forecast and make the subject of a labor tuaion contract. 5
This passage \mderlines the "difference" which growers claim makes the farm union unjustified. It wo\lld not seem, however, that those factors v;hich are considered so impossible of prediction are really so relevant to the question of unionisation. It is predominantly the large corporate farm which vrould come -under the stipulations of a labor relations st3,tute. Such a farm's economies of scale provide a buffer against the vagaries which might make some aspects of farming less profitable than others. The few \inion contracts which do exist, moreover, do incorporate restrictions with respect to "acts of God".
Another distinguishing featvire of agriciiltxire is the nature of the labor it employs. Farm workers often work
-80-
818
in small, scattered, and migratory units and are sometimes in one area for no more than a few v;eeks. For these reasons, farmers have argued that workers are less responsive and amenable to unions. But again, the growth of agribusiness, as well as improved coramunication and traiisportation, should be taken into acco\mt. The contrast betvreen the present-day and earlier structure of the farm labor force, not to mention the workers' legitimate desire to be unionized, must be noted. In the last few decades, agriculture has moved far in the direction of industry insofar as its operations have become increasingly mechanized and vertically integrated, Public policy shovild reflect an accomodation of this tran- sition and recognize that, at least with respect to agri- business, the essential nature of any "difference" between the two sectors is mainly administrative and not particu- larly qualitative. In this context, statements that farm labor is inherently less valuable than industrial labor, and hence not v/orthy of commensurate rem\meration, can also be rebutted:
I think, actually, that the average farm laborer requires a much wider range of skill than the average industrial laborer does. Conditions on a farm are such that the job content changes constantly. You can't break a farm job dovm into a series of repetitive, easily supervised operations like you can a factory job. I'm an engineer. I've run quite a few factories and I've run quite a few farms. I've never seen an honest job evaluation yet that didn't come to the conclusion that the farm job ought to be paid more than the factory job, 4
2) A frequent grovrer claim in pamphlets, conversation, and
-81-
819
fxill-page advertisements is that their workers do not
want a vuiion.
In talking to oiir workers since the union has been concentrating its organizing campaign here during the past 13 months they tell us they do not vrant a union to negotiate their ovna working conditions. The tinion has been trying to organize farm workers for over a year, and as far as I know, not a single one of ovr employees has Joined the vinion.5
In light of the ballot count results in Delano, hovrever, it would seem that this argument is really a convenient ploy to justify the grov;ers' continued refusal to allow a vote and thereby resolve the issue. In fact, in the three secret-ballot elections and the five card check elections -which have been held to date, workers have in every case voted for UPV/OC representation. Employers who have given in and allovred elections and granted the protection of a UFWOG contract are regarded with considerable disdain by the bloc which is holding out. (It shoxild be noted that Sections 921-923 of the California Labor Code prohibit any employer from "interfering with or restraining" any worker in the exercise of his right to Join a union. )
Employer paternalism has long been the pattern on American farms. The fact that there are so many workers in the fields is given by growers as evidence that there is no strike and therefore no discontent with working or living conditions. Farm spokesmen constantly point out 'that workers can earn up to S2.50 an hour and that Cali- fornia pays the highest farm wages of all states in the
-82-
820
nation. In fact, some workers do receive wages as high as
S2.50 an hour, hut only during the harvest season f:hen the
crop is plentiful and work is available. At most other
times of the year, their income is so meagre that average
annual earnings are well below the poverty line.
Frequently the mother and father are the payroll statistic but all their children may be in the field picking with them and hav- ing their production credited to the parents, thereby inflating the vrage rate.o
Furthermore, California does not pay the highest farm wages
in the nation as growers claim. Hawaii's tinionized workers
average three dollars an hour. California does have one
of the highest minimum vrages, hovrever (since most states
do not have minimum farm wage coverage ) , but again a high
minimi-CT wage neither guarantees year-round work nor a
sufficient annual income. '
Living conditions have been touted as "modern and
attractive motel-style units provided free of charge to
n
vorkers". The image is very pleasing but hardly accurate, as any visit to any California labor camp vrould reveal. Growers also emphasize that there are many lavrs on the books relating to the farm worker's v;elfare. But it is not emphasized that most of them have been either weakly enforced or totally ignored. Nor is it mentioned that Kern County law enforcement officers have enforced the .law by clamping do\m on the strilcers (v;ho supposedly do not exist) vrhile ignoring union reports of lawbreaking by its opposition. It is very questionable v^hether most
-83-
821
workers can be happy, like their employers say they are,
vhen such attitudes as the follovlng prevail:
We protect ovjr farmers here in Kern County. They are o\ir hast people. They are alv/ays with us. They keep the country going. They put us in here and they can put us out again, so we serve them. But the workers are trash. They have no standard of living. Me herd them like pigs.^
3) The assertion that the UFWOC is unrepresentative has been partially discussed in regard to the grower claim that workers desire no union. Whether workers in general prefer the UPV/OC as their "bargaining representative or not remains to be seen, since only a small fraction of the total California fann working force is unionized at this point. UR/OC claims to have about 17,000 worker members throiAghout California and the Southwest (growers say 2,500 to 3,000), an estimated 3,000 of whom are actually covered by its contracts.^ So there are probably around 14,000 persons who put in their bid for UF\-/OC representa- tion even before receiving contract sanction from their employers. Membership in the Teamsters Farm Workers Union does not approach these ntimbers. It seems likely, there- fore, that the UFJOC is indeed representative, and promises to be so on a large scale if given the legal backbone to force negotiations with growers. Many growers maintain that the union has not offered to bargain, but this is .false. Indeed it has been the growers who have consistently -refused to grant UFV/OC requests proposing discussions about representation procedures.
-84-
822
The formation of several other groups in Delano in .opposition to the irF\/OC is cited as fvirther evidence of union unpopularity. The first group to emerge after the Teamsters was the Kern-Tulare Independent Farm V/orkers, It was later exposed "by the late Senator Robert Kennedy in Senate Subcommittee hearings as a "company union" with no actual worker leadership. At least six "company unions" have formed altogether, in addition to the Citizens for "Facts from Delano, Mothers Against Chavez, V'omen Against Chavez, Men Against Chavez, and the Agricultural Workers Freedom to Uork Association (AyF\/A) . The anti-Chavez groups are right-wing citizen organizations, supported by the growers to propagandize against the UFWOC and expose -its efforts as a "Communist conspiracy": "The objective is not to help fruit pickers get higher wages, but Communist control of America's food supply." The AVFV/A is an anti-"union worker organization aligned vjith the National Right to V/ork Committee. It is currently being sued by the TJF\70C for violating a California statute forbidding employee organizations financed and controlled by employers. The UF\'/OC is in turn accused of breaking "Right to V/ork" lavfs which do not even exist in California and of violating Taft-Hartley prohibitions which do not pertain to farm tmions.
The argument that Cesar Chavez and the UF\i/OC are imtrustworthy in one respect concerns the idealogical antipathy toward the man and the movement. Senator Harrison
-85-
823
Williams (D~New Jersey) tried to malce "both seen a little
more palatable in a recent Senate address:
Cesar Chavez is proving to the vorld his dedi- cation to the aspirations of his o'l-m people. He is a leader in nonviolence, knoim and sup- ported by the major religious bodies in this country. The nation's labor movement is firmly supporting his efforts. Before the strike, his union salary vras less than S75 per week. Since the strike began, only S5 per vreek has been paid to him, as to all adults v^ho v/ork in the strike. Cesar Chavez and the workers vrith him have no desire to destroy anyone, least of all their ov/n employers. The agricultural industry may someday recognize with gratitude that they can choose to bargain vrith humane and reasonable men. ^2
The argument also concerns a charge that "union contracts
have been broken. Evidence that this has happened, however,
is Vfeak, OfficiaJLs of the South Central Farmers' Committee
in Delano claimed that the UBfOC had made an "atrocity" of
its no~strike agreement with Schenley by staging "58 strikes
and slow-dovms at the company". But Schenley denied the
allegation and said relations with the union were "remark-
ably good", -^ There vras one infringement on a contract
-With Almaden Vineyards, but a company representative's
explanation absolves the union:
We've had one minor work stoppage, and it was xmauthorized , but I've seen wildcat strikes in other \mions before,,, It is unfair to say this is not a responsible imion.H
4) Farmers fairly accurately note that if farm vinions grew especially nxomerous and strong, the rate of mechani- zation v7oul.d increase:
It would be hard to envisage any legislative
-86-
36-513 O - 70 - pt, 3A - 19
824
enactment which v/oiild result in quicker disem- ployraent of a group of people most needing employment than the extension of collective bargaining to farm v7orkers.''5
The phenomenon has not "been so pronounced in manxifacturing and other industries since industrial mechanization and a relatively large lahor force are complementary. But in farming, harvesting machines require little labor and replace much. To argue, however, that because mechani- -zation will dieplace labor in response to xmion pressures and that unions will therefore be counterproductive to farm labor is specious. Mechanization is going to come into some areas of farming whether tmions exist or not.
Some crops are not so readily conducive to mechani- zation. Table grapes is one according to a Delano grower:'
If it v/ere just a matter of picking, automation might be feasible. You could do it for raisins or for wine grapes, but there are too many quality checks for table grapes, A picker has got to check color, the size of the grape, the size of the birnch, and trim bad grapes before a bunch can be packed. How are you going to mechanize these functions?'"
On the other hand, there are many crops vrhich are already
being mechanically picked and processed. Mechanical cotton
pickers and use of chemical spray instead of workers to
control weeds cut back harvest employment in the Mississippi
Delta from 32,328 in 1965 to 7,225 in 1967 J "^ In some
crops, there is already a threshold wage level beyond
.which mechanization will be instituted:
There is right now a practical selective lettuce harvester, but there's such an abxindance of labor
-87-
825
in lettuce that it's still economically feasible to harvest by hand. Th& lettuce labor force is almost entirely Mexican. If a completely . domestic labor force had to be used, then I think yoii'd see the machine overnight. ^^
Although some job elimination is a long-range likelihood
in certain areas of agricultirre , there are some immediate
advantages of mechanization for both unions end employers.
As more skilled workers are required in the field, a hierarchy
of labor needs will emerge. This will provide promotions
and mobility for vrorkers as v;ell as the opportunity for
grov/ers to nalze supply arrangements with unions to meet
their more sophisticated requirements. A problem which
growers have even today is interstste recruitment of farm
labor. Federal and state employment services have been
"more geared to the laborer, and less to assuring an adequate
1 Q labor supply." One grov/er suggested that he would not
be so averse to unions if he coiild be guaranteed an adequate
n\imber of employees for his seasonal v;ork and a fair price
20
for his crop if his requirements vrere not met. Such an
arrangement is conceivably within the realm of possibility,
especially since it would subdue grower fears of a controlled
labor supply.
The prospect of mechanization is no more encouraging
to workers than the prospect of \mionization is to growers.
But it is not really appropriate that growers argue that
the one shotild militate against the other.
The only real issue is v;hether or not America's hired farm workers should continue to be excluded from the protection vrhich is available to most
-88-
826
other vorkingrnen in this country. There are no moral, or social, or economic criteria which sitggest they shoiold be treated differently from other v^ox'kers who have similar needs and problems. 21
5) Another primai'y concern of fanner spokesmen is that NLRA coverage vill entail higher labor and administrative costs that might prove to be prohibitive. It is certainly true that many growers are faced with a cost-price squeeze. Profit levels generally vary from year to year, mainly -according to climatic conditions and the incidence of crop insects and disease. These variables, however, do not range "between such extremes that farm incomes on the average have been adversely affected. Technological advances have helped increase the farmer's control over these problems as well as his income.
Small farms are of course more vulnerable to crop failure, but they are probably not much more likely to figxire in a farm union scheme than the many small businesses vhich have remained outside the jurisdiction of the indus- trial unions. The vast majority of the farm worker force is employed by a minority of growers. In California, for example, 10^ of the farms employ 80?S of the workers, while over 60?^ of the farms do not use any outside labor. Moreover, many of the large growers v;ho wotLLd be affected are those presently receiving large government subsidies for not growing at all. The increased costs v;hich do accrue because of farm unionization can in many cases be balanced by a more judicious distribution of these funds.
-89-
827
In addition to the fann worker, the small farmer will also benefit from the vmionization of the large farms. If the wage bill of agribusiness increases while the cost of small farm labor remains constant, the competitive advantage of the larger gi-overs will decrease, and the value of the small farm's product will increase. It is apparent that the small farmer as well as the farm worker has been exploited in the marketplace. Thus the National Farmers Union and the National Farmers Organization have come out in favor of the inclusion of farm labor under the NLRA,
Grovrers have claimed that the minimum wage law is ample to help the farm worker and that it is impossible for unions to do more for the wage rate. In fact, v:ages have increased about 500 an hour on the average (the differential
for harvest wages is more) by the contracts the UFV/OC has
22
won from growers. One of the smaller growers recently
commented, "Our contracts have increased labor costs, but
2*5 we're not hurt." -^ When DiGiorgio- annoimced that it v:as
selling its Sierra Vista ranch (only a small part of its
holdings ) , some growers claimed that both the sale and the
fact that only half the asking price was received was caused
by the effects of the lonion. The president of DiGiorgio
later denied that the UFV/OC was a factor and insisted that
the full government-appraised value of the land was realized
.in the sale. It appeared that the federal reclamation
-agreement DiGiorgio had signed in 1952 finally caught up
with the company.
-90-
828
The experience with the UTV/OC contracts also indicates
■that farmers may have overestiaated the legal costs involved
in dealing with \mions as well, V/hatever the price employers
eventually have to pay, however, it will partly be the price
they must pay for pennitting poor labor practices in the
past.
Neither large nor small farmers can justify their own survival in business if it is purchased at the cost of suffering for farm v;orkers and their children.
6) The most vehement grower opposition to farm unionism
derives from the fear of a crippling strike at harvest time.
It is supposed that if a union exercises its prerogative
-to call a strike, a farmer could lost his entire crop plus the
capital invested in it.
The unique feature of the employment relation- ship in agric\ilture is the v\ilnerability of the farmer as an employer to any work stoppage on his farm. -
While most industrial or commercial concerns may suffer reduction in profits as a resuJlt of a strike, it is rare for them to be disastrously affected. For the most part they can close dovm the operation and sit out the strike with nominal losses.
Compare this to agriculture. It is not possible to close dovm a farm. Production must continue in t\me with the season. Crops must be harvested when ready. Even a delay of a few days i^iay^g substantially reduce the value of the crop.
Collective bargaining vrovild not eqiialize the bargaining of famer and worker; it would make the farmer subservient to labor, '^'
Thus it is contended that the perishability of farm products .makes the farm union dangerous and unfeasible. Many growers -visualize the threat of a harvest-time strike as a threat
to the national secvirity. For several reasons, however, the
-91-
829
"perishability argiiment" is not very convincing. For one, the few perishable-product industries v;hose unionized employees are already covered by the NLRA have successful and secure collective bargaining relationships. They include fruit and vegetable packers, canning and freezing factories, transporters, sugar processors and the fishing industry, all of which have a seasonal need for a large number of temporary employees. Union contracts in these industries often expire when economic activity and the threat of a strike is at a minimum. In Hawaii, 20,000 sugar and pineapple field employees have been ■unionized ever since the enactment of the Hawaiian Employment Rela- tions Act (HERA) in 1945. Strong provisions to control and settle strikes have contributed to the Act's success:
A complaint filed by employers gives the Hawaii Employment Relations Board (HERB) the power to petition a circuit coxirt for temporary relief or a restraining order in cases of an alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement. In such cases the circuit court, if it sees fit, cam grant relief. All the major sugar and pineapple contracts contain no-strike clauses, which are for the most part rigidly adhered to . 28
Nor have crippling effects resiilted from the two labor
relations laws in Kansas and Wisconsin, Agricultural
employees in many foreign countries have also long been
permitted to form and join collective bargaining organiza.-
tions.
All UFilOC contracts negotiated with growers contain
-no-strike clauses with stringent, immediate, binding
arbitration in the event of any violation. Each contract
-92-
830
specifies the arbitrator as the State Conciliation Service or an individiial attorney. Since the contracts vrent into effect, no protracted strikes during harvest or any other time have occurred. The strikes which are being conducted by the UFV/OC nov; do not of course involve contracted \anion members. Their rather small effect on the economic welfare of the Delano grov;ers even during the harvests abundantly demonstrates how a strike is not necessarily the vicious weapon it is made out to be. It is in fact a weapon to replace poverty and inequality v^ith economic and social justice. When this is done, the strike is basically obviated. Since only a partial realization of this goal is the likely outcome of present farm labor organizing, it is all the more important that good faith be maintained with growers by resisting indiscriminate striking. The farm worker, as well as the farmer, has much to lose during a harvest-time strike, since that is also his most lucrative period during the year.
Growers can take heed of the vulnerability of several commercial industries v;hich operate with critical production times and of the seasonality of the building trades. They should also realize that strikes have been the exception rather than the rule in industrial labor history, v^hereas they have been the consistently aborted anomaly in farm .labor history. Indeed it is the success of grower efforts -to deny the farm worker collective bargaining rights vfhich has led to the tactic of harvest-time strikes in order to win those rights. Once they are won, the tactic should ■become an \incommon last resort.
-93-
i
831
CHAPTER 8:
THE NEGOTIATIONS
THE CONTRACT DISCUSSIONS
Since the voluntary offers of four California wineries to establish contracts v/ith the UFV/OC in 1967, contracts with three other wineries have been signed: Almaden Vine- yards, Franzia Brothers, and Mosesian-Hourigan-Goldberg of Delano. (The res\ilts of the Tznion representation elections which have been held to date appear in Appendix D.) By far the most momentous event in the UP\'?OC's history occurred on Friday, June 13, 1969 v;hen ten California table grape growers offered to commence contract negotia- tion. The total grape acreage of the grov;ers comprised ten to fifteen percent of the state's total. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service was broiight in to mediate "as a public service". The basic conditions and demands of both sides were presented:
GROWERS:
1) Any contract woiild have to contain a no-strike, no-boycott clause.
2) The union wovild have to demonstrate that it represents the majority of workers.
3) Contracts would have to be ratified by the company's workers.
4) A Federal minimum wage law would have to be passed before a contract could be signed.
-95-
832
5) Likevise a Federal tuaemployment insui'ance law and a National Labor Relations Act for Farmers vould have to be legislated.
THE UlTION;
1 ) better working conditions
2) wages of at least S2 per hour plus incentive
3) proper sanitary facilities
4) adequate protection against pesticide poisoning
5) fair elections to determine majority will
6) a hiring hall
The UFV/OC would like to obtain contracts similar to those it already has. Unionized workers in wineries ciirrently earn a minimum of S1 .90 per hour off-season and S3.25 per hoxu* during the hairvest. It v;as reported that union workers at Almaden earned an average 1968 income of about S4|600. They also received ten cents per hoiir for a health and welfare fxind. Twenty- five percent of the workers received free housing. As the talks progressed, representatives of a few other growers occasionally dropped in. Bruno Dispoto, one of the Delano growers most violently opposed to Cesar Chavez and his \anion, joined the negotiations after several weeks to "be in on the ground floor of a settlement . " It was reported that "several Arizona grape grov;ers and some
in California may soon announce their willingness to open
2
discussions" in addition to those now \ander way.
It is quite likely that if the growers presently •negotiating come to a settlement, many other grovfers woxild ■~also begin negotiations with the UFV/OC, since growers
-96-
833
with "union contracts would then have some advantages over those who do not. For one, they would no longer be boy- cotted. They woiild also be more competitive for efficient workers in the labor market because of the higher v:ages they would be paying. Contracted growers are able to benefit from the union hiring hall which simplifies worker recruitment by obviating the labor contractor system and stabilizes the labor market. There is now only a 1$^ turn- over in Schenley's unionized labor force, whereas there
was a ^26fo turnover before the company signed a uiaion agree-
■5
ment .
One problem which has been brought up is the difficulty consvuaers V70\ild have in distinguishing between union and non-tmion grapes if the boycott continues and seversil growers come to terms with the ttnion. Although packing boxes are easily labeled, display coionter are not. The UFV/OC claims that the existing boycott machinery can be turned aroxind to promote the produce of those v^ho have signed contracts. Markets which have cooperated in the boycott could supposedly cooperate with the union by handling just union grapes. Although this procedure sounds simple, it may be especially difficult to get the grape distribution process to distinguish between groups of grapes and incor- porate special routing. The effectiveness of the boycott
.may therefore be diluted after agreements with some growers
-are made.
After several meetings, the negotiations \infortunately
-97-
834
bogged down. It does not appear that the growers will "be intractable v:ith respect to the rather far-fetched- demands for Federal legislation as a proviso for settlement with the xinion. But on some disputed points, growers do not want to leave much leeway for discussion. The union made the point that "more workers have reported symptoms of chemical poisoning this year than in the three previous years." Attempts to resolve v/hat safeguards against pesti- cide dangers should be developed did not yield any solutions acceptable to both sides. The talks have therefore recessed at an impasse. President Nixon was requested by frustrated growers to appoint a "fact-finding commission to make whatever recommendations it feels would be necessary to resolve the table grape dispute," The iinion rejected the commission idea as one which coxild not bring about a solution, "Commissions of any sort take years to bring about recommendations." The UjF\v'OC is therefore waiting out the gap in communication in the hope that it can ultimately do by vrill power vrhat industrial tuiions have been able to do by dint of the NLRA.
PROPOSALS IN V/ASHINGTON
The prospect for inclusion of agriculture in some sort of national collective bargaining legislation presently 'appears to be quite promising. The spectrum of opinion, presented in Congressional hearings, about how agriculttire
-98-
835
shoiild be covered varies considerably. As pointed out in Chapter 7, most farm interests have not been predisposed to supporting any law that does not afford guarajitees against the dangers they feel are lurking in mandatory collective bargaining vfith farm \mions. But they have moved far in recent years by coming to the fairly xman- imous realization that the time has come for the unioniza- tion of at least the larger farms in the nation.
The first problem which must be resolved is the defi- nition of an agricultural v;orker. This has been the svibject of considerable litigation in courts since some types of farm-related work have been difficult to categorize as appropriate for NIRA coverage. The covirt decision in NLRB versus the Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association of Central California has come to serve as precedent for the definition;
Agricult\iral labor includes all services per- formed by an employee on a farm in connection vith the cultivation of the soil, the harvesting of crops, or the raising, feeding or management of livestock, bees, and poultry; or processing of articles from materials vrhich were produced on a farm; also the packaging, transportation, or marketing of those materials or articles, pro- vided, hov;ever, that such services are performed by an employee of the ovmer or tenant of the farm on which the materials in their raw or natioral state were produced, and that such processing, packing, packaging, transportation, or marketing is carried on as an incident to ordinary farming operations as distinguished from manufacturing or commercial operations. 7
The general rationale for considering some jobs as exempt
'from NLRA coverage and not others therefore seems to be
the difference in the intensity of labor compared to capital
-99-
I
836
"in a particular occupation. ' A definition of the thin line between the two categories vrill probably remain important since a labor relations law for agricultiire is likely to be different from those now applicable to industry.
Another factor v/hich v:ill have to be taken account of is the question of a Jurisdistional standard, i.e. ■whether only farms \ixth. a certain output or certain magni- tude of employment should be covered. Most of the other problems in formulating a labor relations law for agriciil- tvire revolve around the extent to which the IJLRA and its Amendments should be copied or changed in a new lav/. Pres- ent proposals range from allovring farm unions to be covered -by the NIRA without its Amendments to the establishment of a grov;er-controlled agency to siipervise collective bargaining and rule on disputes and violations.
One of the first grov.'er-proposed formats for a Federal lav7 to cover farm workers was presented by the American Farm Bureau Association. Its recommendations favored:
1 ) rules defining employment relationships between farmers and farm workers involving neither the Labor Management Relations Act
^ nor the National Labor Relations Board.
2) prohibition of secondary boycotts, product boycotts, and strikes which wotild result in loss of perishable products.
3) protection of the right of each individual worker to join, or not to join, a union.
4) secret balloting by workers v:ith respect to representation, to be conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
5) authorization for an aggrieved party to swe —for -damages and/or seek injunctive relief
against violations of the Act. 8
-100-
I
837
The suggestion that damaging strikes and boycotts (in other words all strikes and boycotts) sho-uld be prohibited has not been taken too seriously by the Congressmen who are empowered to forge a new law. The right of workers not to join a union is guaranteed by "right-to-work" laws in the fevr states vfhich have them, but union secxarity (compulsory union membership) vrould probably be assured by a nevr or amended lavr for agriculture, possibly even in the "right- to-work " s t at e s .
Secretary of Labor George Schultz has recently (I-Iay 6, 1969) detailed an agricultural \mionization plan v/hich the Nixon Administration vroiild like to see embodied in a new law. Its provisions would:
1 ) forbid employers to recognize a farm union unless and until the union wins an election.
2) prohibit consimer boycotts.
3) allow strikes if employers declined the use of special arbitration machinery vrhich might otherwise prevent the strike.
4) create a Farm Labor Relations Board (FLRB) to serve a similar function to the ITLRB,
5) apply only to those farms employing more than 500 man-days of labor during the peak quarter of the previous calendar year. 9
Concerning 1 ) the follovring explanation vras given:
Agriciiltural workers ... are largely unorganized and therefore employers shoiild not be permitted to enter into collective bargaining agreements unless ah election first indicates majority representation by the contracting union. 10
This proposal in in contradistinction to the present
iaw for industrial labor relations which states that an
employer must recognise a union v;hich he has good reason
-101-
838
to believe represents a raajority of Ms employees. The Schxiltz proposal v;ould give growers who wish to thwart the wishes of their employees to be Tinionized free reign to commit unfair labor practices which might prevent a fair representation election. It is not entirely clear why the fact that farm workers are "largely unorganized" in general should make it more difficxilt for them to become organized into a bargaining unit.
The special arrangement to allow strikes is as follows: a union v;o\ild be required to give a ten-day notice of intent to strike to the employer, dtiring which time either party could invoke a thirty-day period of mediation and fact-finding by a neutral party. A strike would be forbidden during this period. The third party's recomraenda- tion(s) after an investigation ifould be binding on the party which initiated the mediation, but only if accepted by the other party. If settlement is not reached within the thirty days, the union would be free to strike. (The same provisions for striking apply to employer lockouts.)
There seem to be several difficxilties with this scheme. Giving a grower notice about a contemplated strike would allov; him to recruit strikebreakers in time to mitigate the strike's impact. The restrictive ban on strikes fluring the thirty-day mediation period also reduces the effectiveness of the strike. A strike would most likely -ie called dviring the harvest which woiild almost be completed forty days after the intent to strike was announced. V/hen
-102-
839
a iinion declares a potential strike, the grov/er is the party which will probably call for mediation. If the recommendation of a third party is against the wishes of the union, the grov^er is likely to accept it and tie up the mediation for the entire thirty days. On the other hand, if the recommendation is basically in favor of the union, it \r±ll be binding on the grovrer and accept- able to the union. The difficulty with this contingency is that the mediator is chosen from a list of five names selected by the Secretary of Agriciolture . George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, had this to say at Congressional hearings about such an arrangement:
As far as the farm workers are concerned, that is indeed putting the fox in charge of the hen- -house. The Department of Agricalture has long been noted for its tender loving care of the nation's big farmers and for its callous indif- ference to the v;elfare of farm vjorkers. It would seem more normal for the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to have been given this role. 12
The UF\/OC has elucidated its position on the type of
labor relations coverage which it feels should be enacted.
The following points have been put fon-fard:
1 ) Farm \mions shovild be exempt for a time from the Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin Amend- ments which restrict traditional union activity, especially the ban on recognition and organi- zational picketing and the so-called secondary boycott, made particiilarly repressive by the mandatory injimction in both cases (see Appendix A)
2) Farm labor should be excluded from the operation of Taft-Hartley section 14(b), which makes misnamed state "right-to-woi'k" laws
--operative in interstate commerce.
-105-
840
3) No legislative or administrative exemption of small growers from a labor relations law should be allowed.
4) Union security and the right to strike must be maintained.
5) Growers should not be allovred to refuse to discuss possible safety precautions with respect to the use of pesticides. They should further be required to heed complaints about inadequate sanitary facilities in work or living areas.
6) It should be made an unfair labor practice for a grov/er to employ anyone during a strike who has not actually established a permanent residence in the U.S.
7) Some civil remedy should exist against growers v^ho employ illegal Mexican workers as strike- breakers.'5
In recent hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Migra- tory Labor, Dolores Huerta, the vice-president of the UFWOC, defended the vuaion's request that farm unions be exempt from the amendments to the NLRA: ■
V/here would the large industrial vmions of today be if Congress had "protected" them from the beginning, not vrith the ITIRA, but with the Taft-Hartley Act? We too need our decent period of time to develop and grow strong under the life-giving sun of a public policy which affirmatively favors the growth of farm unionism. History will record that Taft-Hartley, together with continuing business community determination to oppose unions at nearly every txxrn, succeeded in checking the progress of labor organization in America before it had accomplished half its job.^^
It is from the UPWOC's first-hand experience with the
boycott, strikes, unfair labor practices, the high cost
of litigation, etc., that its anxiety about simple extension
•of the amended NLRA evolved. For several years, this simple
extension was its ultimate goal. But of late the goal has
-104-
I
841
been refined to what has cone to be called the "tv:elve
years of s"unshine amendment". (The NLRA was passed in
1935, Taft-Hartley in 1947.) Even with the protection
of a national lavr, the UF\-?OC is not convinced that farm
tmions can feel secvire in their ability to bring about
fruitfiil negotiation with growers. It feels that too many
state and federal agencies have permitted widespread
violation of too many laws pertaining to the v^elfare of
the farm workers, which demonstrates how laws often do not
do the job. Hence the advantage of securing individusil
contracts by putting recalcitrant growers \mder dviress
becomes clear. The disadvantage of legislation which
deviates too far from what the IIFV/OC desires is that it
-wotild limit the use of the two semi-efficaciotis weapons
it now has: the strike and the boycott. ;
The concern of the UFV/OC that small farmers may be
exempt from any legislation that is forthcoming was described
by Cesar Chavez recently:
It is a matter of principle with us that the single employee of a small grov/er is as entitled to his union as anyone else. If Congress passes a bad law, making us v/orse off than we are at present, but exempts small grovrers from coverage, then we might have to concentrate most of our organizing effort for a time on small grov^ers and let the big agribusiness corporations go until vre can get the law changed. If on the other hand Congress passes a law which really makes it possible to get contracts with the big growers, but which exempts the small ones, big agribusiness will get the benefit of better workers attracted by higher union wage rates. jLarge growers would also benefit from political alliance with the tmion v.'hen there is question
-105-
842
of union employers against nonunion employers. This is a prospect v^hich the leadership of our union does not relish at all. Our natx'jral sympathy is to favor the small grower and to help him in every v;ay ve can to remain in busi- ness and to prosper. V/e lurge small growers to give the matter a great deal of thought before pressing for an exemption from NLRA coverage. 15
The small farmers, however, may well feel that exclusion
is the lesser of two evils. Actually the most frequently
mentioned jurisdictional standard wovild cut off coverage
to farms with less than S50,000 minimum annual sales in
interstate commerce. This v;o\ild mean that only 3.55o of
the nation's farms vrould come under a labor relations lav;.
Congress has been considering several farm labor relations bills v;hich incorporate in varying degrees the many different sentiments which have been conveyed to it. Eighty members of Congress have co-sponsored two bills (S.8 and H.R. 9954) in partic\ilar. The bills contain some amendments to make a new law more suitable and operable for agriciilture , but they do not go so far as the UP\'/OC woTild like, nor are they so restrictive as the American Farm Bureau wotild like. Senator Alan Cranston (D-California) has suggested that he feels the UF\"/OC might reconsider its position on certain points, including the right to organize boycotts, if Congress could assure that the Mexican border woxild be effectively closed off to strikebreakers.
A bill called "A Consumer Food Protection Act", recently •filed by Senator George Mtirphy (R-Califomia) , is proffered as a substitute for S.8 which Senator Mvirphy consistently
-106-
843
voted against in the Senate Comnittee on Labor and Public Welfare. The Act woiild prohibit strikes, boycotts; picketing at retail establishments, and tmion sec\irity, as well as set up an Agricultural Employee Relations Board within the Department of Agricultua-e. Several states, including California, have also responded with their own versions of Senator I-Iurphy's bill. It does not appear that any of the proposed bills have an edge over the others. Nor does it appear that any will have an easy time avoiding stiff opposition in floor debates to become law.
-107-
844
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
The UFWOC most certainly has a valid and justified case in arguing that since restrictions v/ere not imposed on industrial union activity xmtil they had grown powerful, they too should be given equal protection of the same law. Farm unions today are weaker than industrial unions were in the 1930*s. It is cvirious to note that the equal pro- tection consideration just as well applies to the current -paradox that farm unions do not receive the same protection as industrial unions under the same law. Indeed they are not protected at all. Groxfers have in fact consistently obtained injimctions from courts against picketing activ- ities hy successfully arguing that since the NLRA excludes farm workers from its provisions regvilating peaceable union organizing, they should not be allovred to organize.
A fair approach to the problems of the farm worker will have to take into account the problems of the grower, who is now facing mo\mting costs, increased foreign compe- tition (especially from Mexico in certain crops including ^grapes), and water shortages in some areas. The plight of the farm worker woxild be ideally remedied with little sacrifice on the part of the marginally successful grower.
-108-
845
That farmers should receive a fair return for their prod- ucts can be readily acknowledged and accepted. But it woixld seem that the Federal "income maintenance benefit plan" (i.e. subsidies) has allov;ed many corporate farmers to receive well over their fair share. Thus the small- scale farmer is more biirdened, assx^aing he figures in a \inionization plan, than if subsidies were more rationally distributed, and he is therefore less able to cope with the economic pressures a farm \inion may entail. A solution to allov; inclusion of the smaller growers and cut the excesses of the subsidy program would be to put a ceiling on the amoxmt large grovrers could receive from the govern- ment. •
Siirplus f\mds vrhich might accrue from trimming the more exorbitant subsidies could be redirected by the government into programs to help the farm worker. A govern- ment plan to aid unemployed workers between harvests and another to set up job training and retraining centers are exigent. Lavnnakers should realize that solving urban problems depends partly on the ability to improve job opportunities and living standards in the coxmtryside. Efforts will have to be made to accomodate the infltix into the cities of naral imskilled labor seeking better oppor- tunities than farms offer. Predictions about the effect •of mechanization on the farm labor force do not bode well ""With a lax approach to this problem.
A continuing drain on farm \mion potency has been the./
-109-
I
846
easy supply of Mexican labor, vfhich has also contributed to the increase in the rural-to-urban emigration. . The UFUOC and some informed Congressmen realize that the key to raising v;ages and living standards of farm workers, mainly in the Southwest, lies in cutting off this supply. The ■urgency of this problem was eloquently expressed already
in 1964:
Since these growers shovr no signs of self-reform, they need to be told emphatically and with finality that the approximation of slave labor conditions which they have perpetuated will no longer be tolerated by this nation. They need to be made to understand in what centviry and in what kind of economy and society they are living and operating. They must be forced to realize that to exploit the poverty of other nations in order to beat dovm and crush the poor of OUT ov/n country is the grossest kind of immorality. 1
Once the secondary problems of the establishment of a sotmd farm fiscal policy and the control of Mexican labor have been at least partially resolved, there is still the question of whether farm unions can operate effectively and dynamically. It is an linansvrered question whether labor relations legislation will either promote the growth of strong farm unions or benefit the general economy in any vay. One problem which may to some extent hamper union activity is the especially transient nature of the farm labor force'. The selection of a bargaining agent and commu- nication with the constituency of a vinion could be compli- •cated. The crucial decision which must be made, hovrever, is whether farm workers will be given in the first place
-110-
847
the legal apparatus to force a dialog with their employers and "bargain on their o^wn behalf. The efforts of the UFWOC in California have set the stage for social changes which are and will he occurring on farms for many years to come. Hopefully the decision about whether or not to include the farm worker in a constructive labor relations system will glorify those initial efforts in Delano instead of rendering them futile.
-Ill-
848
APPENDICES
APPEITDDC A: SUI#IARY OF MAJOR LABOR LEGISLATION
1932: The_JTorr^s^L_22oji^dla^ vas passed in response to vridespread use of repressive court injunctions which" crippled legitimate labor organizing efforts. It required federal cou:rts considering labor injxmctions to give notice to all parties involved, to hear testimony of v^itnesses with opporttmity for cross exaiaination, and to issue an inj\mction only if it was found that the lack of an injunc- ' tion would result in irreparable damage to property and that greater damage vrould result to the com- plainant from denying the injunction than to the defendant from granting it. The Act was vfeakened by provisions of the Taft-Hartley and Landnaja- Griffin Acts. California does not have a similar law to cover state courts,
1933: The^Nat ional. Industrial^ Recovery Act established public policy 'in favor of labor organization and collective bargaining. The U.S. Supreme Court declared this act unconstitutional in 1933.
1935: The Wagy^er-Cornery__Ac_t (tho National Labor Relations Act) cir e at e dT^t he i^Iational Labor Relations Board, established procedures for union representation elections and good faith collective bargaining, and outlawed certain employer \mfair labor practices. (See Chapter 3 for f\ill discussion.)
1947: The Taft-Hartley Amendments to the NLRA changed the name of the NLRA to the National Labor-Management Relations Act, although the old name is still more frequently used. The Amendments outlav/ed certain •unfair labor practices by employees, outlined certain illegal kinds of secondai'y boycotts, permitted state "right to vrork" laws, and required employer participation in the administration of vrorker health and welfare plans.
1.959: ^^}S^'^-^^2^;!3i^S2::^l2^,^:^^M§I}i^ "to the NLRA strengthened secondary boycott restrictions, outlawed clauses in contracts which permit non-handling of scab products ("hot cargo" clauses), and made organiza- tional and recognition picketing illegal \mder certain conditions. For each of the above cases, the NLRB was required to seek a so-called "mandatory injunction" against \mfair union practices upon issuance of a complaint.
-112-
849
1959: The L?ridi3.im-:g:riff^ljl_Act, otherwise kno'.m as the" Labor Management Reporting ajid Disclosiu'e Act, provides for vmion nenberohip rights, protects democratic prs.ctices in unions, and requires reporting on membership and money matters to the Federal Government.
-115-
850
APPEITDIX B
DEFINITION OF A STRIKEBREAKER by Jack London
After God had finished the rattlesnal:e, the toad, and the vampire, he had some a^-rful substance left with which he made a Strikebreaker. A Strikebrealcer is a two-legged animal vrith a cork-screw sovil, a water- logged brain, end a combination backbone made of jelly and glue. V/here others have hearts, he carries a tiimor of rotten principles.
When a Strikebreaker comes do^rn the street, men • turn their backs and angels weep in Heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of Hell to keep him out. No man has the right to be a Strikebreaker, so long as there is a pool of water deep eno^lgh to droim his body in, or a rope long enough to hang his carcass with, Judas Isca- riot was a gentleman. . .compared with a Strikebreaker. Per betraying his master, he had the character to hang himself.,, a Strikebreaker hasn*t,
Judas Iscariot was a traitor to his God. Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his coimtry. A StrikebreaJcer is a traitor to himself, a traitor to his God, a traitor to his country, a traitor to his family, and a traitor to his class. There is nothing lower than a Strikebreaker,
-114-
1
851
APPEITDIX C: I'lAJOR LABELS OP BOYCOTTED TABLE GRAPES
A and A
Alila
All American
Antone's Quality
Arra
Banquet
Better Test
Blue Flag
Blue River
Bonophil
Camelot
Caric
Cashmere
Col-umbine
Del-Vin
Delano Gold
Delano King
Diamond S,
Early Hart
El Toro
Elmco
Flamingo
Galliano
Gee Jay
Heritage
Hi Style
Highland
Honey Bee
Jindy
Jovista
Zenney, Jr.
LBL
Lindy
Louis XIV
MC
MC Extra
Marlin
Maruska
M£iry~Jo
I4id-State
Miss Bute
Moses
Mother
Mr. KK
New Yorker
PBI
PIA
Prosperity
Quality
Radovich
Rennie Boy
Rodes
Roxie
Royal Delano
Royal K
Sall-n-Ann
Scotsman
Sierra I-Ioon
Silver King
Silver Knight
Sno-Boy
Souvenir
Springtime
Steady
Steele
Stin Best
Sunviev
Super Sweet
Sweet Cluster
Table Queen
Thomas
3 Brothers
Treasure
Trocha
Tudor
Tuxedo Park
VBZ
Yerko
Vines Best
V inland
Zora
-115-
852
APPENDIX D: RESULTS OP UITIOIT REPRESENTATION ELECTIONS
ITFV/OC
OTHER
NO UNION
|
i\lTnaden |
85 |
0 |
|
DiGiorgio |
||
|
Arvin ranch |
283 |
0 |
|
Delano and Borrego Springs ranches |
530 |
331* |
|
Gallo |
68 |
0 |
|
Mont La Salle |
- |
|
|
Napa |
' 29 |
0 |
|
Reedley -._ |
■ 63 |
0 |
|
Mosesian-Hourigan-Goldberg |
285 |
0 |
|
(Coachella Valley striker |
1484 |
0 |
convention at Indio)
26
199 19
0 0
38
32
At Franzia and Paul Masson, employers recognized the tmion without elections when a majority of v/orkers voiced a desire for the union.
♦all for Teamster representation
source: "The Delano Grape Strike: The Farm Vorkers' Struggle for Self -De termination", by Rev, Wayne C. Hartmire, California Migrant Ministry, February 1969, footnote 26.
-116-
853
FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER 1
1 ) material for this chapter compiled from:
John Gregory Dunne. Delano (ITew York: Ferrar, Straus,
and Giroux, 1967), pp. 34-51. Farm Lahor Orf^anizin^, 1905-1967: A Brief History , National Advisory Committee on Farm Labor, 1967, ■pp. 11-17. Eugene Nelson. Huelga (Delano, California: Farm Worker
Press, 1966), pp. 15-17. Encyclopedia Americana, pp. 737-739.
'2) Farm labor Or^gnizina;, ibid, p. 11.
3) Dunne, op. cit., p. 40.
4) Farm Labor Orfianizin^, op. cit., p. 12
5) ibid, p. 12
6) Carey McVJilliams, Factories in the Field (Boston: Little,
Brown and Company7~1 939) , pp. T58-T^2.
7) Stuart Jamieson, Labor Unionism in American Agriculture ,
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labov Statistics, Bxilletin No. 836 (V/ashington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1945), p. 81.
8) Nelson, op. cit., p. 17.
9) Dunne, op. cit., pp. 45-46.
10) Pope Pius XI, in O.uadrag:esimo Anno (1931) had criticized
the economic despotism which results from "limitless free competition" and emphasized the need to insure a just wage. Earlier, Pope Leo XIII wrote in Rerum Novarum (1891 ):
Everyone's first duty is to protect the workers from the greed of speculators who use human beings as instruments to provide themselves v;ith money. It is neither just nor human to oppress men with excessive work to the point where their minds become enfeebled and their bodies worn out.
(from Basta! (Enough!) (Delano: Farm V/orker Press, no date) , p. 53.
11) Jamieson, op. cit., p. 16.
12) ibid, p. 87.
13) Harry Schwartz, "Recent Developments Among Farm Labor
Unions," Joixrnal of Farm Economics, XXIII: 4 (November, 1941), p. 838.
14) Truman Hoore, The Slaves \-le Rent (New York: Random House,
1965), p. 157.
15) Dunne, op. cit., pp. 47-8.
16) ibid, p. 48.
-117-
854
CHAPTER 2
Congressional Quarterly, Weekly Report, 5/12/67,- No. 19, p. 785.
Fay Bennett, Report to the Board of Directors of the National Sharecroppers Fund, The Conditions of Farm V/orkers and Small Faraers in 1967, National Share- croppers Fund, New York, p. 1 .
California Department of Employment, Disability Insurance Report No. 835, parts 5a, h, c, and d, 1967.
The Hired Farm Working Force of 1966, a statistical report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultiiral Economic Report No. 120 (V/ashington D.C., Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 5.
Agenda magazine. Vol. 2, No. 7 (Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C., Jxily 1966), p. 11.
Lamar B. Jones, and James W. Christian, "Some Observations on the Agricultural Labor Market," Industrial and Labor Relations Reviev. July 1965, Vol. 18, No. 4, p. 293.
Congressional Record, Vol. 114, No. 169, 10/11/68.
Eugene Boutelier, "The Grape Strike Today," en^^age magazine, 10/1/68.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Resources Division, Btaietin No. 1370-5.
Jones, op. cit., p. 527.
Congressional Record, op. cit,
"Ford Facts" (Milv;aukee: V/isconsin Boycott Committee, 9/9/68)
ibid
ibid
Judea B. Killer, Delano Diary (Maiden, Massachusetts: privately mimeographed. Temple Tifereth Israel, no date), p. 54.
Rev. V/ayne C. Hartmire, "The Delano Grape Strike: The Farm V/orkers' Struggle for Self-Determination, " (Los Angeles: California Migrant Ministry, February 1969)
Bennett, op. cit., p. 1.
The Hired Farm Working Force of 1966. op. cit., p. 1.
ibid, p. 2.
ibid. p. 2.
Varden Fxiller, "A New Era for Farm Labor?" Industrial Relations; A Journal of Economy and Society, Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley, Vol. 6, No. 3, May 1967, pp. 291-294.
-118-
22
23
24
25
26 27 28 29 30 31
32
33 34 35 36 37
38 39 40 41 42
855
The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the U.S.. 1969 Report of the Coninittee on Labor and Public \velfare, U.S. Senate, Report No. 91-83 (V/ashington, D.G., Governcient Printing Office, 1969), p. 3.
Appendix to the Report on Housing in California,
Governor's Advisory Commission on Housing Problems, April 1963, p. 656.
Manpower Report of the President (Vfashington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 220.
The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the U.S.. op. cit., p. viii.
Jones, op. cit., p. 531.
Time magazine, 7/4/69, p. 20.
Congressional Record, op. cit.
Bennett, op. cit., p. 3.
Farm Labor Organizing, op. cit,, p. 4.
Irma West, M.D,, "Occupational Disease of Farm V/orkers," Archives of Envirorjnental Health, July 1964, Vol. 9, pp. 92-98.
ibid
Los Angeles Times, 12/4/68
El Malcriado magazine, 6/16/69, Vol. 3, No. 8, p. 7.
ibid, p. 7.
ibid, p. 7.
Civil Liberties, newsletter of the American Civil Liberties Union, April 1969, p. 6.
Medical World News. 3/13/69
El Malcriado, op. cit., p. 7.
San Francisco Chronicle. 7/17/69
Fresno Bee. 1/12/69
El Malcriado. 2/16/69, Vol. 2, No. 24, p. 9.
-119-
36-513 O - 70 - pt. 3A - 21
856
CHAPTER 3
1) Austin P. Morris, "Agricultural Labor and National
Labor Legislation," California Lav Revievr. 54:5 (December 1966), p. 1954.
2) Dunne, op. cit., p. 100.
3) see Cong:ressional Quarterly. 5/12/67, p. 785.
4) Robert Evans, Public Policy Toward Labor (New York:
Harper and Row,' 1965) , p. 65.
"Status of Agricxiltiiral V^orkers under State and Federal Labor Law," U.S. Department of Labor, Fact Sheet No. 2, December 1965, p. 24.
The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the U.S., 1 967 Report of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, Report No. 71 (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 11.
California Department of Employment, Weekly Farm Labor Report, 881 A, No. 1191, 9/21/68
The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the U.'S., 1967 Report, op. cit,, p. 23.
The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the U.S., 1969 Report, op. cit., p. vii.
Bennett, op. cit., p. 3.
The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the U.S.. 1967 Report, op. cit., p. 29.
Phillis Groom, Today's Farm Jobs and Farm V/orkers,
Bxireau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 8
The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the U.S.. 1967 Report, op. cit., p. 37.
Monthly Labor Review. U.S. Department of Labor, December 1967, Vol. 90, No. 12, p. 16.
international magazine, published by the Seafarers International Union, September 1968
Dunne, op. cit., p. 101 .
international magazine, op. cit.
One California grov/er, Giumarra Corporation of Bakersfield, California, consistently violated the child labor statutes and was consistently convicted. The total fine for the violations, however, was only S1 150, and that was suspended. Dolores Huerta, "Obstacles to Union Organizing," prepared testimony before the Senate Sub-Committee -on Migratory Labor, 7/15/69, p. 3.
19) see Richard A. Givens, "Legal Disadvantages of Migratory Workers," Labor Law Journal, Vol. 116, No. 9, September 1965, p. 588.
-120-
857
CHAPTER 4
1) George Meany, testifying before the Senate Sub-Committee on Migratory Labor, 5/16/69
2 3
4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14
15
16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23
24
25 -26
Farm Labor Organizing, op. cit., p. 5.
Dunne, op. cit., p. 31 .
Meany, op. cit.
Bennett, op. cit., p. 2.
Meany, op. cit.
Huerta, op. cit.
Statement issued by Senator Harrison Williams (D-New Jersey), 6/19/67
Los An°:eles Times. 1/12/69
New York Times, 1/17/68
"Agribusiness Power in the San Joaquin Valley of
California" (Los. Angeles: California Migrant Ministry, May 1968) . •
ibid
Hartmire, op. cit.
"Labor Report", U.S. Department of Agriculture (V/ashington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1967)
Howard Gregor, "The Plantation in California," The Professional Geographer. Vol. 14, March 1962
1959 Census of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Farm Labor OriSjanizing;, op. cit., p. 7.
Richard A. Fineberg, "Struggle in the Vineyards," The Progressive magazine, 1969
Wall Street Jottrnal. 9/9/68
1964 Census of Agricultxore , U.S. Department of Agriculture
Boston Globe. 11/29/68
Boutilier, op* cit.
"Agribusiness Power in the San Joaquin Valley of - California," op. cit.
Economic Review of the Grape Industry in California,
University of California Agricultural Extension Service, Pamphlet 7-17
"Agribusiness Power in the San Joaquin Valley of California," op. cit.
The Grape Strike, National Advisory Committee on Farm Labor, 1966, p. 5.
-122-
858
27) Dunne, op. cit., p. 16.
28) V/illiam KTihrt, Report submitted to the California
Department of Agriculture
29) Weekly Farm Labor Report, 881A
30) Villiam H. Ketzler, Technolo°;ical Change a.nd Farm Labor Use,
(Berkeley: Giannini Fo-undation, 19^), Part 11, p. 27.
31) compiled from statistics in the following sources:
Assessor's Records, Kern and Tulare Counties, Agricultural
Conservation and Stabilization Service 1959 Census of Agricultirre , U.S. Department of Agriculture The Grape Strike, op. cit.
32) Farm Labor Orfi;anizin£;, op. cit., p. 6.
33) Nev; York Times. 6/6/66
34) material for this section compiled predominantly from:
"Agribusiness Pov;er in the San Joaquin VaJ.ley of California," op. cit.
35) Giiunarra Corp. v. First California Company, Kern County
Superior Court
36) Kern County Record Book No. 3683, p. 250.
37) Los Angeles Superior Court, Docket No. 779160
_38) material for this section compiled predominajitly from: The Grape Strike, op. cit., pp. 5-9. Farm Labor Or:'^anizing, op. cit., pp. 46-47.
-123-
859
CHAPTER 3
1 ) National Advisory Committee on Farm Labor, Information
Letter 18, February 1962
2) Moore, op. cit., p. 157.
3) National Advisory Committee on Farm Labor, Information
Letter 16, August 1961
4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 15
61-62.
cit., p. 17.
Nelson, op. cit., p. 18.
Farm Labor OTp:exi±z±r\^ , op. cit., p. 42.
Huerta, op. cit.
Dunne, op. cit., pp.
ibid, pp. 79-80.
ibid, p. 94.
The Grape Strike, op,
ibid, p. 24.
New York Times, 12/12/65
"On the spot" injunctions were often given by Delano's "law enforcement" officers. One officer, after reading Jack London's "Definition of a Strikebreaker", told a minister who vras about to read it out loud that if he did, he vrould be arrested. The minister proceeded to read the passage and was arrested. On another occasion, a Kern County sheriff arrested several pickets vfhen they were threatened by some antagonistic men on a Delano ranch. When Senator Robert Kennedy held a Senate Sub-Committee hearing in Delano in March 1966, he questioned the sheriff about the arrest: KENNEDY: V/hat did you charge them with?" SHERIFF: Violation of — unlawfiil assembly. KENNEDY: I think that's most interesting. V/ho told
you that they were going to riot? SHERIFF: The men right out in the field that they were talking to said, 'If you don't get them out of here, v/e're going to cut their hearts out.' So rather than let them get cut, we removed the cause. KENNEDY: This is the most interesting concept, I think. How can you arrest somebody if they haven't violated the law? SHERIFF: They're ready to violate the law. KENNEDY: Can I st^ggest that the sheriff read the Constitution of the United States?
Dunne, op. cit., pp; 28-29. (see Appendix B)
14) ibid, p. 59.
15) A list of Delano grape labels were published to help
-124-
860
in identifying those included in the boycott. (See Appendix C j . Other growers* grapes were added to the boycott, but it was intended that DiGiorgio's would be most affected.
16) Dunne, op. cit., p. 128.
17) The entire contract appears in:
Migratory Labor Lea;islation, Hearings before the Sub-Comiaittee on Migratory Labor of the Committee on Labor and Public V/elfare, U.S. Senate (\/ashington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1968), pp. 833-842 (Part 4).
18) IXinne, op. cit. p. 139.
19) New York Times. 4/4/67
20) The entire contract appear in Migratory Labor Legislation,
op. cit., pp. 842-856.
21) Jones, op. cit., p. 532.
-125-
861
CHAPTER 6
"Ford Facts", op. cit.
ibid
Fineberg, op. cit.
ibid
Boutilier, op. cit.
Time magazine, 7/4/69, p. 16.
San Frsjicisco Chronicle, 6/28/69
AFL-CIO Nevfs. 8/28/68
AFL-CIO i:e\Ts, 9/17/68
ibid
Time, op. cit., p. 16.
Boston Globe. 10/27/69
Nation's Business magazine, October 1968, p. 47.
"California Grape Strikers Need Help Now." (Philadelphia: Jewish Labor Committee, September 1968)
Boutilier, op. cit.
Nation's Business, op. cit., p. 46.
ibid, p. 46.
Congressional Report, op. cit.
Huerta, op. cit.
AFL-CIO News. 10/3/68
Fineberg, op. cit.
AFL-CIO News. 10/3/68
AFL-CIO News. 7/2/68
Nation's Business, op. cit., p. 47.
AFL-CIO News. 8/1/68
Fineberg, op. cit. '
AFL-CIO News, 6/27/68
Fineberg, op. cit.
San Fraiicisco Chronicle, 6/28/69
Boston Globe. 10/17/68
El Malcriado. Vol. 2, No. 24, 2/16/69, p. 5.
Boston Globe. 11/29/68
AFL-CIO News. 10/3/68
-126-
862
54) El Malcriado. 2/16/69, pp. 2-3.
35) ATL-CIO Nevfs. 10/9/68
36) This analysis seems to overestimate the actual losses
grovrers are incurring. Approximately 680,000,000 poxinds of table grapes are produced on about 106,000 acres each year (see Chapter 4). Thus around 6,400 pounds or 250 lugs (average 26 pounds each) is the average output per acre. Actual costs of production range betv/een S450 and S650 per acre, depending on conditions and the farm. This yields a cost per lug of betx-reen S1 .80 and S2.60, with a total average revenue per acre of about 3550. At S3 per lug (the lov;est prevailing wholesale price), an acre will give approximately 5750 revenue and S200 profit.
37) Nation's Business, op. cit., p. 47.
38) Boutilier, op. cit.
39) Compiled from UFV/OC flyers and articles in the San
Francisco Chronicle
40) Huerta, op. cit. . •
41) ibid (1968-9 figure is estimated from current data
through Karch 1969 in Fresno Bee. 4/25/69)
42) San Francisco Chronicle. 12/21/68
43) ibid
44) DOD Fact Sheet, "Use of Table Grapes", 3/28/69
45) Huerta, op. cit.
46) AFL-CIO News. 6/14/69
47) Huerta, op. cit.
48) New York Times. 6/27/69
49) ibid
50) San Francisco Chronicle. 12/21/68
51) Ironically, the eagerness of growers to recruit strike-
breakers in 1965 was to their detriment. As it turned out, the 1965 grape crop was the largest in California's history. So many grapes were picked and packaged that the average price of wine grapes fell from S57 per ton to less than S20 per ton. If strikebreakers were not sought and employed, the harvest v/ould have been incomplete and a higher price and revenue would have probably been received by the growers.
52) Boston Globe. 10/27/68
53) UFWOC flyer, OPEIU No. 13-cb, June 1968
54) Boston Globe. 10/27/68
-127-
I
863
55) The union has received many donation to continue the
strike: 12,000 high quality used garments vrere donated by a New York union CaFL-CIO News. 7/2/68), and a bus for national boycott workers was donated by a Colorado union (Fineberg, op. cit.)-
...hardly a day goes by when a station wagon or pickup truck does not arrive with new provisions. Some people even donate cars. One umion has pledged a hundred dozen eggs a week, another, forty pounds of hamburger. A bakery in Los Angeles sends up, daily, a hxindred loaves of day-old bread. ' .Dunne, op. cit., p. 96.
56) Boston Globe. 5/25/69 '
57) Boston Globe. 11/29/68
58) Allan Grant, "California Grapes and the Boycott: the
Grower's Side of the Story," Presbyterian Life magazine, 12/1/68
59) William K. Metzler, Farm Mechanization and Labor Stabilization
(Berkeley: Giannihi Foundation, no date), part 2, p. 46.
60) AFL-CIO News. 6/27/69
61 ) New York Times. 5/4/69
62) Boston Globe. 11/29/68 '63) Huerta, op. cit.
64) UFVOC flyer, Boston office, 7/10/69
65) Nevr York Tines, 5/4/69
66) ibid
67) Miller, op. cit., p. 62.
68) ibid, p. 69
69) Huerta, op. cit.
70) New York Times. 5/4/69
-128-
864
CHAPTER 7
1) Dunne, op. cit., p. 88.
2) The largest grower organizations are the American Farm
Bureau Federation, the California Fara Bureau Federation, the National Right-to-Vork Committee, the Council of California Growers , the California Grape and Tree Fruit League, the Table Grape Commission of the State of California, and the California-Arizona Labor Association.
3) Migratory Labor Legislation, Hearings before the
Sub-Committee on Migratory Labor of the Coimnittee
on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate (V/ashington,
D.C., Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 566 (Part 2).
4) National Advisory Committee on Farm Labor, Report on
Farm Labor (Public Hearings, V/ashington, D.C., February 5 and S7T959), p. 24.
5) Migratory Labor Legislation, op. cit., p. 567.
6) La Voz I-Iexicana, newspaper of Obreros Unid.os, Wautoma,
Wisconsin, Vol, 5> No. 4, p. 7.
7) Grant, op. cit.
8) Jamieson, op. cit., p. 103.
9) Dunne, op. cit., p. 170.
10) Huerta, op. cit.
11) Boutilier, op. cit.
12) Congressional Record, op. cit.
13) Los Angeles Times. 12/16/68
14) ibid
15) Migratory Labor Legislation, op. cit., p. 519.
16) Dunne, op. cit., p. 16.
17) Michael J. Piore, "Negro Workers in the Mississippi
Delta: Problems of Displacement and Adjustment," paper for the 20th Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association, December 1967, Washington, D.C., mimeo, p. 1 .
18) Dunne, op. cit. p. 33.
19) Fuller, op. cit., p. 298.
20) Migratory Labor Legislation, op. cit. p. 568.
21) ibid, p. 543.
22) Los Angeles Times. 12/16/69
23) ibid
-129-
865
24) ibid
25) Conn:ressional Record, op. cit.
26) Mi,g:ratory Labor Lea;islation, op. cit., p. 519.
27) ibid
28) ibid, pp. 938-939.
-130-
866
CHAPTER 8
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16
Los AnG:eles Times. 12/16/68
Capital Times (Madison, V/isconsin) , 7/1/69
Miller, op. cit., p. 29.
La Voz Mexicana, 7/18/69
San Francisco Chronicle, 7/16/69
San Francisco Chronicle, 7/17/69
Labor Law Reporter. Paragraph 1670.051, CCA-9, 1941
"The Truth about the Grape Boycott," pamphlet published by the Anerican Farm Buxeau Federation, April 1969
Meany, op. cit.
ibid
Nev York Times, 5/7/69
Meany, op. cit.
Cesar Chavez, prepared statement delivered- to the Senate Sub-Committee on Migratory Labor, 4/16/69
ibid
ibid
Memorandvim from Senator George Murphy, 4/28/69
CHAPTER 9
1) Dunne, op. cit,, p. 50.
-131-
867
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Dunne, John Gregory, Delano (llew York: Ferrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1967;
Evans, Robert, Public Policy Toward Labor (New York: Harper and Rovr, 19651
McV/illians, Carey, Factories in the Field (Boston: Little, Brown and Company'^ T'939)
Moore, Trximan, The Slaves V/e Rent (Nev; York: Random House, 1965)
Nelson, Eugene, Huelg:a (Delano, California: Farm V/orker Press, 1966)
Pierson, Frank, Unions in Postwar America (Nevr York: Random House, 1967)
GO\^RITIffiNT DOCUIIENTS MP PUBLICATIOIIS
Congjressional Record. Vol. 114, No. 169, 10/11/68
Governor's Advisory Commission on Housing Problems, Report on Housing in California, April 1963
Jamieson, Stuart, Labor Unionism in American Aa:ric"alture , U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin Ho. 856 (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1945)
Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the U.S., The, 1968 Report of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, Report No. 1006 (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1968)
,1969 Report, Report No. 91-83
Migrant Health Services. Hearings before the Sub-Committee on Migratory Labor of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1968)
Mifi:ratory Labor Legislation, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare (V^ashington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1968)
Senate Bill S.8, 91st Congress, 1st Session (V/ashington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1969)
Statements to the Senate Sub-Committee on Migratory Labor, delivered by: Cesar Chavez 4/16/69
Rev. Shirley Greene 6/18/69
Dolores Huerta 7/15/69
George Meany 5/1 6/69 (available from National Campaign for Agricultural Democracy, V/ashington, D.C.)
Tentative Draft, California Labor Relations Act, Req. No. 16611
-132-
868
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1959 Census of AgricTJ.ture , 1964 Census of Agricultxire
, Econoaic Research Service, The Hired Farm
Workino; Force of 1966, a statistical renort, Agriciiltural Economic Report No. 120
, Human Resources Division, Bulletin No. 1370-5
U.S. Department of Defense, Fact Sheet, "Use of Tahle Grapes," 3/28/69
U.S. Department of Labor, Report of the Secretary of Labor, "Year of Transition: Seasonal Farm Labor," 1965
PAMPHLETS. JOURITALS, ETC.
Basta! (Delano, California: Farm Worker Press, no date)
Bennett, Fay, Report to the Board of Directors of the National Sharecroppers Fund, The Conditions of Farm Workers and Small Farmers in 1967, National Sharecroppers Fund, Nev/ York
Congressional Quarterly. Weekly Report, 5/12/67, No. 19
Economic Reviev/ of the Grape Industry in California,
University of California Agriculturail Extension Service, Pamphlet 7-17
Farm Labor Organizing, 1905-1^67: A Brief History, National Advisory Committee on Farm labor, 1967
Fuller, Varden, "A New Era for Farm Labor?" Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Vol. 6, No. 3, May 1967
Givens, Richard, "Legal Disadvantages of Migratory Workers," Labor Lav; Journal. Vol. 16, No. 9, September 1965
Grant, Allan, "California Grapes and the Boycott: the Grower's Side of the Story," Presbyterian Life. 12/1/68
Grape Strike, The. National Advisory Committee on Farm Labor, 1966
Gregor, Hov^ard, "The Plantation in California," The Professional Geographer. Vol. 14, March 1962
Jones, Lamar B. , and Christian, James V/., "Some Observations on the Agricultural Labor Market," Industrial smd Labor Relations Review. July 1965, Vol. II4, No. 169, 10/11/68
-Lantz, Jacob and Miller, Judea, "A Study of the Table Grape Conflict," Report to the Massachusetts Board of Rabbis, "Temple Tifereth Israel, Maiden, Massachusetts
Metzlor, William H. , Technological Change and Farm Labor Use. (Berkeley: Giannini Foundation, 19^4)
-133-
869
Farm Mechanization and Labor Stabilization
Miller, Judea, Delano Diary, Report to the Massachusetts
Board of Rabbis, Temple Tifereth Israel, Maiden, Massachusetts
"Right to V/ork Laws — A Trap for America's Minorities," pamphlet prepared by Cesar Chavez and Bayard Rustin (New York: A. Philip Randolph Institute, no date)
Schwartz, Harry, "Recent Developments Among Farm Fabor Unions," Journal of Farm Economics. Vol. 23, Ko. 4, November 19^5
-"The Truth about the Grape Boycott , " published by the American Farm Bureau Federation, Chicago, Illinois, April 1969
West, Irma, M.D. , "Occupational Disease of Farm V/orkers," Archives of Environmental Health. July 1964, Vol. 9
MAGAZINE ARTICLES. FLYERS. ETC.
Agenda magazine, Vol. 2, No. 7, July 1966 (Washington, D.C., Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO)
"Agribusiness Power in the San Joaquin Valley of California," by V/ayne Hartmire (Los Angeles: California Migrant Ministry)
"«Can They Pull Off a National Boycott," by Cornell Dowlin, Nation's Business, October 1968
"Child Labor 1968," international magazine, published by the Seafarers International Union, September 1968
"Delano Grape Strike, The: Farm V/orkers' Struggle for Self -Determination," by V/ayne Hartmire (Los Angeles: California Migrant Ministry, February 1969)
El Malcriado. February 16, March 16, April 1, and Jvme 16, 1969 ( Delano ,~Calif ornia : Farm V/orker Press)
"Ford Facts," Information Sheet, 9/9/68 (Milwaukee: V/isconsin Boycott Committee)
Graham, Hajrry, "Re: S.8," National Farmers Organization Statement, 6/18/69
"The Grape Boycott. . .Why it has to be," by Cesar Chavez, UFWOC literature
"The Grape Strike Today," by Eugene Boutilier, engage magazine, 10/1/68
"Memorandum" from Senator George Murphy, 4/28/69
."Press Release"" from the National Farmers Union, 3/25/69
^'Statement on Farm Labor, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 11/13/68
"Struggle in the Vineyards," by Richard Fineberg, The Profcressive magazine, Madison, V/isconsin, 1969
Time magazine, 7/4/69: "The Little Strike that Grew to La Causa"
"Violence at the Supermarket. . .V/hy the Grape Boycott
Must be Ended!" Consiuners' Rights Committee, Washington, D.C.
-134-
Senator M
(Whereup(
9:30 a.m., Wc
AMHERST COLLEGE LIBRARY DATE DUE
morning. Reconvene at
1
- 16 1970