(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Migrant and seasonal farmworker powerlessness. Hearings, Ninety-first Congress, first and second sessions .."

AMHERST COLLEGE 




fOc^3 



i^il^\lLV:'J.^^J lj^sonal farmworker 

POWERLESSNESS 



HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATORY LABOR 



OF THE 



COMMITTEE ON 

LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 

ON 

MANPOWER AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS 



APRIL 14, 1970 



PART 7-A 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 




MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 



HEARINGS 

BEFOKE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGEATOBY LABOR 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

MANPOWER AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS 



APRIL 14, 1970 



PART 7-A 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
36-513 O WASHINGTON : 1971 



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, Rhode 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 RALPH TYLER SMITH, Illinois 
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. HUGHES, Iowa RALPH TYLER SMITH, Illinois 

BoREN Chertkov, Counscl 

Herbert N. Jasper, Professional Staff il/ember 

Eugene Mittelman, Minority Counsel 

(II) 



Format of Hearings on Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker 

powerlessness 

The Subcommittee on Migratory Labor conducted public hearings 
in Washington, D.C., during the 9 1st Congress on "Migrant and Sea- 
sonal 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 Organize July 16 and 17, 1969 

Part 4-A : Farmworker Legal Problems Aug. 7, 1969 

Part 4-B : Farmworker Legal Problems Aug. 8, 1969 

Part 5-A: Border Commuter Labor Problem May 21, 1969 

Part 5-B : Border Commuter Labor Problem May 22, 1969 

Part 6-A: Pesticides and the Farmworker Aug. 1. 1969 

Part 6-B : Pesticides and the Farmworker Sept. 29, 1969 

Part 6-C : Pesticides and the Farmworker Sept. 30, 1969 

Part 7-A : Manpower and Economic Problems April 14, 1970 

Part 7-B : Manpower and Economic Problems April 15, 1970 

Part 8: Who Is Responsible? July 20, 21, and 24, 

1970 



(lU) 



CONTENTS 



CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 
Tuesday, Apeil 14, 1970 



Page 



Paarlberg, Donald, Director of Agricultural Economics, Department of 
Agriculture, accompanied by Robert C. McElroy, Leader, Manpower 
Group, Department of Agriculture; and William Motes, Director, 
Economic Development Division, Department of Agriculture 4049 

Weber, Arnold R., Assistant Secretary for Manpower, U.S. Department 
of Labor, Washington, D.C. ; accompanied by Stanley M. Knebel, Assist- 
ant Director, Farm Labor and Rural Manpower Service 4079 

STATEMENTS 

Paarlberg, Donald, Director of Agricultural Economics, Department of 
Agriculture, accompanied by Robert C. McElroy, Leader, Manpower 
Group, Department of Agriculture ; and William Motes, Director, Eco- 
nomic Development Division, Department of Agriculture 4049 

Weber, Arnold R., Assistant Secretary for Manpower, U.S. Department 
of Labor, Washington, D.C. ; accompanied by Stanley M. Knebel, Assist- 
ant Director, Farm Labor and Rural Manpower Service 4079 

Prepared statement 4080 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Articles, publications, etc., entitled : 

"An Assessment of the Experimental and Demonstration Interstate 
Program for South Texas Migrants," prepared by Abt Associates 
Inc., Cambridge, Mass., and .submitted to Manpower Administration, 
U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C, December 1, 1969 4113 

"Breakthrough in Rural Manpower Services," final report to the 
Ottumwa, Iowa, experimental andi development project, Iowa 
Employment Security Commission 4181 

Ethnic Background of Migrant Workers 4094 

"Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization — Manpower Implica- 
tions," by B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossmiller 4337 

Interstate Recruitment of Agricultural Workers 4105 

"Major Statistical Series of the U.S. Department of Agriculture- 
How They Are Constructed and Used," U.S. Department of Agri- 
culture Handbook No. 365, November 1969 4512 

"Migrant Manpower — A Study in Economic Powerlessness," by Migra- 
tory Labor Subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Public 
Welfare 4045 

"Minority Group Employment in State Agencies," General Information 
Letter No. 1367, from the U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower 
Administration, March 25, 1970 4101 

Number of interstate migrants 4098 

"Rural Worker Adjustment to Urban Life — An Assessment of the 
Research," by Varden Fuller, University of California, Berkeley 4496 

"The Grapes of Wrath," (excerpt from), by John Steinbeck, Viking 

Press, New York, N.Y 4048 

Department of Agriculture and Department of Labor enclosures submitted 
with respective answers 4334 

(V) 



VI 

Page 
Letter of Inquiry by Senator Walter F. Mondale to the Secretaries of 
Agriculture, Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Office of 
Economic Opportunity concerning pending unemployment of 200,000 

migrants in 1970, with responses 4061 

Questions and answers : 

Questions posed by the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor to 
the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Labor con- 
cerning migratory farmworker manpower and economic issues with 
coordinated answers from the Department of Agriculture and De- 
partment of Labor 4215 



MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 

Manpower and Economic Problems 



TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1970 

U.S. Senate, 

SUBCMDMMITTEE ON MiGRATORY LaBOR, 

OF THE Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The subcommittee met at 9 :30 a.m., ijursuant to call, in room 4232, 
New Senate Office Building, Senator Walter Mondale (chainnan of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Mondale (presiding). Murphy and Schweiker. 

Committee staff members present : Boren Chertkov, majority coun- 
sel ; Dr. Mark Erenburg, economic consultant ; and Eugene Mittelman, 
minority counsel. 

Senator Mondale. The Subcommittee on Migratory Labor will come 
to order. 

This morning the Migratory Labor Subcommittee begins the sev- 
enth in a series of hearings on migrant and seasonal farmworker 
problems in the United States. 

When we began our hearings last spring, we chose powerlessness as 
the underlying theme. We set out to examine the degree to which, and 
the ways in which, migrant and seasonal farmworkers were deprived 
of political power, deprived of economic power, deprived of cultural 
identity or pride, and deprived of the rights and privileges that most 
Americans take for granted. 

We heard from migrants themselves just what it was like to be a 
migrant farmworker — telling of their own lives, ther own problems in 
their own way. 

We heard from psychologists and sociologists about what really hap- 
pens to the men, women, and children who are confronted with the 
severe economic and social stress of migratory farm work. 

We learned of the severe economic depression created and sustained 
by the surplus of desperately poor people, many commuting from 
Mexico, who are forced to accept substandard living and working con- 
ditions along the United States-Mexico border. 

We learned of the obstacles faced by union and community organi- 
zations that are attempting by their self-help efforts to improve their 
own situation. 

(4043) 



4044 

We investigated the legal problems and barriers faced by migrant 
and seasonal farmworkers; and, in a most revealing series of hearings, 
we learned of farmworkers' exposure to the unscrupulous use of 
chemical pesticides. 

We learned that the situation has changed very little since the days 
of John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. (I shall insert for the record 
a passage from that book which reflects precisely the situation that 
exists today in too many areas of the Nation. ) 

The American socio-economic system, with its goals of opportunity, 
achievement, and the promise of a better life, has failed the migrant 
farmworker. He is, in part, excluded from this system and denied its 
goals. 

Migrants have little or no income ; their ability to earn is impaired ; 
unemployment is high; and their stream of earnings is sporadic and 
uncertain. Skill, ability, education, and motivational levels are low; 
the demand for their services in agriculture is diminishing; and bene- 
fits of Government programs are either limited or denied. 

Our past hearings have given us a vivid description of the migrant 
situation. 

The purpose of our hearings today and tomorrow is to figure out why 
this situation continues. We want to find out what, in detail, is the 
extent and nature of farmworker economic powerlessness, and what 
are its causes. What is this Nation's overall economic or manpower 
policy to affect change in the economic condition of migrants ? 

More specifically, we want to find out : 

1. What is the effect of the open border policy between Mexico and 
the United States (its dimensions already set forth in the subcom- 
mittee's hearings of May 21 and 22, 1969), upon such problems as: 
(a) the redundancy of the labor supply; (b) the depressed living and 
working conditions in border areas; (c) the need for American resi- 
dents along the border to migrate north in search of better paying 
jobs; and (d) the entire national farm labor and rural economy? 

2. To what extent, if any, does a lack of adequate labor market in- 
formation limit farmworkers' opportunities to find jobs and to in- 
crease earnings? Are Federal and State Governments properly ad- 
ministering present programs, and assuming future responsibilities 
for improving dissemination of information ? To what extent, if any, 
do Federal and State Government progi^ams encourage an oversupply 
of labor which creates low earnings and unemployment — economic 
powerlessness ? 

3. How does the lack of better job opportunities both within and 
without the agriculture industry, relate to the ability or inability of 
farmworkers to get more secure and more higher paying jobs? What 
has been done, and what is proposed by both the public and private 
sector to improve job opportunities ? 

4. Are worker attitudes a factor that perpetuates powerlessness ? 

5. What will be the future demand for farm work? ITntil we can 
more accurately determine the changing levels of demands and re- 
quirernents for employees, particularly in the face of increasing mech- 
anization, will the migrants continue to be faced with unexpected 



4045 

and unannounced unemployment ? In view of the substantial Govern- 
ment resources that are devoted to feasibility studies of mechaniza- 
tion, is the Government adequately funding studies of the impact of 
mechanization on the economic wellbeing of the farmworker? 

6. To what extent do employer attitudes contribute to continued 
powerlessness ? What methods have been developed to more directly 
define and change negative attitudes and perceptions about migratory 
labor? Why do most farmers and growers continue to (>ppose extension 
of basic social and worker benefit legislation to farmworkers? Why 
are practices of discrimination based on age, sex, race, and migrancy 
still evident in employment policies ? 

7. To what extent is economic powerlessness a factor of poor worker 
ability, or low skill levels, and inadequate educational levels ? 

8. Farmworkers have traditionally been either excluded, or at best 
only minimally included, within every major social and worker bene- 
fit program enacted into law. Additionally, farmworkers are often 
unfamiliar with program benefits, or basic civil rights, such as voting, 
that might be available. To what extent is this exclusion from the 
American mainstream a cause or a result of continued economic power- 
lessness ? 

9. The Government projects a steadily diminishing yearly need for 
migrant farmworkers. What policies have been developed, and what 
efforts to implement those policies has the Government made in the 
area of rural to urban migration, and relocation and resettlement pro- 
grams ? Are additional efforts necessary ? 

10. To what extent is the exclusion from legislation protecting the 
right to organize and encouraging collective bargaining a cause of 
continued economic powerlessness ? 

11. What is the relationship to the institution of migrancy, and those 
factors which cause it, to overall poverty in this country ? 

I also will submit for insertion in the record at this point in my 
remarks, a subcommittee staff paper entitled "Migrant Manpower — 
A Study in Economic Powerlessness" which discusses the purpose, 
scope, and intentions of our hearings in greater detail. 

We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses this morning, and 
we look forward to hearing your views. 

(The material referred to above follows :) 

Migrant Manpowb:k — A Study in Economic Powerlessness 

(NOTE: The Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, chaired by Senator 
Walter F. Mondale, will soon be continuing its hearings on Migrant and Sea- 
sonal Farmworker Powerlessness. To date, the Subcommittee has endeavored to 
obtain a broad introduction to various problem areas by hearing farmworkers 
themselves tell of their own lives, their own problems. We have heard testimony 
from both community and union organizers on the obstacles to their self-help 
efforts to improve their own situation. We have explored what really happens 
to the men, women and children that are confronted with the severe economic 
and social stress of migratory famiwork relatetl to us in our earlier hearings. 
We have al.so heard testimony on the border commuter labor problem and the 
severe economic depression created by the surplus of desperately poor people 
forced to accept substandard living and working conditions along our borders 
with Mexico. The Subcommittee has also studied the effects of pesticides on 



4046 

farmworkers, and examined the legal problems and barriers faced by migrant and 
seasonal farmworkers. ) 

This staff paper is to serve as a basic document outlining the purposes, scope 
and intentions of our next hearing entitled "Migrant Manpower— a Study in 
Economic Powerlessness.") 

I. INTKODUCnON 

The American economic system is historically based on consumer sovereignty — 
we recognize the right of each individual to spend money and make purchases 
which best satisfy personal preferences. Americans generally have a voice in the 
determination of what is produced to the extent that they are willing to spend 
their income. This system works reasonably well for everyone except the poor. 
It has failed the migrant farmworker ; in fact, the migrant is excluded from the 
mainstream of our economic system. Because their income is low, they have only 
limited participation. Their power to affect the system is severely restricted. 

Migrants have little or no income ; their ability to earn is impaired ; and their 
stream of earnings is sporadic and uncertain. More important, however, they 
lack or are denied the ability to control their income. Unemployment and under- 
employment is high. Their ability to increase their economic power is restricted. 
Information about jobs is limited and faulty. Skill and ability, educational and 
motivational levels are low. The demand for their services in agriculture is 
diminishing. Benefits of government programs designed to raise income and 
make it more certain now and in the future are limited or denied. Instead of 
controlling the economic system, the system controls them. 

The Subcommittee will probe the causes of this tenuous economic position 
of migratory farmworkers. We hope to carefully assess in detail the extent and 
nature of their economic powerlessness. Only when we know the specific causes 
and the scope of the economic powerlessness of migratory farmworkers can we 
seriously attempt to suggest remedies for the situation. Only with more complete 
knowledge and understanding can we hope to guarantee to migratory farm- 
workers the individual sovereignty in our economy to which they are entitled. 

IL WHO ARE THE ECONOMIOAXLY POWERLESS AND WHO MIGHT BE IN THE FUTURE ? 

For years, interest has been centered on the labor market problems of migratory 
workers with only peripheral attention paid to a comprehensive analysis of who 
are migrant workers, and what constitutes migrancy. The Subcommittee w^ll in- 
vestigate definitions, rationale, and ramifications of migrant work, in prepara- 
tion for an exhaustive analysis of migrant manpower. 

Under various definitions, the Subcommittee is interested in the number of 
migrant workers, and information with which to accurately describe this class 
of worker. We are interested in demographic data such as age, sex, marital status, 
educational level, skill, and ability levels. Data on family size, children's school 
status, other household workers (and their demographic characteristics), parents' 
occupation, and place of residence are also important. We realize some of these 
data are already available but in various forms and various places. 

The Subcommittee seeks to compile a working report for itself and others deal- 
ing with migratory labor, including data not only representative of the present 
migratory working force, but also indicative of past and possible future trends 
in the size and demographic composition of this group. At the same time we will 
investigate the accuracy of this data, the methods of collection and compila- 
tion. We will aLso isolate those areas where no data exists, and question this 
dearth of information. 

ni. ECONOMIC POWEaiLBSSNESS SPECIFICALLY DEFINED 

Low earnings with sporadic and meager employment experience document 
the economic powerlessness of migratory farmworkers. But how low are the 
earnings, how sporadic and meager is the employment experience? Again, some 
data are available, but where are they, how accurate are they, and why haven't 
more data been collected ? 

The Subcommittee will collect and appraise specific information on the eco- 
nomic powerlessness of migratory farm labor, and identify data necessary but 
not available to effectively analyze the migratory farm labor market. We seek 



4047 

to identify the level and variability of earnings for heads of migrant families 
and other household workers as related to such variables as nature and location 
of agricultural and nonagricultural jobs, value of perquisites, other sources of 
income, type and amount of withholding, and type of payment (hourly, piecerate, 
or salary). 

The Subcommittee also seeks to identify the employment and unemployment 
patterns of migratory farmworkers. Data on the number, type, duration, location, 
and chronology of farm and nonfarm jobs, and the hours of work, variability 
of hours, and availability of employment for other household members for each 
such job are necessary. Specific unemployment, underemployment and subem- 
ployment data are also in order for a labor market analysis : the frequency, 
duration, locations as well as the degree of part-time work available and sources 
of additional income for these periods of joblessness. Comparative data on 
characteristics of employed and unemployed workers would contribute to the 
analysis as would comparative earnings and employment data for migratory 
and nonmigratory workers in agriculture. Of course, a comprehensive picture 
of past, and projected future employment and earnings of migratory farmwork- 
ers must also be constructed. 

rv. THE CAUSES OF ECONOMIC P0WEBLE8SNESS 

An analysis of migrant economic powerlessness that consists only of a theo- 
retical overview of the migrant's plight in relation to our economy generally (I 
above), a collection of relevant demographic data and specification of areas 
where data is sorely needed (II above), and a definition of the so readily 
apparent manifestations of economic powerlessness (III above) is necessarily 
incomplete without an effort to define what the causes of the economic powerless- 
ness might be. 

If anything is indicative of migrant economic powerlessness, it is that no 
serious consideration has been given to a sophisticated analysis of the causes 
of continued powerlessness. This explains, at least in part, why this Nation 
appears to have no overall economic or manpower policy to effect change in the 
economic condition of migrants. 

Only by attempting to pinpoint and define the causes can we work toward 
solution of the problem. Perhaps one benefit of our effort will be to stimulate 
public and private resources to assign priorities to one or more causes, in order 
that this Nation can proclaim and implement a commitment to incorporating 
migrants into the mainstream of the American economic life. 

While any efforts to assign one or more reasons for powerlessness may be specu- 
lative, particularly in view of the shortcomings of available demographic, earn- 
ings, and employment data, several explanations have been offered and are 
worthy of further investigation : 

1. What is the effect of the open harder policy between Mexico and the United 
States, (its dimensions already set forth in the Subcommittee's hearings of 
May 21 and 22, 1969), upon such problems as : a) the redundancy of the labor 
supply; b) the depressed living and working conditions in border areas; c) 
the need for American residents along the border to migrate north in search 
of better paying jobs; and d) the entire National farm labor and rural economy? 

2. To what extent, if any, does a lack of adequate labor market information 
limit farmworkers' opportunities to find jobs and to increase earnings? Are 
Federal and state governments properly administering present programs, and 
assuming future responsibilities for improving dissemination of information? 
To what extent, if any, do Federal and state government programs encourage an 
oversupply of labor which creates low earnings and unemployment — economic 
powerlessness ? 

3. How does the lack of better job opportunities both within and without the 
agriculture industry, relate to the abiltiy or inability of farmworkers to get 
more secure and more higher paying jobs? What has been done, and what is 
proposed by both the public and private sector to improve job opportunities? 

4. Are worker attitudes a factor that perpetuates powerlessness? 

5. What will be the future demand for farmwork? Until we can more ac- 
curately determine the changing levels of demands and requirements for em- 
ployees, particularly in the face of increasing mecjianization, will the migrants 



4048 

continue to be faced with unexpected and unannounced unemployment? In 
view of the substantial government resources that are devoted to feasibility 
studies of mechanization, is the government adequately funding studies of 
the impact of mechanization on the economic well-being of the farmworker? 

6. To what extent do employer attitudes contribute to continued powerless- 
ness? What methods have been developed to more directly define and change 
negative attitudes and perceptions about migratory labor? Why do most 
farmers and growers continue to oppose extension of basic social and worker 
benefit legislation to farmworkers? Why are practices of discrimination based 
on age, sex, race, and migrancy still evident in employment policies? 

7. To what extent is economic powerlessness a factor of poor worker ability, 
or low skill levels, and inadequate educational levels? 

8. Farmworkers have traditionally been either excluded, or at best only 
minimally included, within every major social and worker benefit program 
enacted into law. Additionally, farmworkers are often unfamiliar with pro- 
gram benefits, or basic civil rights, such as voting, that might be available. 
To what extent is this exclusion from the American mainstream a cause or a 
result of continued economic powerlessness? 

9. The government projects a steadily diminishing yearly need for migrant 
farmworkers. What policies have been developed, and what efforts to imple- 
ment those policies has the government made in the area of rural to urban 
migration, and relocation and resettlement programs? Are additional efforts 
necessary? 

10. To what extent is the exclusion from legislation protecting the right to 
organize and encouraging collective bargaining a cause of continued economic 
powerlessness ? 

11. What is the relationship to the institution of migrancy, and those factors 
which cause it, to overall poverty in this country ? 



Excerpt From "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck (Viking Press, 

New York) 

Pa said, "We seen them han'bills. I got one right here." He took out his purse 
and from it took a folded orange handbill. In black type it said, "Pea Pickers 
Wanted in California. Good Wages All Season. 800 Pickers Wanted." 
(a stranger commented) . . . "You'll be a-campin' by a ditch, you an' fifty 
other famblies. An' he'll look in your tent an' see if you got anything lef to eat. 
An' if you got nothin', he says, 'Wanna job?' An' you'll say, 'I sure do, mister. 
I'll sure thank you for a chance to do some work.' An' he'll say, 'I can use you.' 
An' you'll say, 'When do I start?' An' he'll tell you where to go, an' what time, an' 
then he'll go on. Maybe he needs two hunderd men, so he talks to five hunderd, 
an' they tell other folks, an' when you get to the place, they's a thousan' men. 
This here fella says, 'I'm payin' twenty cents an hour.' An' maybe half a the men 
walk off. But they's still five hundred that's so goddamn hungry they'll work for 
nothin' but biscuits . . . The more fellas he can get, an' the hungrier, less he's 
gonna pay. An' he'll get a fella with kids if he can . . . 

Senator Mondale. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Donald 
Paarlberg, Director of Agricultural Economics of the Department of 
Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Mr. Jose Angel Guiterrez was sched- 
uled to testify this morning, but he was just elected to the school board 
in Crystal City, Tex., and had to cancel his travel plans. 

I will ask the staff to include in the record of these hearings the 
questions submitted by this subcommittee to the Agriculture and 
Labor Departments, and the responses received from each agency. 
The questions and the responses involve some new data, new material, 
and new insights into the area of farmworker economics and man- 
power. I think it is important to include these materials even though 
they are voluminous. 

(The material referred to appears at the close of today's hearings.) 



4049 

Senator Mondale. Mr. Paarlberg, we are pleased to have you here 
this morning and wish to express our appreciation to the Department 
for responding to our lengthy questionnaire. 

You may proceed as you wdsh. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD PAARLBERG, DIRECTOR OF AGRICUL- 
TURAL ECONOMICS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPA- 
NIED BY ROBERT C. McELROY, LEADER, MANPOWER GROUP, 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND WILLIAM MOTES, DIREC- 
TOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Mr. Paarlberg. I have with me two men from the Department oi 
Agriculture, Mr. William Motes on my right and Eobert McElroy on 
my left, both of whom are from Economic Research Service in the 
Department. They were largely responsible for answering the ques- 
tions, the listed questions that were transmitted to the Department. 

You have received the statement as you have said which is a lengthy 
one, some 66 pages and in addition you have received a file of published 
material related to migratory farm labor. The story as it emerges in 
our report and in this published material reveals certain major fea- 
tures and certain trends which I might briefly sumniarize. 

First of all, a migratory farm labor force numbering about a quar- 
ter of a million people, steadily decreasing in number as agriculture 
becomes mechanized. 

Sharply diminished numbers of foreign nationals, the consequence 
of the termination of the bracero program in December of 1964. 

The gradual absorption of former migrants into the nonfarm work- 
ing force. 

The gradual extension to migrant farmworkers of social services and 
benefits enjoyed by other vocational groups. 

Relatively low returns per hour and per year, though these returns 
have been increasing both absolutely and as compared with other 
sectors of the society. 

I would like to comment briefly on the manpower effects of mechani- 
zation. Skill requirements of fann wageworkers have been and will 
continue to increase with farm adoption of mechanization and other 
technology. At the same time mechanization reduces the overall use 
of labor, it creates a demand for a lesser number but higher skilled 
persons to operate the machines. 

It intensifies peak seasonal labor demand, especially in migrant 
employing crops and areas. As mechanization of a particular crop 
occurs, employment is reduced in that crop, causing a gap in the mi- 
grant's itinerai-y. For migrants it becomes less rewarding to go to areas 
where the crop is grown. Their already meager livelihood is in further 
jeopardy. 

Such a development is currently taking place with the adoption of 
a mechanical sugar beet blocker and thinner. Growers of other crops 



4050 

worked by migrant labor in such areas, then, will have even fewer 
workers available during times of peak labor needs. As this pattern 
becomes more frequent, growers will need to further mechanize, make 
special recruiting efforts, and provide additional work incentives, 
develop a local labor force, or shift to less labor-intensive crops. 

Reductions in requirements for agricultural labor reduce the overall 
income of many migrants. But they do not reduce the intensity of the 
demand for farm labor of those farmers who continue to depend on 
seasonal labor for their operations. In many significant areas this 
demand is far greater than can be supplied by casual labor, but it is 
too short in duration to employ workers year round. 

The crux of the problem is the fact that technology and adjust- 
ments in agricultural production are reducing the jobs available for 
migrants in uneven patterns. The result is uncertainty facing farmers 
who need labor and workers who need jobs — an intolerable situation 
from both points of view. 

We must find a better method than we have at present to match 
workers w4th jobs. The alternative is to stand by while workers are 
displaced and while crops spoil for want of workers, perhaps both 
situations happening at the same time. 

The plight of the migrant workers and of the small farmers are 
indeed sad chapters in the story of the advance of technology in this 
Nation. Neither of these groups has enjoyed benefits in any way com- 
mensurate with the contributions they have made. If we ignore their 
needs, we will simply be asking these people to tighten their belts or 
find another job. 

We believe that sometime in the next 5 years much of the hand 
labor now used in tobacco production will be replaced by machines. 
This is but one example. There will undoubtedly be others. 

What should we do about this problem — the problem, highlighted in 
your staff paper "Migrant Manpower — A Study in Economic Power- 
lessness" — which was focused on farm labor, but which I would 
broaden to include the small farmer as well 'I I have no easy answers. 

A nationwide family assistance program will help, as will specific 
programs of food, housing, training, and other assistance. Better infor- 
mation on job and worker availability will help. So will better and 
more research on the characteristics, the skills and needs and wants 
of the w^orkers and their present and potential employers. 

I would hope that a concentrated effort among State and Federal 
agencies in behalf of farmworkei-s can be mounted to detect long and 
short run changes in the supply and demand for farm labor in an 
organized way. I am thinking of a kind of early warning system that 
would alert farmers and workers to trouble spots and allow them to 
plan accordingly. It would also alert all concerned State and Federal 
agencies so that tailored packages of programs could be focused on 
trouble spots. 

I have asked researchers in USDA to make some sliort run projec- 
tions on the supply and demand for migratory farm labor. 

For exmaple, we now estimate that about 12-14,000 fewer migrants 
will be employed in sugar beets this year. Similar pix)jections for fruit 



4051 

and vegetable crops will be made available by about May 1. These 
projections will be rough, more so than we would like, but I believe they 
will be useful. 

The Secretary has suggested that the Rural Affairs Council consider 
what package of programs would be most appropriate in areas where 
redundant labor supplies might be expected. This suggestion is under 
active consideration by the council staff. 

I know these are small steps relative to the intensity of problems 
concerning large human needs. I have no illusions that we know how 
to solve these problems, or have the means to do so. I can say with 
confidence that the Secretary and this administration are sensitive 
to these problems and that we intend to face them directly to the best 
of our nihility to do so. 

This is a very broad subject. I may not have discussed those points 
of greatest interest to you. It may be better, therefore, for me to 
respond to your questions. 

While I have responsibility for this area of work in the U.S. De- 
partment of Agriculture, I do not profess to be an expert. With me, 
as I said, are William Motes, Director of the Economic Development 
Division, Economic Research Service, and Robert McElroy, leader of 
the manpower group. Economic Development Division, Economic Re- 
search Service. Between the three of us we will attempt to deal with 
your questions. 

Thank you. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you, Mr. Paarlberg, for your most useful 
statement. 

One of the apprehensions I have about dealing with the difficult 
problems of migratory labor begins w4th the very question of the 
accuracy of the data upon which we must now rely. 

In response to our questionnaire, in a booklet that you included as 
an exhibit, and that we will print in our record, you express the same 
concern by saying "that the present data does not permit adequate 
analysis of subgroups such as migrants." That also confirms my expe- 
rience. We have tried with this subcommittee to publish statistics on 
migratory labor, and I think the staff has long felt that the materials 
underlying the data we deal with is very soft. One economist estimates 
those figures could well be off a third of the time. When you say 257,000 
migrants in 1969 there is a good chance it might be 286,000 or 228,000, 
or a swing of nearly 60,000 people. Similar uncertamties exist as to 
the validity of all the data. 

Would you please respond to that point ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. We have made an estimate of the degree of relia- 
bility for the 257,000 migrants. On page 4 of my response to your 
questions is such an estimate. 

We estimate that the true number is within 29,000 persons of the 
estimated number. The likelihood is about two out of three that the 
true number is within 29,000 of the 257,000. 

Senator Mondale. That means the chances that we know the approx- 
imate number of migrants are two out of three when we use the 257,000 
figure, but that could be 29,000 up or 29,000 down, so it is a swing 
of 58,000. 



4052 

Mr. Paarlberg. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. 58,000 out of a quarter of a million ! Could you 
tell me how this basic data is obtained? What is the process by which 
the Department develops it? 

Mr. Paarlberg. That is a technical question and I w^ill ask one of 
my colleagues to respond. 

Mr. McElroy. Those data are obtained by the Economic Research 
Service through the Census Bureau's current population survey. That 
survey uses a multistage probability sample design worked out to com- 
prise 863 counties and independent cities. It includes all standard 
metropolitan statistical areas in the Nation and brings into considera- 
tion such information as the proportions of white and nonwhite em- 
ployment and so forth. It is very detailed. This is not a USDA survey, 
but is a Census Bureau survey, the Census Bureau being the agency 
principally responsible for population statistics. We develop specific 
questions for inclusion in this survey in December to obtain infor- 
mation on the hired farm workforce. 

Senator Mondale. So the question is asked in December, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. McElroy. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. Is it asked annually ? 

Mr. McElroy. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. Is it a national census annually, or more like a 
spot check. How do w^e know^ we are counting all the migrants ? 

Mr. McElroy. It is a sample survey. It is subject to all the problems 
that all sample surveys are subject to, but we do not publish any data 
from it that we believe are unreliable. 

Senator Mondale. Is the Department of Agriculture involved in 
the development of the sample, and determination of its accuracy ? 

Mr. McElroy. No, the sample is the Bureau of Census sample. It 
has been in operation since the forties. 

Senator Mondale. Are you in a position to know^ how accurate or 
sophisticated the sample is as it relates to migrants? 

Mr. McElroy. I have studied it in that respect, yes. I have a statis- 
tician in my group who has studied it. I have also been out on the 
enumeration. I go out on the survey each year and observe the enumera- 
tion. I am satisfied that the sample data are accurate and representative 
within the context of their presentation in the staff paper. 

That is, because we are dealing with a sample there is some chance 
that it is not representative. That is the standard error. We estimate 
and publish standard errors, annually, in the back of the publication. 

Senator Mondale. Now, I assume that this annual census has many 
other different objectives in addition to migratory labor. It is not just 
conducted for that purpose ? 

Mr. McElroy. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. Is the migratory labor question just one ques- 
tion, or are there several questions on migratory labor? 

Mr. McElroy. The questions that ITSDA enters on this survey 
are developed by our Department, in other words, we obtain the 
information through a contractual arrangement with Census. It is 
a series that was started about 1945. Certain questions are repeated 



4053 

annually. There are just a few questions that relate to migratory 
labor, which were begun in 1949. 

Senator Mondale, Would you submit the questions for the record, 
please ? 

Mr. McElroy. Yes, sir. 

(The material referred to, subsequently supplied, may be found 
in the files of the subcommittee.) 

Senator ^Iondale. Would you regard December as the ideal time to 
be asking questions about migratory labor? 

Mr. McElroy. Not ideal, but no single month is ideal. However, in 
the context in which we obtain and report these particular data, I 
know of no other way ; because if we try to obtain information on the 
total number of persons who have performed such work during the 
course of the year, this means we have to wait until the year is essen- 
tially over before we can ask that question. So in that regard, I think 
the timing is important. 

Senator Mondale. I can see that from a calendar standpoint, but 
does not just the matter of recollection have a bearing on the accuracy 
of these statistics as they relate to migrancy ? 

Mr. McElroy. I am not sure I understand the question clearly. 
Was it, does memoiy bias play a part, possibly, in these statistics? 

Senator Mondale. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McElroy. Yes, sir, we always worry about that. 

Mr. Motes. We agree that since this survey was not designed for 
the sole purpose of collecting information on migrant labor, it could 
yield more accurate migrant labor data if it were. It is far better than 
any other vehicle available. We choose it as the best of several 
alternatives. 

It is cheaper. It is designed by experts. December is not the ideal 
month. There is not an ideal month. Some recall problems are prob- 
ably inevitable. We think it is an advance over what we had. 

Senator Mondale. How long have you been relying on data from 
this census? How many vears has that been a key source for your raw 
data? 

Mr. Motes. Since 1949. 

Senator Mondale. Twenty-one years. Is there no other effort to 
determine the number of migrator}^ farmworkers, through surveys 
of farmers or other departmental offices, to cross-check or confirm the 
validity of these figures produced through the census? 

Mr. Motes. Xot at the national level. 

Senator Murphy. Has there been any effort to coordinate this effort 
with State information ? 

Mr. Motes. Tliere is. 

Mr. McElroy. The State Employment Service data are not related 
to this sample in a scientific way. The Federal-State complex is within 
the domain of the Labor Department. I think they may be able to 
respond to that better. 

Senator Murphy. Do you check with the Labor Department? 

Mr. McElroy. I am quite familiar with their technical and opera- 
tional aspects as well as with the people of the Labor Department. 

36-513 O — 71 — pt. 7-A 2 



4054 

Senator Murphy. Wliat I am interested in particularly, is how 
much hard information is available with regard to migrant labor. And 
I am shocked to find that there is a program that has been in effect 
for 21 years and apparently we all agree it is far from perfect but 
we just keep doing it because that is the way it was done the last 
time. 

You say that the Labor Department does have better figures than 
this? 

Mr. McElroy. No, sir, I don't. I did not mean to imply that the 
Labor Department had better figures. I said the Federal-State Em- 
ployment Service operation from which SES figures come, is in the 
Labor Department rather than Agriculture. 

Senator Murphy. Do you think we should have some witnesses 
from the Labor Department that would be helpful to this committee 
in exploring this matter? I am asking your advice. I know I can 
make the choice. 

Mr. McElroy. I don't know that I am quite sure just what the 
point is, Senator. I think with regard to this CPS information — it 
is national data or a global view that we are talking about here — 
that we cannot really relate in additive ways to SES statistics for 
among the reasons, the fact that many migrants are interstate. 

Senator Murphy. I understand that. But apparently we do not 
have very full information at least from the questions so far. I would 
say there is a 30-percent discrepancy. I merely asked if there are 
better figures available on a State basis. And if there are, I am quite 
sure there are in some States, why they are not incorporated, why 
they are not used, why we go back to a system that was started by 
the Census Bureau that obviously is 30 percent off one way or the 
other and we are not sure. 

Mr. Paarlberg. Senator Murphy, we are in contact with the Labor 
Department frequently. Assistant Secretary Weber is here and just 
a few moments ago he and I agreed to have lunch over at the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture and discuss this very matter and the level of farm 
wages that we report that they use in their operations. So we are trying 
to improve these figures and though they are not perfect and do have 
a margin of error, which margin we calculate, they are improving 
with the passage of time and they are useful. 

And even though they may not describe the situation in detailed 
accuracy, they are sufficiently broad and indicative so that we feel 
that reasonably good judgment can be based on them. We continue 
to try to improve them but we do not feel that we are so short of 
hard information that important decisions are seriously impaired. 

Senator Mondale. Apparently statistical probabilities for error are 
accepted. There is about a one-third possibility of being off, 33 chances 
out of 100 of being wrong, so when we give a figure 257,000 migrants, 
it could be there are 286,000 or it could be there is 228,000, somewhere 
in that nearly 60,000 swing. 

I wish there were ways of getting more accurate statistics for 
this committee. This committee has been in operation now for 10 
years. We never felt very good about the figures we use in our own 
reports. We have tried to warn people that these are guesses. It seems 



4055 

to me the data procured in December, as part of a business census, by 
an independent agency which is interested in all kinds of matters 
of whicli migratory labor is such a small part, is in reality a source 
which provides an informed guess, but does not give us the kind of 
specifiicity that I would like to see. 

In any event it seems to me that these figures ought to be sur- 
rounded by some very bold face cautionary language so that when 
j^eople use it they know we are dealing with statistical error and 
probability kinds of figures, rather than basic broad data of the 
kind we might otherwise expect and use. 

In fact, you have been candid enough in your response to say 
that. You say this does not permit detailed analysis. But I think it 
would be better when the Department used these figures, and when 
we use them, if we say "This is a guess." 

The truth of it is migrants are not counted are they ? Would that 
be fair to say ? We do not actually count migrants. We make an ap- 
nual census sample and from that we project what we think. But 
no one counts them. 

Senator Murphy. There is another point if I may raise it. In 
California — it is not my intention to discuss propriety or impropriety 
or my feelings with regard to Public Law 78 but I do know that is 
an accepted fact that there are probably 125 to 130,000 illegal mi- 
grants in California right now, this minute. 

Are they counted in any way ? Is there any provision made for these 
people because whether they are under Public Law 78 or not, most of 
them are needed and they are all here and they are entitled to atten- 
tion as far as I am concerned. 

Mr. McElroy. To the extent that these migrants were still in Cali- 
fornia in December, that is they had not returned back to wherever 
they came from, then they would be counted ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. Wouldn't there be a bias there? If a farmer were 
using illegals, he would not likely respond on a business census that 
he had 30 or 40 illegal workers, would he? There might be someone 
knocking on the door in a few days and ask where the illegal entrants 
came from, and why he was using them. 

Mr. McElroy. This is a household sample as opposed to an establish- 
ment sample so the enumeration w^ould be of the individual of the 
household. 

Senator Mondale. Don't they say, "How many migrants do you 
hire here," or isn't it asked that way ? 

Mr. McElroy. No, sir. This sample is an enumeration of household 
members. 

Senator Mukphy. What does that mean ? 
Mr. McElroy. It goes to the individual, same as the census. 
Senator Murphy. You send a questionnaire to the household ? 
Mr. McElroy. No ; we send an enumerator with a questionnaire. 
Senator Murphy. And he goes in and says how many people do you 
have working here? 

Mr. McElroy. There is other information obtained through this 
questionnaire. 



4056 

Senator Murphy. But does he say that ? 

Mr. McElroy. When he gets to that part he says— that is, the peel- 
off question is — is there anyone in this household who did f armwork 
for cash wages at any time during this year. Then if the answer is 
"Yes," the questions pertaining to farmwork are asked. 

Senator Murphy. First they ask is there anyone in this household 
that did farmwork and if the answer is "Yes," then the question is 
asked have they operated as migrant farmworkers? Is that the way 
they do it? 

Mr. McElroy. Yes, sir ; we obtain information on all hired workers ; 
but there are also questions to determine whether or not they are 
migrants ; yes, sir. 

Senator Murphy. Then there is a provision in those figures so that 
of all the farmworkers you have a very good reflection of the number 
or percentage that are migrant farmworkers because there is a 
difference? 

Mr. McElroy. That is correct ; our definition of migrant is whether 
or not they crossed county lines and stayed away at least overnight. 
If they respond that they did, then we consider them as migrants. 

Senator Mondale. Now, I don't wish to dwell on this at great length, 
but what value do you place on the fact that many of the migrants 
who make up the bulk of the migrant stream out of Texas and Cali- 
fornia are Spanish speaking, and an interpreter is needed ? Are these 
census takers proficient in Spanish? Are we sure we are getting ac- 
curate information even when they turn up the right number of Mex- 
ican Americans iii a sample ? 

Mr. MgElroy. That is an interesting question. I have been down 
to both the Texas and California borders when this questionnaire 
was enumerated. The enumerators I observed in those areas were bi- 
lingual. 

Senator Mondale. They are always bilingual ? 

Mr. McElroy. All that I have been with; yes, sir. But let me say 
that I do not have personal knowledge about them all. Brownsville and 
Harlingen are plac«;s where we had people wlio spoke both English and 
Spanish. But by and large I have observed this to be a significant 
problem. 

Senator Mondale. Is this probability sample we are talking about 
here a standardized statistical projection based on the probability of 
finding the right person ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. It is a standard deviation which is a statistical 
tool. It is a measure of deviation around the average. 

Senator Mondale. Has anybody calculated whether the standard 
deviation is an appropriate predictive tool for transitory migratory 
j)opulation? How accurately does it compare a poor Mexican-Ameri- 
can migrant to an upper middle class American in terms of likelihood 
of being picked up in a census ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. That is a different kind of question. Now the stand- 
ard deviation I recorded, deviation of I think 29,000 above and l)elow 
the 257,000. This is a measure of statistical probability based on 
sampling. Now the kind of thing you are talking about is what a stat- 
istician calls a nonsampling error. That is a different matter. 



4057 

It is related to the desi^i of experiment and to the question of 
whether or not a particular individual is likely to enter the saniple 
and whether the data on his case was accurately reported. That is a 
thing apart from the standard deviation that is reported and is an 
additional possible source of error. How great that error is, it is im- 
possible to determine from the statistical procedures. 

Senator Mondale. But the nonsampling errors are not accounted for 
either. That is just an assumption. 

Mr. Paarlberg. We do not know what the nonsampling errors are. 

Senator Mondale. I think it would be a good idea to get the Census 
Bureau to comment on this problem. The Labor Department is com- 
ing on next as witnesses. We know, for example, that the Census Bu- 
reau is very concerned about those who are not being counted — and 
they are principally the poor. Mexican Americans, some of them at 
least, may possibly be frightened by the Census Bureau. They might 
think an enumerator is the welfare bureau, or tax collector, or im- 
migration officer, or George Murphy's Senate campaign workers. 
[Laughter.] 

I am personally aware of this grave problem. We have seen how 
transitory and impoverished migrant farmworkers are, and I would 
think the chances of missing them, or not counting them accurately, or 
underestimating language difficulties, or if they have only a question- 
ably legal status in this country the chances of getting an honest 
answer is quite remote. 

So I think it would be valuable to discuss this matter with the 
Bureau. 

As a former member of the Senate Agricultural Committee, I am 
impressed with how accurately we count acres of field grains and 
amounts of beans and stalks of com, with enormous accuracy, but 
when it comes to human beings, we seem to be a little vague about it. 

Mr. Pax\rlberg. I agree with your appraisal. Senator. We work 
with the resources that are made available to us and these have not 
been as generous for this type of work as they have been for some other 
kinds. We would like to improve the data. 

Senator Murphy. May I make another observation. As Dr. Paarl- 
berg was speaking, he talked about diminishing number of foreign na- 
tionals which is a concern of mine. Mechanization has destroyed jobs 
and many, many acres in California this year won't be used for crop 
production. This is a great concern to me because when the acreage 
goes down, the entire economy for the community shrinks. I opposed 
many of the projects in the past because I felt this would be the result. 
A washout of jobs. 

A few years back we were told there was a definite plan to move 
l^eople off the farms into the cities. Now we are working on a plan 
to move them from the cities back to the farms. So I got concerned as 
to whether those of us who are responsible for these matters, whether 
we ought to get our compasses boxed. Maybe we have not been wise in 
the past. That is why I am sure we have to find more exact ways to 
know the problems and certainly find better ways to solve them because 
the way we have been solving them up until now I don't think has been 



4058 

very acceptable certainly from the standpoint of the migrant worker, 
nor do I think it has been productive from the standpoint of the gen- 
eral welfare of the Nation. 

I merely wanted to say that because the chairman and I have dis- 
cussed this at great length, many of these matters. They certainly need 
a great deal more study than they have had in the past. 

Senator Mondale. It seems to me that not only does the migrant 
often not count, but he is not even counted. 

Senator Murphy. He counts for the fellow who needs him for his 
harvest but outside of that he is cancelled out. 

Senator Mondale. Now, Mr. Paarlberg, in setting forth some of the 
detailed phenomena of the migrant farmworker situation, have you 
provided the rate of gradual absorption of former migrants into the 
nonfarmworking force? How many, for example, were absorbed into 
the nonfarmworking force last year ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. We have some material of that kind in our prepared 
answers to your questions. We also have here some studies that were 
done. I recall one that was done in Michigan where a number of people 
formerly migrants had settled and established themselves and had 
found their way into the nonfarmworking force. 

Senator Mondale. Let us assume we have a quarter of a million 
migrants. At the present rate, about how many are leaving the migrant 
force ? What is the net reduction of the migratory labor force annually ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. About 22,000 a year. 

Senator Mondale. 22,000. 

Mr. Paarlberg. Migrants per year reduction. 

Senator Mondale. Is that the actual number of migrants leaving the 
stream ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. That total loss of migratory workers, that is diminu- 
tion in the number of people who are employed on farm jobs of a 
migratory nature. 

Senator Mondale. Would that be the number of jobs no longer avail- 
able for migrants ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. The number of persons who work at jobs. I suppose 
that measures diminution in number of available opportunities. 

Senator Mondale. Now, what about the number of hours worked by 
migrants. What is the trend of hours being worked ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. I believe there is some diminution in that, is that 
not right, Mr. Motes ? 

Mr. Motes. That is right. 

Mr. Paarlberg. We have a table on that. There has been some re- 
duction in hours and days worked per person. Not a marked reduction, 
but some. 

Senator Mondale. And that data has been submitted to us? 

Mr. Paarlberg. Yes, sir, it has. 

Senator Mondale. So that the number of jobs last year dropped by 
approximately 22,000. And the hours worked in the agriculture in- 
dustry is dropping ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. But their nonf arm employment rises. 

Senator Mondale. Do we have figures on that ? ^ 



4059 

Mr. Paarlberg. Yes, sir, we have the measure of diminution in 
number of migratory workers, measure of gradual reduction in num- 
ber of hours and days worked on farms, and measure of the increase 
in overtime in the number of hours and days in nonfarmwork of these 
migrant laborers. Some of them gradually shift from farmwork to 
nonfarmwork while migrants. Some of them after a time abandon 
migrancy status and settle down and become employed exclusively in 
nonfarm jobs. 

Senator Mondale. Would it be fair to say that while the number of 
jobs is going down, the number of hours worked by farmworkers is 
going down much more rapidly? 

Mr. Paarlberg. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. Which means probably the farmworkers are not 
getting out of the stream fast enough. 

Mr. Paarlberg. I think that is correct. 

Senator Mondale. There is a period during which they are being 
forced into a reduced income to make their shift. Would that indicate 
we need a better program of warning farmw^orkers as to the sort of 
mechanization hazards in the sugar beet and tobacco industries ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. That is correct. They do not have experience in 
nonfarmwork of a very extensive kind. It is only after the pressure 
of diminished opportunities in farmwork is applied that they are per- 
suaded to look to other employment. 

Senator Mondale. Does the Department of Agriculture or the De- 
partment of Labor have programs in operation for migrants and farm- 
workers to explain to them the bleak future that is set forth in your 
statement for farmwork and migrancy ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. I believe the OEO has programs of that kind. Sen- 
ator Mondale. I know that, for example, while I was at Purdue Uni- 
versity our people there cooperated in educational programs of that 
sort. 

Senator Mondale. For example, you point out the situation in sugar- 
beets whereby mechanization and increased use of herbicides will cause 
a decrease in labor demand. That is an important crop in my State, 
and there are 8,000 to 10,000 Mexican-Americans that usually come 
up from Texas to work in those fields. I don't know how many there 
will be in Minnesota this year, but I assume there will be a significant 
reduction in need for such help. Is there a program for warning the 
migrants who have traditionally come north looking for those jobs 
that the jobs might not in fact be available ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. We are working at that this year. I do not have 
knowledge as to how long this has been the case. I will ask Mr. Motes 
to comment on that. 

Mr. Motes. I am not sure exactly what the U.S. Labor Department 
does, or what the State labor departments do to let people know 
ahead of time what kind of jobs are likely to be available in these 
areas. I think it is only fair to say we have not had a good long-range, 
early warning system nor have we had a well-tailored package of 
programs to help people even when we knew they were likely to be 
out of work 2 or 3 years from now. 



4060 

Senator Mondale. So here we have a known and certain mechaniza- 
tion phenomenon that is going to cause disappearance of several thou- 
sand farmworker jobs which traditionally have been taken by the 
migrant worker, but No. 1, as I understand it, the Department of 
Agriculture does not have a program for going to these migrants and 
informing them of this. 

Perhaps the Department of Labor has something. We will hear 
from them. But at least the main program, if any, is through OEO to 
advise them that these jobs might be disappearing. 

Mr. Paarlberg. Mr. McElroy and Mr. Motes report that associate 
work is done in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
on this kind of thing. But apparently it also is sketchy. I think it is 
only fair to say. Senator, that the work in this area is fragmentary 
and sketchy but I would say it is encouraging that at least now the 
problem is recognized which was not previously the case. 

Senator Mondale. The staff has already made a preliminary inquiry 
on this question to Agriculture, Labor, HEW, and OEO, about what 
they are doing and we will print that response for the record. 

(The material referred to follows:) 



4061 



RAl-PH YARBOrtOUOH. TEX.. CHArF 



'TilCniicb ^laie& -Scnaie 



RC«RT O. KARRIS. STA^ D.RtCTOl. WASHINGTON. DC. 20510 



ON FEBRUARY 2, 1970, SENATOR MONDALE SENT THE FOLLOWING LETTER 
TO THE SECRETARIES OF AGRICULTURE, LABOR, AND HEALTH, EDUCATION & 
WELFARE, AND TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY: 



Dear Mr. : 

Representatives of migrant and seasonal farmworker conmunity 
and union organization efforts have recently brought to ray attention 
the possibility that as many as 200,000 migrant farmworkers will be 
without work in the summer of 1970. 

As you well know, unemployment affecting 200,000 migrants will 
create a severe impact on this Nation's institutions and resources. 
In home base areas, where migrants may stay rather than migrating, 
the present burden on already under-funded and under-staffed federal, 
state and local social and worker benefit programs will be multiplied. 
In user states where over 200,000 migrants may be stranded there are 
few if any conmunity resources able to meet their immediate needs. 

In view of the serious nature of this situation, I would be most 
appreciative if you could report to me as soon as possible just what 
steps your Office is taking to meet this impending crisis. 

Your immediate attention to this matter would be deeply appre- 
ciated. 

With warmest personal regards. 

Sincerely, 



Walter F. Mondale 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 



4062 




4^ 



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 
WASHINGTON. D. C, 20250 



Marr;h 2 1970 



Honorable Walter F. Mondale 
Qiairman, Subcarmittee en Migratory 

Labor 
United States Senate 
Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Mcndale: 

This is in reply to your letter of Febnoary 2, informing us that you 
have received infontetion from representatives of the farm vrorker 
ccTTTunity that they foresee the possibility of a lack of jobs for as 
many as 200,000 migrant farm vrorkers this sunmer. 

Itiank you very mucii for your interest and for oonveying the information 
to us. 

Our preliminary figures for 1969 indicate there was a sizeable decline 
from 1968 in the nunbers of all classes of hired farm workers. We 
have no reason to expect that this trend will not ocntinxie. However, 
we belie^^ the figure you give is more nearly in the range for cill 
hired farm workers than for the migrant segment alone. 

There has been a declining trend in agricultural enployment for several 
decctdes now. Efforts to facilitate adjustment and re-enployment of 
those displaced have not been as success f\iL as we would like. "Biis has 
deeply ocnoemed us for a long time. Accordingly, we have requested 
that the Rural Affairs Ooincil direct its attention to the immediate 
problems faoed by farm labor. 

Again, thank you very much for your interest and ccnoem. 

Sincerely, 




^JhJ^^U^ 



CLIFTOFD M. HAFDIN 
Secretary 



4063 



QlCniieb ^ictiea S>enalc 



*"?:^'?^'?!!*!^'""_'^°". WASHINGTON. D.C. 20S10 

March 10, 1970 



Dr. Theodore C. Byerly, Director 
Rural Affairs Council 
Department of Agriculture 
Washington, D.C. 



Dear Dr. Byerly: 

I am enclosing a copy of a letter that I recently sent to 
Secretary Hardin on February 2, 1970, and a copy of his March 2, 
reply to my letter. You will note that in the Secretary's reply, 
he specifically referred to the work of the Rural Affairs Council 
on the immediate problems faced by farm labor. In view of your 
interest, I would like to know the total number of migrant fanaworkers 
that will face a lack of work this year on a state by state basis, 
and the months of the year that will be involved. Additionally, 1 
would like to know what the Department of Agriculture is doing to 
prevent migrants from arriving in local situations where substantial 
reductions in manpower needs are expected. 

Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly 
appreciated. 

With warmest personal regards. 

Sincerely, 



Walter F. Mondale 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 



4064 



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON 



Honoreblc Walter F. Mondale 

Chairman, Subcoamittee on Migratory Labor 

Coranittee on Labor aad Public Welfiare 

IJnited States Senate 

Ifcshington, DX. 20510 

Dear Mr. Cfaainoan: 

I share the concern expressed in your letter of February 2, 1910, 
regarding the Impact of luieiaployiient of aigrant f amworkers . 

Although statistics should not be belabored in an area vfaere thay 
are not very firm, the estiiaate that as aany as 200,000 slgrants 
vill be without vork in the suEaser of 1970 seems suirprisingly 
high,' even if it is assiased that this figure includes twmLLy 
maDbers. Siis estiiaate indicates an aqploysient decline of 
nearly 20 percent in the staner of 1970, vhereas the aTerage 
anniAl decrease cf loigrant flunsvorkers in the last decade has 
been only about 'j jjercent. Although any projection of seasonal 
employment In a^^rl culture is basaz^dous due to the veather factor^ 
ve had assxjifted tht- usual attrition of about 5 percent in 1970, 
atti^butable mo3ta.y to increased use of chemical herbicides In 
sugar beets and cotton. In the fruit and vegetable harvests 
vhert most migra/its are eoqployed, no major technological 
breakthroughs seem likely this year. 

Even though there may be differences in estimates of the scope 
of migrant uneiEployi:.erit in 1970, there is no disagreement that 
the problem is serious and will become increasingly serious 
in the next few years. 

The long-teia policy of the lAbor Department is to reduce the 
need for mitpancy with all its social aad acoaooic ill effects. 
Farm entployers wii". oe encouraged to develop local so\irces of 
labor, particularly houisewlves and students, and rely on thca 



4065 



to the greatesr, exoenb poji-iole. At the same ticte, nilgitJita vlll 
be given job krairdng and relocation aasiotance that vlll enable 
them to obtain nonegrieultural empioyaent or farm vork xiiat does 
noT. require seasonal traveling. We vill also try x.o do a better 
job 3f directing aigrante to the areas of labor ohorta^e that 
a till exist despite an overall national avirplus oi i*nn labor. 
In some cases, of course, the sitviation is coapJ.icated by lack 
of suitable houain^^ in the areas of labor shortage. 

Tb give us guidelines on how best to provide the services needed 
by Biignuits la the purpose of a large-scale deiaons^ratlcm project 
focusing multi -agency resources on a target group of 779 faaillas 
of Vexas-based migrants. (Cie objectives and aieehauics of this 
program are described in the enclosure.) Ibe Manpower Administration 
is now planning ilie second year's cycle of this project, fiiis year 
will be a trani>i t^r;/ one from experimental to regular program 
operations. 

The problems of ri:".grai;.jry workers are of long standing and are 
oax. likely to oc solved entirely this susiaer but we will try to 
the extent of our ability and resources to make some progress 
toward their solaf on. As Chainaan of the Subcomalttee on 
Migratory Labor, ^ou are even more aware than I that not only 
must the employneao prool^LS of migrants be attacked but all 
public and private agencies with an interest in migrants aiust 
expand the suprDr-.l-ze services needed to cope with a whole 
range of social prcblems. 

Sincerely, 



Secretary of Laboi 

J;::-;c;.L:'.=; .!-e 



4066 



•JEXAS FARM MIGRANT lEMONSTOATION PROJECT 



The Department of Labor is financing an experimental and demonstration 
project, which got underway in the spring of I969, designed to find 
ways to alleviate the situation of the migrant farm worker. Die- 
Department's Manpower Administration, thro\igh its United States 
Training and Employment Service and affiliated State employment 
security agencies, is attempting to determine if a coordinated 
interstate program focusing multl -agency resources on a target grov^ 
of 779 families can be successful in helping these indiridixals make 
the transition into the mainstream of economic and bocIclL well-being. 
Project staff are directing their attention toward three distinct 
points in the yearly migrant cycle: (l) At the home base, southern 
Texas, before migration begins; (2) in the northern States where 
the migrants go to find work; and (3) back in Texas again after 
seasonal ea^loyment is conipleted. 

At the first point, Texas Employment Conmission staff determines to 
the extent possible the expected needs of migrants when they arrive 
in the North. This information is then sent via the folder mai n tai n ed 
for eewh family to the participating eB5)loyment security agendea on 
the receiving end of the migrant stream- -Idaho, Washington, Oregon, 
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Ilheae 
States do their best to provide the migrants with the services 
required. Diey themselves give employment assistance, and see that 
the migrants get to the proper resoxirces for aid in such areas as 
health, education, housing, and welfare. They also work with the 
families to determine: (l) Die hcane -based or long range needs of the 
people; and (2) the desire to leave the migrant stream. This informa- 
tion is recorded in the folders and returned to the Texas En5)loymant 
Commission. At the third point in the cycle, Texas staff works very 
closely with the laigrant families to assist them in improving their 
situations- -sol v^u«^ those problems that are of an ionedlate nature, 
and working toward the achievement of new occupational goals. 



•A TUMID HCLBOM. 



4067 



:rZ' lilCmicb ^Uiea S>enctie 

COMMITTEE ON 
LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 
.OIMMAL COUNSEL WASHINGTON. DC. 20510 

March 3, 1970 



Honorable George P. Jhultz 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of uabor 

Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

Thank you very much for your letter of February 24, 1970, which was 
in response to my inquiry about potential uneBployment of migrant farm- 
workers. 

I was indeed heartened by your response indicating a coaaitnent on 
the part of the Department of Labor to meet the increasingly seriou* 
realities of migrant unemployment in the future. I am in general accord 
with the lonj term policies of the Department which you expressed in 
your letter, and 1 look forward to the result of the Texas demonstration 
project which is focusing multi-agency resources on a target group of 
migrant families. 

I also share your conclusion that the employment problems of migraats 
must be attacKed by all public and private agencies with an Intarast in 
migrants, and in this regard I would like to have furthor ln£«rm«CloB oa 
the exact nature of unemployment expected in 1970. Specifically, I SMtae 
from your letter thac because "no major technological braakChroughs sasm 
likely this year" there will be no increased displacement of migrants 
working in fruit and vegetable harvests. 

1 am concerned, however, about the dlsplaceawnt of faramrkers In 
sugar beet and cotton, attributable to increased use of chemical harbicides. 
Specifically, 1 would like to know the total number of employees that will 
be displaced in cotton and sugar beets on a state by state basis, and tha 
months of the year that will be involved. Additionally, I would like Co 
know what the Department of Labor is doing to prevent migrants from arriving 
in local situations where substantial reductions in manpower needs are 
expected. 

Thank you very much again for your most encouraging response, and I 
look forward to an expanded reply to the above questions. 



With warmest personal regards. 



Sincerely, 



Walter F. Mondale, Chairman 
Subcommittee on Migratory lAbor 



4068 



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 
WASHINGTON 



Honorable Walter F. Mondale '^^ ^ ' ^^ 

Chainnan, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 
United States Senate 
Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chaiznan: 

Hiis is in response to yo\ir letter of March 3^ 1970, expressing concezn 
about displacement of migratory vorkers by increased use of chemical 
herbicides in cultivation of cotton and sugeo* beets. 

Ibe data available to us are not nearly detailed enough to pemlt a 
State -by -State projection of the number of migrants who might be 
displaced this year by labor-saving technology in cotton and sugar 
beet cultivation. Further, even a national projection at this tlna 
will be little more than a guess, since the effectiveness of the 
herbicides is greatly affected by weather conditions. 

Single projection of the national trend of recent years In seasonal 
labor needs for hoeing and weeding cotton and sugar beets, with the 
assumptions that migrant and local labor are equally affected and 
weather conditions are suitable for effective use of herbicides, 
would indicate that about 10,000 migrant workers might be displaced, 
(nils does not include non -working family members who may be 
traveling with them.) Displacement, If it does occur, would 
probably be most heavily concentrated in June and July. 

It is the policy of the Labor Department, as expressed in our 
regvilations regarding interstate irecrultment of fam labor, not to 
accept Job orders for interstate clearance unless the enployment 
service agency in the labor demand State has established that workers 
are not avedlable locally or within the State. Forecasting agrl- 
cultviral labor needs is far from an exact science, however, and a 
labor shortage situation can easily change to a labor svirplus and 
vice versa, depending on weather, market conditions, and other 
variables. Many migrants are freewheelers who do not contact the 



4069 



public employment service system for Information or assistance In work 
r-;hedullng, and there Is little we can do to control their moveiBents, 

Orders placed in interstate clearance will be carefully reviewed to 
assure that the number of workers requested is realistic, as nearly 
as can be determined. We will also virge the State agencies to try to 
contact freewheelers and direct them from areas of labor surplus to 
areas where jobs may be available. 

Sincerely, 



Secretary of Labor 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 3 



4070 




DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 
WASHINGTON, DC. 20201 



February 6, 1970 



Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The Secretary has received your February 2 letter regarding 
the employment of migrant and seasonal farmworkers. 

A reply will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. 



icerely , 




Poole 

DeputJ^Assistant Secretary for 
Congressional Liaison 



Honorable Walter F. Mondale 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 

Committee on Labbr and Public Welfare 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 



4071 




Dear Senator Mondale: 

In mid- January , a group of consultants met with members of the staff of 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation to 
prepare an evaluation design for the Department's Migrant Health Program. 
At that meeting, migrant representatives Informed us of the possibility 
of an employment crisis this season caused by agri-business* increased 
use of chemicals and machines. 

Since then, members of my staff have been working with the Departments 
of Labor and Agriculture and the Office of Economic Opportunity to 
determine the probable extent of the problem. In addition, we have sent 
teams of migrant workers through the major growing areas of the mid-west 
to gather information at the local level. 

Concurrently with the above effort, we are examining the programs of this 
Department to identify those which most effectively can be used to 
alleviate the present crisis and to prevent future crises. We are focusing 
primarily on stipended education and training programs, and on others 
which provide some form of income maintenance. 

I expect a report from my staff in the near future, and at that time can 
provide you with a more detailed account of our findings as to the scope 
of the problem and our response to it. Until then, I trust the above 
information will indicate to you that we are aware of the situation, 
that we are concerned about it, and that we are taking positive steps to 
deal with it. 

Sincerely, 




Secretary 



Honorable Walter F. Mondale 
United States Senate 
Washington, D. C. 20510 



4072 



EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF ECONOMIC Washington, d.c. 2050« 



OPPORTUNITY 



February 6, 1970 



Honorable Walter F. Mondale 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 

Committee on Lcibor and Public Welfare 

United States Senate 

Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for your correspondence of February 2 addressed 
to Director Donald Rumsfeld, regarding possible unemploy- 
ment of 200,000 migrant farmworkers in the summer of 1970. 
We have noted your request for a report on what assistance 
the Office of Economic Opportunity is providing to meet 
this problem. 

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. 
You will be receiving a reply from us soon. 

In the meantime , please do not hesitate to contact 
me if I can be of further assistance to you or your 
staff. 



Sincerely, 

QxiXcX M. \CV\OSU0V;i 



Carol M. Khosrovi 

Associate Director for 

Congressional and Governmental Relations 



4073 



^^f-i 5 W» EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF ECONOMIC Washington, ox. 2osm 



OPPORTUNITY 



iV 



_^ 4 MAR 1970 



i' 



Honorable Walter F. Mondale r' 

United States Senate 
Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Senator Mondale: 

Mr. Rumsfeld has asked me to respond to your letter of February 2, 1970, 
regarding the problems of displaced farmworkers. 

We certainly concur that the plight of the farmworkers this coming 
harvest season will indeed be serious. All indications are that there 
will be more unemployed and underemployed farmworkers stranded in the 
northern states than ever before. The Office of Economic Opportunity 
recognizes this crisis and is attempting to respond by providing the 
farmworker with a reasonable alternative if he must or chooses to 
leave farm work. This is the major thrust of the 88 programs in 37 
states funded under Title III-B of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, 
as amended. Providing these alternatives, however, means a sizeable 
investment in education and skills training. For instance, twenty 
weeks of training for 10,000 farmworkers at the very modest cost of 
$50.00 per week costs $10 million. 

During Fiscal Year 1969, about 28,000 farmworkers participated in 
various education and rehabilitation programs sponsored by the Office 
of Economic Opportunity. Most of these will have jobs this coming 
summer either in mechanized agriculture or away from the fields entirely. 
The Office of Economic Opportunity plans to continue these education 
and rehabilitation services, as well as providing for the housing and 
day care needs of as many farmworkers as possible. III addition, we 
are working closely with the Department of labor and the Department 
of Health, Education and Welfare in coordinating our funds and efforts 
to serve the farmworkers. 

Unquestionably, a major Federal Government effort is needed to avoid the 
impending disaster facing this mobile, underemployed and impoverished 
population. Realistically, we feel that the resources available simply 
will not be adequate to solve the problem. The Office of Economic 
Opportunity Fiscal Year 1969 appropriation of $27.5 million allowed 
us to reach less than 10% of the eligible participants. As the Fiscal 
Year 1970 appropriation is still pending Congressional consideration. 



4074 



we are unable to contemplate any expansion at this time. Initially, 
it was anticipated that approximately $31 to $33 million would be 
available for migrant programs in Fiscal Year 1970. However, should 
Congress elect to earmark the Office of Economic Opportunity funds, 
then this probably would result in a decrease in the amount available 
for migrant programs. 

We appreciate your concern for the farmworkers. Please be assured 
that we share that concern and will do everything possible within our 
resources to alleviate the situation. If we can provide any further 
information, please feel free to call on us. 

Sincerely, 




Car luce i 



/ Assistant Director 
for Operations 



4075 

Senator Mondale. Your testimony, Mr. Paarlberg, as I understand 
it, is that the migrant is in for a tough time 

Mr. Paarlberg. Indeed. 

Senator Mondale. Because mechanization is reducing the need for 
his work. Last year 22,000 jobs disappeared. And, if anything, the 
problem of aiding migratory labor in getting where they are needed 
at critical points is becoming a major and sophisticated effort. And 
I understand that this has to be done with some very careful coordi- 
nated national planning. Unless the system works efficiently, the mi- 
grant is going to have to wait weeks and weeks between jobs, won- 
dering where he might ^et employment next. It takes more and more 
skill just to be at the right place at the right time. 

Mr. Paarlberg. That is a correct appraisal, Senator. 

Senator Mondale. And if we assume one of the jobs of the Labor 
Department if not the Department of Agriculture is to try to aid the 
migrant to get not only where the jobs are, but where it is best for him, 
where he is going to earn the best pay, it gets increasingly difficult. 

Mr. Paarlberg. That is correct. The changes are commg rapidly. 
Last year's experience is not a safe gage as to what next year's ex- 
perience will be. 

Senator Mondale. In your opinion is there a process by which we 
are gearing up, to the advantage of the farmworker, to get him where 
he should be so he can maximize his yearly earnings in this profession ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. I would say it is in the interest of the farmer and 
of the migratory worker and of the Department of Agriculture and 
of the Department of Labor all to try to facilitate the adjustments 
to these very great changes that are underway. 

Senator Mondale. Do we have an actual program that informs these 
migrants that they are at the right place, at the right time, for the 
benefit of both the migrant and the farmer ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. What is that and how effectively does it work? 

Mr. Paarlberg. That is the Employment Service of the Depart- 
ment of Labor. I do not have detailed information of that Service. 
It is possible that my associates here may have. I think perhaps the 
boys from the Labor Department could be more helpful on that. 
Senator, than we. 

Senator Mondale. They are coming on as witnesses next. We will 
also ask them about that. 

In your response to our questions, you said that you spent something 
like $125 million on research in the Department of Agriculture which 
can lead to a reduction of labor demand. This involves different kinds 
of research that the Department of Agriculture funds directly that 
will lead to mechanization, or other ways in which to reduce the need 
for farm labor. 

Did I understand that correctly ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. I don't recall the figure precisely but it sounds 
like a reasonable figure. Senator. I may say that the purpose of this 
research is to lower production costs, to increase farm efficiency. One 
of the effects of it often is mechanization and reduced ne«d for labor. 
Other results are increased yields per acre. We do not set out to do 



4076 

research with the deliberate purpose of reducing farm employment 
opportunities. That sometimes does result from research that is 
undertaken in order to improve efficiency. 

Senator Mondale. On table 19 entitled "Expenditures on Research 
to Improve Agriculture Production Technology 1970 program," $135 
million expenditure is estimated. Would it not be fair to say that a 
good deal of that research is designed to reach objectives which might 
reduce the need for farm labor? Isn't mechanization of the sugar 
beet crop or tobacco mechanization the development of labor reducing 
technology that comes about in part from the impact of some of this 
research money ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. I think you state it well that labor reduction does 
result in part from these research activities. But, the thrust of the 
research is to reduce unit production costs and to improve efficiency. 
We do not set out to undertake research for the deliberate effect of 
reducing jobs. 

I grant you that some of the research does have these effects and it 
may not be in some minds a major distinction as to what the intention 
is. The consequence is reduced employment opportunities for migrant 
farm labor. For that matter for casual farm labor, seasonal farm 
labor or year-round, hand labor for farm operators themselves. 

Senator Mondale. As you know I am not critical of that budget. I 
support it. I think it has been very valuable to this country. But I do 
not see that we can spend $135 million a year to develop technology 
which might reduce the need for farmworkers while at the same time 
we do not have an adequate program to lighten the load on the farm- 
worker in terms of consequences of that new technology. 

It seems to me we are fairly light in that. I gather that is what you 
say in your testimony. You said on page 46 of your response : 

However, the Department of Agriculture has both farmers and farmworkers 
among its constituency and we recognize a deep and traditional, as well as legal, 
responsibility to farmworkers. Continuing programs of the Department pertain 
specifically to hired farmworkers include rural housing loans for farmworkers, 
wage regulations for workers in sugar crops, and research. 

I do not doubt that commitment, but it seems to me that in the 
development of data, in the development of information programs for 
the farmworker, in warning them about the bleak future of migrancy, 
I don't see the same sense of urgency, the same commitment of 
resources. Would that be fair ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. That is correct. We use the resources that are made 
available to us through appropriations. There has been more 
enthusiasm on the part of the appropriate agencies to support research 
work in production efficiency than there has been to support research 
work in the areas of migrant labor. 

Senator Mondale. I have no doubt that that is true. And, I think 
that is a part of the definition of the powerlessness of the migrant. 
Nobody listens to him. Nobody knows he is iround. We found out 
he is not even counted. But as your role as a representative of the 
farmworker, in your last budget did you ask for funds to do something 
of this sort ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. We did. 



4077 

Senator Mondale. Were they turned down ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. They were granted in part. 

Senator Mondale. What have you asked for ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. We have additional requests before Congress at 
present and we do not know what the response will be there. 

Senator Mondale. What did you ask for ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. Twenty-percent increase. 

Senator Mondale. In what ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. In 1971 budget. 

Senator Mondale. For what ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. For the 1971 budget for the whole area of research 
on economic development which includes the human area we wall say 
of which migrant work is one part. 

Senator Mondale. How much money does that involve ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. $400,000. 

Senator Mondale. And this would do what? What would ydu do 
with that $400,000. 

Mr. Paarlberg. I will ask Mr. Motes to reply. 

Mr. Motes. Try to count them a little better. In addition to that we 
need to know a lot about where migrants live, where they start from, 
how they find out what their work patterns are, W'hat their opportu- 
nities are as the migrant stream continues to dwindle. We hope to find 
out what their characteristics are, what the job's characteristics they 
face are now and in the future. Essentially the kind of early 
warning 

Senator Mondale. Would you say you do not have answers to the 
questions I just raised ? 

Mr. Motes. We do not have precise answers. 

Senator Mondale. And you are not satisfied ? 

Mr. Motes. We are not satisfied. 

Senator Mondale. That they are as active 

Mr. Motes. I don't think the data problem is as great as you 
apparently do. 

Senator Mondale. As I gather from Mr. Paarlberg's statement, you 
are not in a position to make projections on those very questions. 

Mr. Paarlberg. Senator, despite the inaccuracies of our data, it 
seems to me that the major dimensions of the problem emerge clearly. 
Clearly enough to give policy guidance with respect to some of the 
actions that should be taken and some of the services that are needed. 

It is clear to us even though our figures are imprecise, that there 
will be a diminution in the number of fannw^orkers including migrant 
farmworkers and tliese people will have to transfer to the nonfarm- 
vvorking force and that in doing this they are going to need social 
services, training, and assistance of various kinds. 

Senator Mondale. Now I am told by the staff that the figures you 
cited this morning on projection for sugarbeets and the similar projec- 
tion of fruit and vegetable crops is the first projection ever made by the 
Department of this kind. Would that be accurate ? 

Mr. Motes. That is accurate. We have never really done this. 

Senator Mondale. This is the thing the Department has projected 
for needs in the future. Is that correct ? 



4078 

Mr. Motes. We are talking about migrants ? 

Senator Mondale. Yes, sir ; the first time ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. Evidently that is correct. 

Senator Mondale. One final question. 

You say that you are going to ask the Rural Affairs Council to con- 
sider what projects should be appropriated in areas where redundant 
labor supplies might be expected, and I welcome that. 

Are there any farmworkers on that Council ? 

Mr. Paarlberg. No, this is a council of Cabinet officers, Senator. 

Senator Mondale. Does your particular office have farmworkers on 
its advisory council ? Are they ever called in ? 

Mr. Paarlberg, I do not believe we have an advisory council for our 
research program. I will ask Mr. Motes. 

Mr. Motes. No. 

Senator Mondale. Wouldn't it be a good idea to talk to them? 

We held days of hearings here, and I assume the Department fol- 
lows those transcripts, and one is appalled by the sense of pow^erlessness 
of migrants. They will take their families — children and wives, and 
they will take a car, and they will go someplace where they are told 
there is work, and they will arrive often a week or 2 weeks or 3 weeks 
early, and how do they stay alive? Wliat do they do during that time 
when there is no chance for earning any money ? Maybe there is bad 
weather. Then they wonder where to go and find another job. 

I think these people work harder for less money than any other 
people in the country. I believe they have an understanding and a per- 
ception of the inadequacy of this system that exceeds that which any 
of us could have because they live with it every day. 

Mr. Paarlberg. We have done many studies. This large file here 
consists of studies that have been done of this problem, involving in 
many cases Department interviews with migrant workers to learn 
their attitudes and desires and hopes. 

So that while I would not say that we have done as much work as is 
needful in this area, we have done a considerable amomit and the 
amount is growing. Tlie awareness of the problem is growing. Our 
desire for additional support to carry on this work is evident. 

We do not boast of what we have done but we do wish to make clear 
our growing awareness of the difficulty and our increased willingness 
for resources if we can get them. 

Senator Mondale. I appreciate that, but I think it would be a good 
idea for the Department of Agriculture to establish a small advisory 
group which includes representative farmworkers, people who have 
actually worked and lived in the migrant stream. I think their insights, 
and their sense of urgency that you could get from that kind of advice 
is something that none of us possess, and no report can truly reflect. 

I am not being critical here but I think that would give your Depart- 
ment strength. 

Mr. Paarlberg. We appreciate that counsel and that does sound 
like a very apnropriate suggestion, Senator. 

Seenator Mondale. Thank you, Mr. Paarlberg. We will print the 
materials which you have submitted at the close of today's testimony. 



4079 

Our next witness is the Assistant Secretary for Manpower, an 
experienced hand before the Labor and Public Welfare Committee, 
Mr. Arnold Weber. 

STATEMENT OF ARNOLD R. WEBER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 
MANPOWER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON D.C.; 
ACCOMPANIED BY STANLEY M. KNEBEL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 
FARM LABOR AND RURAL MANPOWER SERVICE 

Mr. Weber. I am pleased to be here; my other appearances have 
been before other subcommittees and this, in fact, is my jRrst appear- 
ance before this subcommittee. I have with me Mr. Stanley Knebel of 
the Farm Labor and Rural Manpower Service of the Manpower Ad- 
ministration, Department of Labor. I have a prepared statement which 
I would like to present. 

Senator Mondale. We will print your full statement at this point 
in the record. 

You may proceed as you wish. 

(The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows :) 



4080 



Prepared Statement of Hon. Arnold R. Weber, Assistant 
Secretary for Manpower, U.S. Department of Labor 



Mr. Chairman, I am pleaeed to make my first appearance before this 
Subcommittee. I am acquainted with your continued efforts to improve 
the economic and social status of a group whose special problems rightly 
give rise to special concerns — the migratory farmworkers and their families. 

In response to your request, the Department of Labor, jointly with 
the Department of Agriculture, has provided the Subcosaittee with de- 
tailed information on the status of the migrant worker. I will not review 
all of the data contained in that report. However, I would like to delineate 
briefly the nature of the migratory labor problem as we view it from the 
perspective of the Department of Labor. Within this framework, we can 
discuss specific problem areas and suggested policies and programs which 
may help to cope with these problems. 

The Hature of the Problem 
According to the most recent reports of the Department of Agriculture 
there are approximately 257,000 farm\7orkers who leave their normal place 
of residence to seek eoployment elsewhere. Sometimes this work itinerary 
will span thousands of miles and will involve entire families. A study of 
migrants from South Texas shovre that the femilies average about six and a 
half members. Approximately hOffo of this family population is composed of 
children below l6 years of age. Nearly all of the children suffer from 
educational deficienclea because of irregular schooling. 



4081 



In their travels, these workers tend to follow well-defined paths 
developed over a period of years. The largest of these migrations is the 
midcontinent stream. Most of the South Central States feed this stream, 
although the largest nunber of migratory farm workers originate in Texas. 
The most Iriportant part of this stream travels to the Great Lakes States 
to harvest canning crops and to cultivate sugar beets. Another branch 
travels to the sugar beet and vegetable areas In the mountain States. 
A third major group moves through the Southwest to the Pacific Coast 
harvesting fruit and vegetables. 

Another major pattern of migration Is the movement along the East 
Coast. The bulk of these workers ccae from Florida, but sone originate 
In other South Atlantic States. When the winter harvest of vegetables 
and citrus fruits in Florida is coi^ipleted, they travel to north Carolina, 
Virginia, ^5aryl^nd, Delaware, Hew Jersey and New York State. 

Along the West Coast, there is a substantial interchange o^ workers 
among Californle, Oregon, and Washington. 

Aside from these three basic migratory patterns, there are many minor 
routes which form an intricate network over the country. 

The intrinsically unstructured end unstable nature of the migrant 
labor market is central to the esiploynent problems of the migrant worker. 
His employment is discontinuous — lapsing as he moves from one harvest area 
to another with consequent losses in productive time. The demand for his 
services and, therefore, his earnings are unstable — subject to the vagaries 
of weather and crop failures. Working for a number of different enrployers 
in the course of a year, the nature of his living and working conditions are 
likely to vai'y significantly from job to job. 



4082 



The economic problens resulting from this lack of stability in the Job 
market for migrants are further conpllcated by the fact that these vorkers 
are largely from disadvantaged backgrounds. For exaciple, nearly one-half 
of migrant farmworkers are members of minority groups — llexlcan-Aaericans 
and Negroes--wlth the accompanying handicaps which arise from racial 
discrimination and lack of adequate educational and training opportunities. 

The yearly income of migrant workers, both farm and nonfarm, was less 
than $1,800 in 1969. The consequences of this marginal economic status Impinge 
upon various aspects of the migrant worker's present conditions of life and 
future prospects. Frequently, these workers and their families are under- 
nourished. They receive inadequate msdical care. VJhen they can no longer 
work in their customary occupation they will almost certainly become the objects 
of public relief someplace in the nation. And permitting their children 
to grow up without an education, or with an education which is not geared to 
the needs of the future, we are passing on a compounded debt of uneraployrient 
costs to the next generation. 

These problems relate to the responsibilities of various agencies. I 
will give attention to those problem areas within the particular competence 
of the Department of Labor end which we feel merit continuing attention and 
constructive action. These include: developing stability of employment; 
the maintenance of wage, working and living standards; the extension of 
social legislation coverage; and easing the transition from migrant status 
to the industrial sector. Finsilly, the special problems arising from the 
pattern of Mexicans commuting across the border to work In the United States 
merit attention. 



4083 



stability of Enrployaent 

Although the use of migrant laTjor is declining — having decreased from 
approxiinately 1*00,000 migrant farmworkers in i960 to roughly 250,000 at 
present --migrant vorkers vill be a significant segment of the farm labor 
force for some time. The work of migrants is by its very nature seasonal 
and unstable, thus, ve must continue to provide information and assistance 
in scheduling jobs to give these workers as much stable annua] employment 
as possible. This is no easy task in view of weather and the other uncertain- 
ties that affect the farm labor market. In addition, many migrants, especially 
the middle-aged and elderly, may not be able or willing to train for other 
occupations. 

The Federal-State eiiployment service system helps to achieve stability 
in the employment of mlgrrnts through the Annual Worker Plan. For those 
assisted under the plan, both family groups and crews, comprehensive 
itineraries ere planned weeks ahead of the work season. After Job orders 
are forwarded by States with manpower needs, interviews are conducted 
with crew leaders and migrant family heads. They are provided v;lth specific 
information about employment opportunities, housing, wage rates, and other 
Job conditions in demand States. These interviews provide the basis for the 
Agricultural Worker Schedule. This arrangement Includes the names of the 
crew or family leader, the composition of the crew, and transportation and 
housing requirements. The Schedule also shows the names and addresses of 
all farm employers for whom the crew will be working during the active 
season. The plan helps to decrease time lost between Jobs for migrant 



4084 



workers while assuring employers a dependable work force. In I968, over 
106,000 Interstate migrant workers were assisted under the Annual Worker 
Plan. 

Maintenance of Wa^e, Vtorking and Living; Standards 
The Instability of migrant employment has clearly contributed to the 
problems of low wages and deficient working conditions. A general surplus 
of agricultural labor in an Inhei-ently inefficient labor market has resulted 
In traditionally poor wages and conditions of employment for migrants. This 
problem has been compounded by the general absence of worker organization 
In the agricultural sector and the lack of full coverage under the Wage- 
Hour law. 

We have sought to influence the economic and social conditions of the 
migrant through the Federal-State employment service system. As noted 
previously, we assist employers by recruiting workers through the inter- 
state clearance system of the Federal-State eciployment service. However, 
we require that employers agree to meet the minimal standards we have esta- 
blished relating to wages, pay for transportation, and housing. There has 
been considerable controversy associated with the higher housing standards 
that the Department of Labor instituted In I968. The public employment 
service has lost the business of some farm employers because of our insistence 
on these standards. We regret this loss. He^-ertheless , we feel that if our 
facilities are used to bring large nombers of seasonally eraployed workers 
Into a community, we have an obligation to see that provisions have been 
made for housing them and that the housing mscts decent health and safety 
standards. Such standards serve the interests of both the worker and the 
community. 



4085 



Extension of Covera'^e Under Social Legri slat ton 

As a further index of their peripheral status, agricultural workers 
generally have been excluded from the benefits of the Nation's social legis- 
lation. An important step forward was taken with the passage of the 1966 
amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act which brought employees of large 
farms under the protection of the minimum wage. The Tepartment of Labor 
has made two important proposals that would extend social legislation 
alreeidy applicable to industrial workers to the agricultural labor force 
as well: 

Extending UI Coverage . The Department supports the extension of 
unemployment insurance coverage to farmworkers, including migrants. We 
were therefore pleased to note that the Senate last week included migrant 
workers in extending UI coverage to eiiiployees of the nation's larger farms. 
We hope that these coverage provisions will be retained by the conference 
committee. 

The bill passed by the Senate provides coverage for only a limited 
proportion of the farm labor force, but Involves a substantial number 
of workers. We estimate that it will bring under UI coverage, approxi- 
mately 275,000 workers or 22^ of all farm jobs. Of these, roughly 18,000 
will be employees of crew leaders, i.e., migrant workers. 

We feel that these ne\f provisions, if enacted, will provide a signifi- 
cant beginiiing in bringing the benefits of unsmploymect Insurance coverage 
to the Nation's agricultural work force. We hope to study closely the 
Impact of any e;ctension of UI coverage to migrant workers to determine: 
(1.) the extent of increased costs to the employer, (2.) problems of 
admini.Ttratioh, and (3.) the extent to which migrmt workers actually 



36-513 O - 71 - pt, 7A - 4 



4086 



claim benefits. On the basis of such research, we vlll be able to strengthen 
our administration of these new provisions and to Inform the Congress of the 
feasibility of broadening these provisions of the Unemploymsnt Insurance law, 

Bargalnln:^ Rights , Last May, Secretary Shultz, In his testimony before 
the Senate Labor Subcommittee, endorsed the right of farm workers to organize 
unions and to designate representatives to negotiate the terns and conditions 
of their eioployment. In view of the unique characteristics of work In agricul- 
ture, we have proposed the establishment of a special board to deal with 
labor -management problems In the Industry and have suggested a mechanism 
for settling strikes which occur during the harvest season, with their 
potential for great dsinage to the farmer. IThe problem of affording protec- 
tion against stri ' :. at harvest times while preserving the spirit of free 
collective bargaining is a difficult one, and we do not believe it can be 
solved simply be extending the National Labor Relations Act to agriculture. 

Easirs; the Trensltion frcn Ml " Tnht Status to the Industrial Sector 

Evidence indicates that the system of migratory labor in agriculture 
is gradvally phasing out as a major labor market activity. Each year, 
the number of mlgrzmts decreases as the number of job opportunities 
dwindles. Occasionally, a major technological breaScthrough, like the 
cotton harvester, eliminates jobs in wholesale lots. More typically, the 
process has been one of erosion, with new production methods being perfected 
and adopted over time. 

If the transition to a settled life can be made successfully, not 
many people will mourn the ending of migrancy. The social and political 
institutions of our society ere designed to serve a stable population and 



4087 



have not been sufficiently responsive to the special problems of agriculttrral 
migrants. 

Migrants must be afforded an opportunity to move out of the migrant 
stream, to sink roots in a cocaunity where sufficient Jobs are available, 
and to obtain the services that will enable thea to make a transition to 
other employment without bearing excessive personal costs. 

The process of transition promises to be troubled, however, for the 
migrants, for the farmers who employ them, and for the public agencies 
concerned about their welfare. Migrants generally lack the education, 
training and related prerequisites for making an easy transition to the 
industrial sector. The Labor Department will do its share to minimize 
the social and economic costs of this transition. 

Under the institutional training provisions of the MDTA, an estimated 
20 percent (some 200, CXX)) of all trainees from I963 to I968 were in rural 
areas. The neighborhood Youth Corps has served more than one-half million 
rural youth. These enrollees include migrants wliose training and work 
experience under these programs have taken them out of the migrant stream. 

I would like to msntion three special projects which point the way 
to our future activities in this area. 

Experl-iental Migrant Progrcm. Aq ongoing experimental-demonstration 
program is focusing the attention and resources of 10 State employment 
security agencies on the problems of appro;^lmately 750 predominantly 
Mexican- American farm migrant families . The families follow the migrant 
stream from Texas to the North Central and northwestern States for agri- 
cultural work. Within a few yeoxs, mechr'jiizatlon probably will force many 



4088 



of these individuals into the ranks of the uneniployed unless they are prepared 
for other occupations by proper training and supportive services. The Te>:aa 
Employment Commission, as well as nine agencies in the "receiver" States, 
are working with the migrant families to help prepare them for the anti- 
cipated changes. They are providing MDTA occupational training and basic 
education to these workers and extending relocation eissistance to enable 
their families to move to other States, 

Job Banks. The Job Bank is a new development in employment service 
operations which will ultimately give migrant workers greater access to 
employment opportunities outside the migrant strean. In the Baltimore 
area, which served as prototype for this system, all ES co'onselors and 
Interviewers in the area, plus some 20 cooperating agencies, are provided 
with a daily conrputer print -out of all job openings listed with the ES or 
the cooperating agencies. The result has b2en a sharp reduction in point- 
less referrals and visits to employers and a sharp increase in placements 
of disadvantaged applicants. The heart of the system is the Job Bank 
book, reproduced directly from the master computer printout. It contains 
a listing of both job openings and apprenticeship aiid other training 
opportunities. Each morning, copies of the book are put on 50 different 
desks in the ES central office and 15 or mors outreach stations throughout 
the Baltimore area. 

Plans are already underway to extend Job Banks to rural areas. The 
Maryland agency has recently started to produce a Job Bank which co-'rers 
Job openings in several small towns. Books will be regularly distributed to 
selected OEO offices at designated rural locations end serviced by itinerant 
ES personnel. For the first time, on an organized and continuous basis, 



4089 



rural areas with limited e^iploytisnt prospects will have access to all job 
opportunities ia local and contiguous urban areas of Maryland. 

Some of the 75>OCO agricultural migrants originating in the Rio Grande 
Valley and the 30)000 who migrate froji Florida have expressed a desire to 
settle in the northern States to which they travel yearly. Tue availability 
of Job Bank books at their point of origin and points of einployment in 
the northern States could be a useful tool for counseling, and actusil 
Job offers. 

Ottujrfa Pro.lect. An e>:perimaaval projcan conducted in Southeastern 
Iowa by the public ecrploynent service has established a pattern for opening 
vcp a wider range of nonfarn job opportunities to f arnnforkers , including 
migrants. 

Prior to ths project, a 12-county rural area in Iowa was served by four 
small local public enployment offices, each responsible for a specific geo- 
graphic location. The project replaced this arrangement with th3 establish- 
ment of a "central" office, located in Otiurr/a, the economic end cur^uting 
hub of the area, and the designation of the four "satellite" or "feeder" 
offices, responsible to ths central offico. Job orders end applications 
taken in the feeder offices were held for a period of 2lj- hours and then 
transferred to the central office. This gave both applicant and errployer 
access to opportunities available over a much wider geographic area, and 
made available to the worker, particularly, a broader spectrum of farm 
and non-farm job openings. 



4090 



In view of the success of this project, similar programs are being 
launched in the ten adriinlstratlve regions of the Eepartmant's Manpov^r 
Administration. 

The Problem of "Cor-rvaters" in Hexlcpji Eorder Areas 
I am aware that this Subcommittee has taken a keen interest In the 
problem of commuters In the Mexican border areas. The term "commuter" 
is sometimes used to refer to "wetbacks" or border visitors who work 
illegally In the U.S. I will restrict my discussion to "green carders"-- 
the approximately 50, COO aliens who hr.ve been legally admitted for permanent 
residence in tho U.S. but who have chosen to maintain their domicile in 
Mexico while connuting to work in the U.S. on a regular basis. 

Green card conmuters also cross over from Canada to work in the U.S. 
In 1966, it was estimated that there were about 11,000 Canadian coimuters. 
Because of their snail numbers, labor standards similar to those in the 
United States, ar.d stronser labor orgmizatlon, Canadian coi^auters have 
less impact on the border cc_jnunltles than their Mexican counterparts. 
The followirs adverse effects of the Mexican cciiinuter system have 
been identified by our Department: 

1. Wages are Iwrer along the border because of the impact 
of the corjnuter. 

2. Unemployment is higJier in areas where commuters are present. 

3. llie incidence of violations of tho wage and hour law is greater 
in the border area. 



4091 



k. Collective bargaining in the border areeja is haapered by 
the availability of commuter -workers. 

The difficulties in changing the present commuter eystea stem from 
the fact that the system has been recognized and accepted administratively 
by the United States for over kO years. It is now considered a right by 
Mexican nonresident sillens and many other border residents. The economies 
and the social and political makeup of the U.S. border cities have been 
shaped by the availability of a large pool of low-skill and relatively 
low-wage Mexican labor. 

The Department of Labor is greatly concerned about the Impact of 
commuter employment on the wages ejid working conditions of American 
workers. But this is an extremely complex problem that the Department 
of Labor ailone cannot resolve since control essentially falls outside 
our administrative jurisdiction. The Labor Department can, and does, 
of co'jrse, promote more effective e^iforcement of its own programs. 

A number of alternative soluticas to this problem have been offered. 
However, certain ba-^ic factors should be taken Into account in any solu- 
tion which is eventually developed. The precipitous termination of the 
commuter system would result in the imposition of an undua hardship both 
upcai the commuterf? and upon the U.f>, border cities in which they are 
employed. Also, the 50,000 commuters obtained their iinmlsrant status on 
the good faith assurance that the United States would not change an administra- 
tive practice of kO years standing. 



4092 



The studies that have been made conclude that if forced to choose 
between taking up percanent residence in the United States or surrendering 
their I-L51 cards, an overwheljalng proportion- -as high as 80 or 90 percent — 
would move to our side of the border. They would becone residents of 
conmunities which for the most part are already in soiaa econonic distress 
and are ill-equipped to handle unanticipated massive demands for services. 
If the commuters and their families are to be relocated without seriously 
disrupting these border communities, provision cost be made to ennure the 
availability of basic services such cs housing, education, nsdlcal care, 
and feraily assistance. Consideration should also be given to a concerted 
industrial davelopnisnt program to bolster the econoniy of the border ai-eas 
and expand employment opportvmities for all of the residents of the South- 
west. 

We recognize that the nlgrant agricultural worker is in an economically 
vulnerable position in the United States . As I have suggested, this condi- 
tion can be aiaellorated by stabilizing the migrants' ec^iloyment , improving 
their ■wages and living conditions and by bringing them under the protection 
of our system of social legislation. Ultimately, ve must cope with the 
problems involved in helping these individuals and their families move out 
of the migrant stream. This task- -whether it involves the M:i;iicaa commuter 
or the domestic agricultural worker--will be a substantial one that demands 
our best efforts. Much remains to be done. In the Dspartnent of Labor, we 
have made a stsa-t In meeting our responsibilities in this important area 
of manpower policy. 



4093 

Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to make my first appearance 
before this subcommittee. I am acquainted with your continued efforts 
to improve the economic and social status of a group whose special 
problems rightly give rise to special concerns — the migratory farm- 
workers and their families. 

In response to your request, the Department of Labor jointly with 
the Department of Agriculture, has provided the subcommittee with 
detailed information on the status of the migrant worker. I will not 
review all of the data contained in that report. 

However, I would like to delineate briefly the nature of the migra- 
tory labor problem as we view it from the perspective of the Depart- 
ment of Labor. Within this framework, we can discuss specific prob- 
lem areas and suggested policies and programs w^hich may help to cope 
with these problems. 

According to the most recent reports of the Department of Agricul- 
ture there are approximately 257,000 farmworkers who leave their 
normal place of residence to seek employment elsewhere. 

Senator Mondale. That figure is based on figures referred to you 
by the Department of Agriculture ? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir. 

Sometimes this w^ork itinerary will span thousands of miles and will 
involve entire families. A study of migrants from south Texas shows 
that the families average about six and a half members. 

Approximately 40 percent of this family population is composed of 
children below 16 years of age. Nearly all of the children suffer from 
educational deficiencies because of irregular schooling. 

In their travels, these workers tend to follow well defined paths de- 
veloped over a period of years. The largest of these migrations is the 
midcontinent stream. Most of the South Central States feed this stream 
although the largest number of migratory farmworkers originate in 
Texas. 

It is estimated there is a pool of 100,000 migrant workers that move 
out of Texas each spring. The most important part of this stream 
travels to the Great Lakes States to harvest canning crops and to culti- 
vate sugar beets. Another branch travels to the sugar beet and vege- 
table areas in the Mountain States. A third major group moves through 
the Southwest to the Pacific coast harvesting fruits and vegetables. 

Another major pattern of migration is the movement along the east 
coast. The bulk of these w^orkers come from Florida, approximately 
36 percent of all migratory labor, but some originate in other South 
Atlantic States. 

When the winter harvest of vegetables and citrus fruits in Florida 
is completed, they travel to North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Dela- 
ware, New Jersey, and New York State. Along the west coast, there is 
a substantial interchange of workers among California, Oregon, and 
Washington. 

Aside from these three basic migratory patterns, there are many 
minor routes which form an intricate network over the country. 

The intrinsically unstructured and unstable nature of the migrant 
labor market is central to the employment problems of the migrant 
worker. His employment is discontinuous, lapsing as he moves from 



4094 

one harvest area to another with consequent losses in productive time. 
The demand for his services and therefore, his earnings are unstable — 
subject to the vagaries of weather and crop failures- 

Working for a number of different employers in the course of a 
yearj the nature of his living and working conditions are likely to vary 
significantly from job to job. 

The economic problems resulting from this lack of stability in the 
job market for migrants are further complicated by the fact that these 
workers are largely from disadvantaged backgrounds. For example, 
nearly one-half of migrant farmworkers are members of minority 
groups — Mexican Americans and Negroes — with the accompanying 
handicaps which arise from racial discrimination and lack of adequate 
educational and training opportunities. 

Senator Mondale. Would you yield there ? Is it your understanding 
that less than half of the migrants are Mexican Americans and black, 
and the rest are white ? I know there are some Indians, but is that your 
understanding ? 

Mr. Weber. Our data indicate that approximately one-half 

Senator Mondale. In the migrant stream the majority are white? 

Mr. Weber. Fifty percent. 

Mr- Knebel. According to the studies that have been made. 

Senator Mondale. Can you refer us to some of those ? 

Mr. Knebel. We can supply them for the record. 

(The information subsequently supplied follows:) 

Ethnic Background of Migrant Workers 

This estimate was developed as follows : 

According to the 1969 report of the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 
25 percent of the migrants in 1960 were Mexican Americans. No later figure is 
available, but the proportion was assumed to be still at least that high. Accord- 
ing to the 1968 edition of Hired Farm Working Force, 15 percent of the migrants 
were non-white. These two figures were added to a total of 40 percent who are 
members of minority groups. 

Mr. Mondale. Can you think of any ? I have been in many migrant 
camps, and looked at many migrants, and a lot of those farmworkers 
must be using professional makeup artists to so mislead your census 
enumerators. 

Mr. Weber. There are various migrant streams. 

Mr. Mondale. I recognize that, but I have been in the east coast, west 
coast, and central States streams. There may be some others, but any 
data you have on that 50 percent figure, 1 would like to see, because 
that is not my impression. 

Mr. Weber. As you know, in a way Senator the ethnic and racial 
composition of harvest laborers is varied over the years and sort of 
recapitulates the history of minority groups. Out in California it used 
to be Chinese and Japanese. Now there is a large component of Mexi- 
can-Americans and blacks and as educational opportunities and em- 
ployment opportunities open elsewhere you would find some movement 
out. 

As I reyieNved some of the Department of Agriculture data there was 
some indication that over the last 5 years there has been a significant 



4095 

drop in proportion of Negroes for example in the migratory labor 
force. 

Mr. MoNDALE. I think that is correct. I do not have any argument 
with that fact. It is the ethnic and racial figures suggested in your 
statement that I have some doubts about. I think one of the reasons 
that you are finding a diminished percentage of blacks is that the 
Mexican- American m the labor force who comes across the border 
into Texas and California is constantly increasing the ratio of that 
minority group as against blacks. 

Mr. Weber. That is correct. 

The average yearly income of migrant workers both farm and non- 
farm was less than $1,800 in 1969. 

Mr. MoNDALE. What is the basis of that figure ? 

Mr. Weber. Surveys taken by the Department of Agriculture. 

Senator Mondale. Those are Agriculture Department figures ? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. Are those the same Census Bureau figures we 
talked about before? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. How accurate are they do you think ? 

Mr. Weber. The basic report is the "Hired Farm Working Force" on 
an annual basis and is prepared by Economic Research Service, of the 
Department of Agriculture. Standards of accuracy in terms of stand- 
ard deviation can best be provided by DOA. 

Senator Mondale. Of course, you were here when we went over that 
with them. In their own literature, hidden on a back page, they say 
they need more statistics to "permit adequate detailed analysis of sub- 
groups among small segments of the farm workforce, such as female 
heads of households or migrants.'' In other words, they more or less 
admit that the data is not adequate for migrants. I am worried about 
this because we have been using these figures just like you have over the 
years, and increasingly, I wonder whether we even know what we are 
talking about. I am not being critical of the Department, I just think 
this is a problem we all face together. 

Mr. Weber. I think there are problems of data collection when you 
deal with such a group. This is compounded by the fact that these data 
are collected on an annual basis and depend heavily on recall of the 
interviewee. 

Senator Mondale. The available statistics do rely on recall, do they 
not? 

Mr. Weber. That is correct. The way to really get at it is by tracking 
them on social security data. That is what we try to do Avith respect 
to MDT trainees when we want to find out how well they do when 
they have completed training. 

Senator Mondale. I seriously question whether the social security 
information collected and reported among migrants is reliable. I have 
been at those shapeup pools at the Texas border crossing points, and I 
have talked to a lot of farmworkers that have social security deducted. 
Sometimes as much as a quarter of their pay was deducted. Sometimes 
the crew leader just takes it out of wages due. Illegals do not want 
social security deducted because they do not want to be traced. 



4096 

I wonder about reliance on Social Security data in this pathetic Avay 
of American life? 

Mr. Weber. There would be sources of error in that but it would 
catch those farm employees who work for larger employers who are 
covered by social security. 

Senator Mondale. When you get to the point where an employer 
treats the farmworker fairly, then I think that is correct. It is your 
best guess that the average individual income of migrant workers 
from all sources is $1,800 a year, or just about half of the poverty line 
for a family of four. 

HoAv sure are you that income figures reflect either individual earn- 
ings or collective earnings of a family ? A lot of these families go out 
as a team. 

Mr. Weber. That could be a possible problem in the data collection. 

Senator Mondale. Let me point this up because I think it is a prob- 
lem. I have talked to a lot of migrants and asked them how much they 
earned last year. They have a recall problem. They don't keep records. 
But if you get a response of $2,000 or $2,200, you have a wealthy 
migrant, and then you repeat, "You mean you earned $2,200?" 

He says, "No, the family." That meant his wife and nine kids. I 
wonder if Federal officials have checked that out? 

Mr. Weber. To do justice to the full range of problems, there is a 
question of income which is not calculated. That is the housing that 
they get which in many instances is not of an elegant nature but is part 
of a total income stream or additional services that they require. 

Obviously, that is not calculated either. We are essentially talking 
about money income. A study of BLS reported data indicate that 
around 30 percent of the total farm income of migratory labor in 1966 
came from nonf arm employment so that is an additional complicating 
factor. 

Senator Mondale. That figure is based on all income sources, is it 
not? 

Mr. Weber. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. You may proceed. 

Mr. Weber. The consequences of this marginal economic status 
impinge upon various aspects of the migrant worker's present condi- 
tions of life and future prospects. Frequently, these workers and their 
families are undernourished. They receive inadequate medical care. 

When they can no longer work in their customary occupation they 
will almost certainly become the objects of public relief some place in 
the Nation. And, permitting their children to grow up without an 
education, or with an education which is not geared to the needs of 
the future, we are passing on a compounded debt of unemployment 
costs to the next generation. 

These problems relate to the responsibilities of various agencies. I 
will give attention to those problem areas within the particular com- 
petence of the Department of Labor and which Ave feel merit con- 
tinuing attention and constructive action. 

These include: dcA-eloping stability of employment; the mainte- 
nance of Avage, Avorking, and living standards; the extension of social 



4097 

legislation coverage ; and easing the transition from migrant status to 
the industrial sector. 

Fnially, the special problems arising from the pattern of Mexicans 
commuting across the border to work in the United States merit 
attention. 

Although the use of the migrant labor is declining — having de- 
creased from approximately 400,000 migrant farmworkers in 1960 to 
roughly 250,000 at present — migrant workers will be a significant seg- 
ment of the farm labor force for some time. The work of migrants is 
by its very nature seasonal and unstable, thus, we must continue to 
provide information and assistance in scheduling jobs to give these 
workers as much stable annual employment as possible. 

This is no easy task in view of weather and the other uncertainties 
that aifect the farm labor market. In addition, many migrants, espe- 
cially the middle aged and elderly, may not be able or willing to train 
for other occupations. 

Senator Mondale. Do you have figures on that breakdown of 
migrants by age category ? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir, we do. They were, as I recall, submitted in 
conjunction with DO A submission and the interesting fact they show 
as 1 recall was that on balance the farm labor migratory force is 
getting younger. 

There is a much higher proportion under 25 now than there was 
10 years ago. The data are in the reports that they have j)rovided 
to you. 

Federal-State employment service system helps to achieve stability 
in the employment of migrants through the annual worker plan. For 
those assisted under the plan, both family groups and crews, compre- 
hensive itineraries are planned weeks ahead of the work season. 

After job orders are forwarded by States with manpower needs, 
interviews are conducted with crew leaders and migrant family heads. 
They are provided w4th specific information about employment oppor- 
tunities, housing, wage rates, and other job conditions in demand 
States. 

These interviews provide the basis for the agricultural worker 
schedule. This arrangement includes the names of the crew or farnily 
leader, the composition of the crew, and transportation and housing 
requirements. 

The schedule also shows the names and addresses of all farm em- 
ployers from whom the crew will be working during the active season. 
The plan helps to decrease time lost between jobs for migrant workers 
while assuring employers a dependable w^ork force. In 1968, over 
106,000 interstate migrant workers were assisted under the annual 
worker plan. 

Senator Mondale. Do you liave figures on the numbers of intrastate 
migrants ? 

Mr. Weber. We have some data on that that are derived from local 
reports that are generated by State employment service. 

Senator Mondale. The 106,000 figure is interstate ? 

Mr. Weber. That is correct. 



4098 

Senator Mondale. Would you supply figures you have on intrastate 
for us ? 

(The information subsequently supplied follows :) 

Number of Intrastate Migrants 

There is no unduplicated count of the number of individual intrastate migrants. 
However, according to reports generated by the State employment service agen- 
cies, employment of intrastate migrants averaged 37,000 in 1969 and peak em- 
ployment was 64,500. 

Mr. Weber. I might note in your discussion with Mr. Paarlberg you 
asked about what methods are used to convey information concerning 
the impact of mechanization on changing of patterns of migratory 
movements and so forth, in particular locations. The series of inter- 
views associated with establishment of the agricultural workers sched- 
ule would be one very pragmatic vehicle for doing this. 

For example, if it becomes a consideration that cherries in Michigan 
are now subject to machine harvest and this would reduce the time be- 
tween beet sugar and blueberries, this information would be conveyed 
in conjunction with drawing up that plan. 

Now, this is not as if the State employment service people give them 
long-term projections, but obviously there is accumulation of specific 
information on migratx)ry movements. " 

Senator Mondale. In other words, it is your view that the local 
farm labor offices, of which there are a;bout 2,000 

Mr. Weber. 2,000 employees. There are 2,400 emplojrment service 
offices and not all of them have farm people. 

Senator Mondale. It is these government personnel who work with 
the farmworkers, who understand their problems, and try to get farm- 
workers around to the rig'lit place, at the right time, for maximum 
advantage to the farmer and the worker. How good a job are they 
doing ? 

Mr. Weber. The system has been in effect since 1954 and in terms 
of it being debugged and getting procedures and flow of orders and 
working up a schedule on a timely basis, I think they are doing a good 
job. One of the problems, of course, is that it only has partial coverage 
of the migratory labor force. 

Many of the migrants go independently with crew leaders who have 
their own source of information. Others get in a car or truck and 
move on their own. We very actively encourage employers particu- 
larly — and that is the key factor, getting job orders into the system — 
to use this system. 

This is particularly significant, also, as part of our efforts to reduce 
dependence on a sole source of farm labor. For example, in New Jer- 
sey, tomato growers and strawberry growers have had a reliance on 
Puerto Ricans. When the weather is bad in Puerto Rico, or the Puerto 
Rican government indicates their unwillingness to fully participate, 
this creates shortages in New Jersey. 

We have said the way you do that is by not putting all your eggs in 
one basket but participating in an annual worker plan. This will help 
both demand and supply. 



4099 

Senator Mondale. There are lawsuits in California which charge 
thaJt the Farm Labor Service is not really seeking a balance between 
the interests of the worker and the farmer. It is alleged that the better 

f rowers are able to get their own labor, and that the Farm Labor 
ervice gets workers for farmers with less desirable employment situ- 
ations. 

Would you respond to that ? 

Mr. Weber. California is now in its initial stages of litigation. I 
am not sure if it would be appropriate for me to make specific com- 
ments on that, other than to say Secretary Shultz was presented with 
a petition from MAPA, which is the group there listing various short- 
comings in operation of California State Employment Service. 

We looked them over and as a matter of general policy we tried to 
be responsive to all constructive criticisms. We entered into discussion 
with California Employment Service and encouraged them to enter 
into discussions with us and the California Kural Legal Assistance 
group, which is carrying the suit. 

They involved questions such as prohibition of use of pesticides, 
poisoning. We think we have some constructive suggestions, but in 
terms of the general point you raised. Senator, I would not doubt 
that in specific instances there are local offices and local office per- 
sonnel, of the 2,000, that fall one way or the other. 

As a sort of an index of our general willingness and commitment 
to establish equitable and compassionate standards, I would bring 
to your attention the introduction of housing standards by the Depart- 
ment of Labor as a condition for using the interstate recruitment 
system and services of farm labor offices. 

As a consequence of instituting these standards, and we hope adher- 
ing to them, we have lost a lot of customers. As I say, later in my 
testimony, we regret this loss, but those are the standards that we 
have developed and they were developed over an 8-year period and 
we are trying to do a job. 

In terms of specific antidotes or events, we certainly would try and 
respond to them on an ad hoc basis as we have in California. 

Senator Mondale. Are farm labor offices funded 100 percent by 
Federal funds, but managed through State employment services, pur- 
suant to guidelines established by the Federal Government ? 

Mr. Weber. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. Do you know how many of the personnel are 
equipped with the skills that it would appear are needed to work 
sensitively wdth Mexican- Americans ? 

Mr. Weber. I do not have that specific information. I know this 
problem has arisen in California. It is one of the specific requests of 
MAPA. It is my understanding that there is a considerable number 
of bilingual interviewers and placement officers in the farm offices 
of California State Employment Service. We will provide that num- 
ber for the record. The figure 50 or so comes to mind, but I do not 
want to stand by that. 

(The information referred to, subsequently supplied, follows :) 

According to the California Farm Labor Service, it has 146 employees who 
speak both English and Spanish fluently. In addition, most seasonal assistants 
are bilinqual. 



4100 

Mr. Weber. In addition, Senator, I think it is important to note 
that 2 weeks ago the Department promulgated a minority staffing 
plan for the State employment service. 

Senator Mondale. Do you have that now ? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. What does that require ? 

Mr. Weber. It requires that each local office of Federal-State 
employment service identify the ethnic composition of the group 
served by that office. Our general argument is just as you are inferring, 
that you really cannot do a good job of placing people and counseling 
them, unless the people who are in the office are responsive to the 
cultural pattern and life style and particular needs of the clientele. 

We are asking each of the State agencies to set goals and timetables 
with respect to the hiring of minority personnel in their State employ- 
ment service offices, and that is just getting oflf the ground. 

Senator Mondale. Is this a new requirement ? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. I assume that is based on the feeling that at 
this point there is some need for reform ? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir ; it is very spotty. Actually, if you look at the 
West and the Northeast, the part of the country you will find a good 
representation of minority groups, whether in the right offices is 
another question. 

We have not gotten that specific. I might note that, as is not often 
the case in such matters, this is something we did not have to shove 
down the throats of the State employment service. We brought it up 
with the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies. 
The initiative was ours. We discussed it with them and their executive 
committee approved and supported it unanimously. 

Senator Mondale. Now, in the course of this requirement, did you 
not develop data on minority employment now in these offices ? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir; there are data and we have had a series of 
annual reports, I guess, since 1966, but they generally deal with the 
State agency in its entirety. 

Senator Mondale. In other words, it is data, but not the kind of 
data you want ? 

Mr. Weber. It is data of the first order of magnitude. 

Senator Mondale. But it does not tell you whether you have 
Mexican-Americans working with Mexican-Americans? 

Mr. Weber. Whether we have Mexican-Americans in the Modesto 
office? 

Senator Mondale. It does not tell you that ? 

Mr. Weber. We do not know that at the national level. That data 
obviously was obtained as part of the process of data collection. 

Senator Mondale. When does this new regulation go into effect ? 

Mr. Weber. The guideline was issued 2 weeks ago on the policy 
statement. We are now in the process of issuing guidelines for 
implementation. 

Senator Mondale. Could we have a copy of those for the record? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir ; indeed. 

(The information subsequently supplied follows :) 



4101 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 
Manpower Administration 
Washington, D.C. 20210 

March 25, 1970 



GENERAL ADMINISTRATION LETTER NO. 1367 

TO: ALL STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES 
SUBJECT: Minority Croup Employment in State Agencies 

PURPOSE: To provide policy guidance on minority group staffing and 
procedures for incorporation of Minority Staffing Plans in the Plan 
of Service. 

Adequate minority representation in the internal staffing of manpower 
development, job placement, and unemployment insurance operations in 
all States form a key aspect of responsive program administration, 
'ihese considerations reinforce the Department of Labor's general concern 
with the principle and practice of equal employment opportunity. There- 
fore, the Manpower Administration strongly endorses a positive program 
of equal employment opportunity in the internal staffing of all State 
Employment Security agencies. 

BACKGROUND : 

A preliminary analysis of data on minority group staffing in State Pjnploy- 
ment Security agencies over the period 1967-1969 indicates that the 
majority have made substantial progress in establishing equal opportunity 
in the staffing of their own agencies. Some of the other State Employment 
Security agencies lag far behind. In a few, the figures on minority staffing 
are so low as to raise a question of compliance with the January 1963 Amend- 
ment to the Federal Merit System Standards. 

The need for prompt effective action on this matter stems not only from 
the requirements of the Federal Merit System Standards, but from the 
standpoint of program effectiveness as well. If the Employment Security 
agency is to fulfill successfully its role as the provider of comprehen- 
sive manpower services, the agency staff must be a model of equal onportun- 
ity to the residents of the community it serves. The agency must also 
be a model to employers whom it encourages to practice equal opportunity 
and cooperate in the development of jobs for the hard- to -employ. If a 
local office serving the minority community lacks a representative staff, 
it will also lack credibility in the community and among employers. It 
will thus be less effective regardless of the degree of technical competence 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 5 



4102 



which tlie staff may possess. Moreover, with the emergence of employ- 
ability uevelopmeiit as a major component of manpower services, it has 
become of primary importance that staff, both professional and pre- 
professional, have an intimate knowledge of the community, the life 
styles, and the attitudes of disadvantaged clients with whom they 
must work on a personal basis. The ability to gain the confidence 
of and relate to disadvantaged minority clients must be regarded as a 
fundamental qualification for many public contact jobs in both enploy- 
ment service and unemployment insurance operations. 

STATEMENT OF POLICY ; 

In view of these considerations, the following has been adopted to 
supplement previous issuances urging increased minority group staffing: 

It is the policy of tlie Manpower Administration that the 
State Eirployment Security agencies should employ such 
numbers of workers frcsn minority groups as will assure 
that all agencies and offices can operate effectively in 
responding to the manpower and employment needs of the 
community being served. 

It is enphasized tiiat tJie above policy is not intended to endorse or 
condone, in any way, previously discredited segregation policies (e.g., 
"blacks serving blacks only" or "whites serving whites only") nor should 
tne agencies', ccmmitment to tliis policy be used to discriminate against 
a qualified applicant. 

U»lPLEML.vrrAriQM ; 

The designated minority groups have been previously defined in the 
reporting instructions for equal en^sloyment staffing surveys. State 
agencies should review the level of minority group staffing in each 
local enployment service and unemployment insurance office taking into 
account tlie minority population of the community to be served by the 
local ES office as well as the actual numbers of minorities utilizing 
those facilities. However, situations wherein the entire staff of any 
office solely represents one racial or ethnic group should be avoided. 
Notwithstanding the racial composition of tlie conmunity served by an 
individual office, steps should be taken to insure a representation of 
otner racial or ethnic groups on tiie office staff. It will be convenient 
to use data collected for the new minority staffing report, the 
instructions for whicli were issued via GAL 1348. This report required 
data as of December 31, 1969, to be submitted before February 15, 1970. 

Detailed plans of action for making necessary improvements in minority 
staffing and upgrading will be required as part of the Plan of Service. 
Each local office shall provide information on minority group proportions 
among current staff and in the conmunity v^ich it serves, and shall set 
goals for achieving the Policy expressed above. Ihe State administrative 



4103 



office shall sunmarize local office reports and formulate plans for 
(1) making any necessary cnanges in agency personnel policies aiid 
practices, including job restructuring; (2) working in cooperation with 
tJie merit system agency to assure that their policies and practices 
ensure full equality of opportunity; and (3) dealing with anticipated 
problems. Detailed instructions and guidelines for incorporation of 
these elements in tlie Plans of Service will be issued shortly. 

Upgrading of current minority staff is an important element of the total 
effort. In almost all State agencies, minorities are under -represented 
in the liigher level jobs. It is expected that this inequity, wiiich is 
the result of past practices and deficiencies, will be eliminated in 
part by the promotion of currently employed minority staff. In this 
connection, GAL 1536 issued Nove/iiber 14, 1969, provides guidelines for 
upgrading, preprofessional staff to the professional level. 

Additional plans and efforts must be made to assure tliat the minority 
group staffing polic>' will become a reality in all States. Sucli actions 
should include a review and revision of tlie Federal Merit System Standards 
and corresponding State regulations with a view to making such procedures 
and policies more responsive to program needs and the public being served. 

In reviewing the progress being made by State agencies toward achieving 
the objectives of this General Administration Letter, Regional Manpower 
Administrators will also review: (1) the degree of minority employment 
and general availability of minorities having requisite skills for 
employment with the local State Employment Security offices and the efforts 
made by these offices to qualify minority individuals through specialized 
training programs; (2) tne availability of minority employees wiio could be 
upgraded or pronoted within the local State Employment Security offices 
and the training which has been made available to adiieve this purpose; 
(3) a comparison of the rate of rejection of minority applicants with 
non-minority applicants. 



Ut'ijn-tiPl 

Malcolm R. Lovell, Jr. 
Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Manpower and 
Manpower Administrator 



4104 

Mr. Weber. What we are doing is trying to link it to the so-called 
plan of service, because this is the planning process in the State em- 
ployment service. They give us a plan of service which provides the 
basis for funding them on an annual basis. The review of the plan of 
service at the national level takes place about now, which is why we 
issue it at this time and why we are accelerating our implementation 
of it. 

The instability of migrants is the second major problem area which 
arises in the nature of this labor market which involes maintenance of 
wage, Avorking, and living standards. 

The instability of migrant employment has clearly contributed to 
the problems of low wages and deficient working conditions. A general 
surplus of agricultural labor in an inherently inefficient labor market 
has resulted in traditionally poor wages and conditions of employment 
for migrants. 

This problem has been compounded by the general absence of 
worker organization in the agricultural sector and the lack of full 
coverage under the wage-hour law. 

We have sought to influence the economic and social conditions of 
the migrant through the Federal-State employment service system. As 
noted previously, we assist employers by recruiting workers through 
the interstate clearance system of the Federal-htate employment 
service. 

However, we require that employers agree to meet the minimal 
standards we have established relating to wages, pay for transporta- 
tion, and housing. There has been considerable controversy associated 
with the higher housing standards that the Department of Labor 
instituted in 1968. 

The public employment service has lost the business of some farm 
employers because of our insistence on these standards. We regret this 
loss. Nevertheless, we feel that if our facilities are used to bring large 
numbers of seasonally employed workers into a community, we have 
an obligation to see that provisions have been made for housing them 
and that the housing meets decent health and safety standards. Such 
standards serve the interests of both the worker and the community. 

Senator Mondale. What other conditions do you impose upon em- 
ployers who use your service ? 

Mr. Weber. Transportation. I do have a copy of the Secretary's 
regulations dealing with use of the system. We will provide that for 
the record. 

Senator Mondale. We will put it in the record at this f)oint. 

(The information subsequently supplied follows :) 



4105 

Interstate Recruitment of Agricultural Workers 
No order for recruitment of domestic agrlciiltural workers shall 
be placed into interstate clearance unless: 

1. The State agency has established, pursuant to recruitment efforts 
made in accordance with regulations, policies and procedures of the 
Manpower Administration, that domestic agricultural workers are not 
available locally or within the State . 

2. The State agency has compiled and examined data on the estimated 
crop acreage, yield, and other production factors in accordance 
with procedures established by the Manpower Administration to assure 
the validity of need and the minimum number of agricultural workers 
required. 

3. The State agency has ascertained that wages offered are not less 
than the wages prevailing in the area of employment among similarly 
employed domestic agricultural workers recruited within the State 
and not less than those prevailing in the area of employment among 
similarly employed domestic agricultural workers recruited outside 
the State . 

4. The State agency has ascertained that housing and facilities which 
comply with the standards contained in Part 620 of Title 20 of the 
Code of Federal Regiilations are available. 

5. The State agency has ascertained that the employer has offered to 
provide or pay for transportation for domestic agricultural workers 
(1) at terms not less favorable to the workers than those prevailing 
among the domestic egriciiltural workers In the area of employment 
recruited from the area of supply; or (2) in the absence of such 
prevailing practice in the area of employment, at terms not less 
favorable to the workers than those which prevail among the do- 
mestic agricultural workers recruited by out-of -State employers 

who recruit domestic agricultural workers from the area of 
supply, as determined by the State agency in the State requested 
to supply the workers. 
6. The State agency has ascertained that other terms and conditions 

of employment offered are not less favorable than those prevailing 
in the area of employment for domestic agrlcxoltural workers for 
slmdlar work. 



4106 

Senator Mondale. Do you tie in minimum wage laws? Do you say 
that they must be complied with ? 

Mr. Knebel. If they are covered. They basically have to pay the 
prevailing wage that is determined as a result of the survey in the area 
of employment. 

Coverage under minimum wage provisions of the FLSA is imple- 
mented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. 

Senator Mondale. Who determines the prevailing wage ? 

Mr. Knebel. Our local office people conduct prevailing wage sur- 
veys. There is some verification with workers as well. This is done 
during the previous crop season. 

Senator Mondale. What about minimum wage ? Suppose there is a 
farmer that is not complying with the minimum wage laws and he is 
a covered employer. Does the Employment Service require com- 
pliance with that ? 

Mr. Knebel. If the local office man had reason to believe that an 
employer was covered by the Federal minimum wage, or the State 
minimum wage for that matter, referrals would not be made. This 
would be considered a substandard job offer. However, I think it is not 
always possible for the individual local office man to determine 
whether a farmer is in fact covered by the wage and hour law. 

Mr. Weber. If there is a basis for believing that there is a violation 
it would be referred to the Wage and Hour Division which would 
dispatch an investigator to look at it. 

Senator Mondale. Do you have surveys, for example, concerning 
housing requirements? Do you go out and survey housing to deter- 
mine whether it is adequate ? 

Mr. Weber. We have these standards. This arises in two ways. We 
do not have sufficient staff to go out and examine housing in fine detail 
as prescribed by regulation — for example, that there be 60 square feet 
of living space for each employee using the facility. 

We try and do the best we can and I would concede that in some 
instances this is probably inadequate. We also enter into contracts or 
arrangements with State agencies whereby we hope they will enforce 
these laws. 

As in all such administrative arrangements, there is sometimes a slip 
between the cup and the lip and we want to be sensitive to that. 

Senator Mondale. How close to adequate are you in being able to 
enforce this regulation, would you say ? 

Mr. Weber. I would not venture a guess other than to make the 
broad statement that if it was a forced choice to answer "Yes" or "No," 
the answer is probably "No." 

Senator Mondale. How large is the fall-off in employer use of serv- 
ice as a result of imposing this housing standard ? 

Mr. WEiiER. This is very difficult to estimate because as the data 
indicates there has been a falloff in the use of migatory labor in gen- 
eral. The two factors would be intertwined; however, we are aware 
of specific cases where this has happened. 

Senator Mondale. Proceed. 

Mr. Weber. The third area of interest to the Labor Department 
is extension of coverage under social legislation. As a further index 



4107 

of their peripheral status, agricultural workers generally have been 
excluded from the benefits of the Nation's social legislation. 

An important step fonvard was taken with the passage of the 1966 
amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act which brought em- 
ployees of large farms under the protection of the minimum wage. The 
Department of Labor has made two important proposals that would 
extend social legislation already applicable to industrial workers to 
the agricultural labor force as well. 

The Department supports the extension of unemployment insurance 
coverage to farmworkers, including migrants. We were, therefore, 
pleased to note that the Senate last week included migrant workers in 
extending UI coverage to employees of the Nation's larger farms. We 
hope that these coverage provisions will be retained by the conference 
committee. 

The bill passed by the Senate provides coverage for only a limited 
proportion of the farm labor force, but involves a substantial nimiber 
of workers. We estimate that it will bring under UI coverage, ap- 
proximately 275,000 workers or 22 percent of all farm jobs. Of these, 
roughly 18,000 will be employees of crew leaders, for example, migrant 
workers. 

Senator Mondale. Our feeling was that if crew leaders and their 
employees were exempted, that there would, in fact, be no coverage of 
farmworkers at all. Would that be accurate ? 

Mr. Weber. We viewed those proceedings with considerable favor. 
The committee reported out a bill which included coverage of those 
farmers who have eight or more employees in 26 weeks which would 
cover approximately 273,000 employees. There was a crew-leader ex- 
emption. This presumably was based on administrative reasons which 
we did not think were insurmoimtable. 

Presently, our best estimate is if the crew leaders' exemption was 
kept in it would exclude immediately 18,000 but beyond that we would 
q^uite agree that what you did really have is a segmented market situa- 
tion, so to speak. 

Senator Mondale. If we had not won our effort to remove the ex- 
emption, there would be an incentive to esta^blish a crew-leader 
relationship. 

Senator Schweiker. The way the bill and the amendment is now 
constituted, what percent of migrant workers are now covered? In 
other words, how many migrants are we missing, even with this ? Could 
you give me a rough guess — estimate ? Is this 90 percent of migrants, 
or 80 percent, or 95 percent ? 

Mr. Webek. It is difficult to calculate. 

Senator Schweiker. It is only farms of less than eight that we are 
really missing at this point ? 

Mr. Weber. That is correct. 

Senator Schweiker. Are there many migratory workers working 
on farms of less than eight people ? 

Mr. Weber. There are not, but the key provision in this. Senator 
Schweiker, is requiring the farm to employ eight or more for 26 weeks. 
To be excluded from the coverage would be a farmer who brings on 



4108 

200 harvest workers for 3 weeks — he had not been covered and then 
drops down to one or two. 

Senator Schweiker. What, again, is the time frame? 

Mr. Weber. Twenty-six weeks. 

Senator Schweiker. So, if any migrant group of any size comes on 
a fann for less than 26 weeks, and the rest of the year the farm employs 
less than 8 persons, that farm is not covered ? 

Mr. Weber. That is correct. 

Senator Schweiker. Is that right ? 

Mr. Weber. That is correct. 

Senator Schweiker. So, this is where our present loophole would 
be? 

Mr. Weber. We are sensitive to that. There is considerable back- 
ground, but this is the first time that farm coverage was ever reported 
out, either on the Senate or House side with respect to unemployment 
insurance. 

Tlie arguments that are made against it are that the experience is so 
highly variable for farm employers that they would have a very high- 
cost benefit ratio. That is, they would be so-called deficit employers 
who w^ould pay far less in their tax than is paid out to their employees 
in unemployment insurance benefits. 

Senator Schweiker. I am not sure on the 26 Aveeks. Does that meaji 
working on that particular farm for 26 weeks ? 

Mr. Weber. That is right. Then, the employer is covered wdth re- 
spect to payment of the unemployment tax. And employees who work 
for those covered employers then derive credits from that employment 
period. 

Senator Schweiker. Well, w^hat is a normal growing season ? What 
would be an average growing or harvesting season in terms of weeks? 

Mr. Weber. It would be a matter of weeks but here is the way 
harvest migratory workers would be covered : Say it is a large farm 
in California, w^hich on a year-round basis emp'loys 10 workers. It 
employs those 10 workers for 36 or 40 weeks. Then, along comes a, pe- 
riod when it brings in 200 or 300 harvest w^orkers for 2 or 3 weeks. 

Those harvest workers w^ould then be covered or would obtain credits 
for the collection of unemployment insurance by virtue of the fact that 
that employer was covered because he had more than eight employees 
for more than 26 weeks. 

Senator Schweiker. So, it is not quite as bad as it sounds, of course ? 

Mr. Weber. Our figures are not fine on this. We estimate most of 
the large farms in California will be covered by this provision. To the 
extent that we know that California is a big user of migratory labor, 
many of the migratory workers would then accumulate credits during 
the periods of their employment as they move up and down the valleys. 

Senator Schweiker. So, if any farm keeps more than eight workers 
there for 26 weeks, everybody that works on that farm is covered ? 

Mr. Weber. That is correct. That is the way it works. An employee 
gets covered by having an employer in the first instance being covered 
and that is determined by how many stable employees he has, so to 
speak. Our intention, and obviously this reflected pulling and hauling 



4109 

in different directions was a result of the original administration pro- 
posal, four employees in 20 weeks. 

We tried to be responsive to the argument that we really wanted to 
get the large farmers and also have a basis for determining what the 
true cost experience would be when you covered agricultural employees, 
but it is a breakthrough and it should not be underestimated. 

Senator Mondale. You estimate that 22 percent of all farmworkers 
would be covered. I assume that is migrant workers; is that correct? 

Mr. Weber. No. Some of them w^ould be part of a stable labor force. 

Senator Mondale. Are you confident of that 22 percent, or is that 
just a guess? 

Mr. Weber. I have become a little more modest in terms of assessing 
validity of statistics. We think that is a pretty good statistic. 

Senator Mondale. What about crew leaders? Is that based on 
registered crew leaders ? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. And it is well known that most crew leaders do 
not register? 

Mr. Weber. Well, some don't, I guess. 

Senator Mondale. We have a figure from your Department that 
of the approximate number of 12,000 crew leaders, only 2,000 register ? 

Mr. Weber. I am not familiar in detail with the regulations asso- 
ciated with that legislation. I suspect that not all of them have to 
register under the law. 

Mr. Knebel. That is right. 

Senator Mondale. The Department of Labor estimates between 
8,000 and 12,000 crew leaders not registered under the act. 

Mr. Knebel. These crew leaders that are working in the State of 
California, for example, would be covered under UI legislation. 

Senator Mondale. As it is now written. You realize that I am just 
trying to figure out how accurate that 18,000 employee figure is. 

Mr. Weber. You have workers crossing State lines, so it is possible 
for a crew leader just working in California to be exempt from regis- 
tration requirements. 

Senator Mondale. The 18,000 figure is not a very useful figure, is it ? 

Mr. Weber. I think the real significance of that was the point you 
raised. Senator, it created an incentive on the part of employers to re- 
sort to crew leaders. 

Senator Mondale. Proceed. 

Mr. Weber. Thank you. 

We feel that these new provisions, if enacted, will provide a signifi- 
cant beginning in bringing the benefits of unemployment insurance 
coverage to the Nation's agricultural work force. We hope to study 
closely the impact of any extension of UI coverage to migrant work- 
ers to determine: (1) the extent of increased costs to the employer; 
(2) problems of administration, and (3) the extent to which migrant 
workers actually claim benefits. 

On the basis of such research, we will be able to strengthen our ad- 
ministration of these new provisions and to inform the Congress of 
the feasibility of broadening these provisions of the unemployment 
insurance law. 



4110 

Last May, Secretary Shultz, in his testimony beore the Senate Labor 
Subcommittee, endorsed the right of farmworkers to organize unions 
and to designate representatives to negotiate the terms and conditions 
of their employment. 

In view of the unique characteristics of w^ork in agriculture, we have 
proposed the establishment of a special board to deal with labor-man- 
agement problems in the industry and have suggested a mechanism for 
settling strikes which occur during the harvest season, with their po- 
tential for great damage to the farmer. 

The problem of ali'ording protection against strikes at harvest times 
while preserving the sf)irit of free collective bargaining is a difficult 
one, and we do not believe it can be solved simply by extending the 
National Labor Relations Act to agriculture. 

Evidence indicates that the system of migratory labor in agriculture 
is gradually phasing out as a major labor market activity. Each year, 
the number of migrants decreases as the number of job opportimities 
dwindles. Occasionally, a major technological breakthrough, like the 
cotton harvester, eliminates jobs in wholesale lots. 

More typically, the process has been one of erosion, with new^ produc- 
tion methods being perfected and adopted over time. 

If the transition to a settled life can be made successfully, not many 
people will mourn the ending of migrancy. The social and political 
institutions of our society are designed to serve a stable population 
and have not been sufficiently responsive to the special problems of 
agricultural migrants. 

Migrants must be afforded an opportunity to move out of the 
migrant stream, to sink roots in a community where sufficient jobs 
are available, and to obtain the services that will enable them to make 
a transition to other employment without bearing excessive personal 
costs. 

The process of transition promises to be troubled, however, for the 
migrants, for the farmers who employ them, and for the public 
agencies concerned about their welfare. Migrants generally lack the 
education, training and related prerequisites for making an easy 
transition to the industrial sector. The Labor Department will do its 
share to minimize the social and economic costs of this transition. 

Under the institutional training provisions of the MDTA, an esti- 
mated 20 percent (some 200,000) of all trainees from 1963 to 1968 were 
in rural areas. The Neighborhood Youth Corps has served more than 
one-half million rural youth. These enrollees include migrants whose 
training and work experience under these programs have taken them 
out of the migrant stream. 

Senator Mondale. Do you have an estimate of the number of 
migrants included within MDTA programs ? 

Mr. Weber. No, sir; this is not included in normal reporting form. 
We do have an indication of whether the enrollees are rural or urban. 

Senator Mondale. Do you have a guess ? 

Mr. Weber. I would have to guess realistically it is probably low, 
obviously because of the nature of the process, but on the other hand, 
in Michigan, for example, or in Texas, in other w^ords, at the sending 



4111 

points and at the receiving points, or the termination points where 
the migrants are likely to settle for some period of time, that creates 
a situation where yon can deliver services. 

As I will indicate, we do have an ambitious project in this area in 
Texas. We have instituted projects in Michigan and Wisconsin. I think 
it should also be noted, Senator, that we have 13 rural concentrated 
employment programs. Minnesota, Arkansas, Mississippi, and un- 
doubtedly these touch on the constituency that you would normally 
associate with migrant labor. 

Senator Mondale- Once again, I assume the CEPS do not collect 
data, either, which includes the number of migrants? 

Mr. Weber. No, just in special survey, but if you want a general 
figure, we would not be able to provide it at this time. 

Senator Mondale. If you do come across figures like that, we would 
appreciate your supplying them. 

Mr. Weber. We have rather severe reporting problems with respect 
to normal data. We collect the expectecl demographic data, race, sex, 
age preference, welfare status, and although this is an important 
figure, it is sort of another indication of how migrant labor is in a 
general category, so institutional arrangement is not sensitive to pick 
up data that would sensitize you to the problems. 

I would like to mention three special projects which point the way 
to our future activities in this area. An ongoing experimental, demon- 
stration program is focusing the attention and resources of 10 State 
employment security agencies on the problems of approximately 750 
predominantly Mexican-American farm migrant families. 

The families follow the migrant stream from Texas to the North 
Central and Nortliwestern States for agricultural work. Within a few 
years, mechanization probably will force many of these individuals 
into the ranks of the unemployed unless they are prepared for other 
occupations by proper training and supporting services. The Texas 
Employment Commission, as well as nine agencies in the "receiver" 
States, are working with the migrant families to help prepare them 
for the anticipated changes. They are providing MDTA occupational 
training and basic education to these workers and extending relocation 
assistance to enable their families to move to other States. 

Senator Mondale. Are you encouraged by that project? You have 
an evaluation by Abt Associates and others that was not very en- 
couraging. We will include an abstract of that report at this point 
in the record. 

(The material referred to follows :) 



4113 



AN ASSESSMENT OF THE 

EXPERIMENTAL AND DEMONSTRATION INTERSTATE PROGRAM 

FOR SOUTH TEXAS MIGRANTS 



submitted to: 

Manpower Administration 

U.S. Department of Labor 

14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 

December 1, 1969 



prepared by: 

Abt Associates Inc. 

55 Wheeler Street 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 



This is an assessment of an experimental and demonstration manpower pro- 
ject under a contract with the Manpower Administration, U.S. Department 
of Labor, under the authority of the Manpower Development and Training 
Act. Organizations undertaking such projects under Government sponsor- 
ship are encouraged to express their own judgement freely. Therefore, 
points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily rep- 
resent the official position or policy of the Department of Labor. 



4114 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



PREFACE 
ABSTRACT 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The Social Situation of Migrants 

South Texas Migrants and the Impact of 

Mechanization 
The Experimental and Demonstration Project 

for South Texas Migrants 
A Brief History of the Project 
Introduction to the Assessment 

2. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Introduction 

Project Objectives Attainment 

Assessment of Project Objectives 

and Migrant Needs 
Findings and Recommendations 
Migrant Labor and Scenarios of 

Government Operations during the 1970's 



Page 

i 

ii 

1 

1 

6 

7 
10 
11 

13 

13 

13 

18 
22 

46 



TABLE OF FIGURES AND TABLES 



FIGURES 



Figure 1.1: Travel Patterns of Seasonal Migratory 
Agricultural Workers 

Figure 1. 2: Causes and Consequences of Migrant 
Workers' Social Situation 

Figure 2. 1: Examples of Monotonically Increasing 
Functions 



Page 
1 
4 
49 



TABLES 



Table 2. 2: Consequences of Two Government Approaches 

to Attempts at Unionization of Migrant Workers 

Table 2. 3: Migrant Problems, Objectives and Solutions 

in Two Scenari6s for the 1970's 



51 



53 



411,5 



PREFACE 

This assessment of the Experimental and Demonstration Program 
for South Texas Migrants was carried out by Abt Associates, Inc. under 
contract to the Manpower Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor 
during the period from May through .November of 1969. 

The project research effort was directed by Mr. John R. Hall. 
Senior scientists for the effort were Mr. Richard Anderson and Mr. Peter S. 
Miller. The work of Mr. James Meer and Mr. Richard Fleming was 
vital to the successful completion of the project. Major contributions were 
also made by Mr. Neil Webre, Mr. Glenn Devine, Mr. Ken Carlson, and 
Mr. Richard Coplon. 

The staff members involved wish to express their sincere apprecia- 
tion to Mr. Aaron Bodin of the Office of Special Manpower Programs and 
Mr. Willis Sloan, Director of the Office of Rural Manpower Services of the 
Department of Labor. We also extend our thanks to the members of the E and 
D Project Staff, staff of other agencies, and migrant workers, without whose 
assistance and cooperation this report would not have been possible. 



411.6 



ABSTRACT 



The Experimental and Dennonstration Interstate Program for 
South Texas Migrants was run by the U. S. Department of Labor 
Rural Manpower Service in conjunction with Texas and nine Northern 
state employment services. The Program singled out two basic areas 
of concern. First, a program of employability and supportive services 
was needed for those migrant families who, because of diminishing job 
opportunities due to mechanization of agriculture, wish to leave the migrant 
stream. Second, a wide range of supportive services was needed by 
migrant families who choose to continue to follow the migrant stream 
each year. Given these needs, the Program's overall purpose was to 
"develop and determine the feasibility and value of a coordinated inter- 
state program of multi-agency resources" for Mexican-American migrant 
farm workers. This goal led to the identification of four basic program 
objectives: 

1. to demonstrate that a coordinated network of state 
employment services can provide the communications 
framework necessary for serving a migratory population; 

2. to provide or arrange for provision of needed supportive 
services to nnigrants both during their Northern migrations 
and their winter sojourns in South Texas; 

3. to provide the opportunity for upward job mobility on the 
part of migrants; and 

4. to provide necessary assistance to enable those migrants 
who wish to do so to settle out of the migrant stream. 

During its first year of operation, the Texas E and D Project made 
significant progress in many areas, although results in terms of the 
above objectives appeared limited . The program evolved fronn concept 
to a full-scale ten-state operating program with basic procedures and 
trained staff in somewhat less than eight months. It heralded a new 
concept for many Ennployment Services- -that of arranging for efforts 
to nneet a wider range of ennployability and related supportive service 
needs. Although this approach was not universally impleniented, it was 
at least presented in a working form to many individuals who had not 
seen it in operation before. The program also increased the ability of 
employment services to operate under such a concept by providing relevant 
experience to a number of employment service staff. 

The E and D Program also had an impact on the communities in 
which it operated. It precipitated increased awareness of migrant needs 
on the part of other public and private agencies, as well as the community 
at large. In many cases, the program made innportant first steps toward 
nnore effective coordination among migrant- serving agencies at the local, 
state and federal levels. The program also documented the present 
severe shortage of necessary services for migrants and the need for in- 
creased services directed toward that special population. 



4117 



In terms of achieving its end objectives, however, the program 
had substantial difficulties. Only 54% of the 794 families chosen as a pre 
designated sample were ever contacted as they migrated to Northern 
states. Lack of readily available services and the time required to 
contact dispersed migrants resulted in an extremely costly rate per 
service delivery arranged during this first operation. Sample families 
received an average of one service per family in Northern states, while 
1.4 services were arranged per family in Texas. As of October 1, 1969, 
a date short of project completion date, the Program had placed eight 
migrants in non-agricultural jobs in Northern states, and 49 in Texas. 
Finally, twenty-five families were reported to have been settled out of 
the migrant stream in Northern states. These low levels of performance 
can be ascribed to three major factors: 1) the difficulties associated with 
program start-up; 2) the extremely difficult external conditions under which 
the progrann operated (lack of available services, resistance on the 
part of some agencies to providing services to migrants; employment 
service, employer and community resistance to the program); and 
3) various program policies and structures. 

Abt Associates Inc. recommends that the experience gained from 
the first year of program operation be used to restructure the program to 
increase its effectiveness. 

1. It was found that use of a sample preselected in Texas 
provided a target population which was difficult to locate. 
This artificial constraint kept the program from operating 
at its full potential. It is therefore recommended that 
each state program v/ork v/ith a sample based on location 
within its geographic target area. 

2. General delineation of objectives, intended to permit 
autonomy and encourage innovation, resulted more in 
confusion, limited coordination, and limited performance 
in terms of most objective criteria. It is therefore re- 
commended that only those state programs with concrete 
objectives and specific plans of action be refunded for the 
second year of operation. 

3. Ten different states were involved during the first year of 
operation in order to demonstrate the feasibility of inter- 
state coordination to serve the migrant population. Such 
coordination has neither proved to be feasible nor par- 
ticularly useful in its present form. Moreover, the 
program innpact has been too diffuse because of the desire 
to involve a large number of states. It is recomn-iended 
that an alternative approach of funding fewer state operations 
more intensively and for a longer tinne period be considered. 
For example, each of four states might try three radically 
different and quite specific approaches to meeting migrant 
needs. 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - I 



4118 



4. Program operations last year were hampered by a lack of 
services from other agencies and by a tendency to deal with 
migrant needs on an individual basis. It is suggested that 
more effort be devoted during the coming year to developing 
presently unavailable services and to arranging supportive 
services on a group basis (for example, with a mobile dental 
clinic rather than individual dental services arranged 
separately for each case. ) 

5. During the first year of operation, almost all program 
resources were devoted to employment of new staff. 
Proposals for next year should develop plans for spending 
funds in such a way as to have a direct impact on migrants 
(e.g. , stipends for settling out, migrant loan fund). 

6. Finally, it is recommended that several more specific programs 
be pursued next year: 

A. A program for settling families out of the migrant 
stream with services for: 

--housing, including rent deposit loans and self-help 

housing; 
--job training with stipend 
--job placement 
--clothing and other incidental needs 

B. An interstate migrant loan fund based both on Northern 
state target areas and in Texas. 

C. A migrant labor corporation which would employ a 
group of migrants, contract labor with employers, 
and pay for migrant down time. 

D. A program of wage dispute mediation and wage 
deduction monitoring. 

The two-volume "Assessment of the Experimental and Demonstration 
Interstate Program for South Texas Migrants" provides a more detailed 
examination of the program's operations, and objectives attainment, as 
well as more detailed recommendations concerning the second year of 
operation. 



4119 



1. INTRODUCTION 



The Social Sitaation of Migrants 

In the United States today an estimated 500, 000 '^to more than 
2 
one million people, about half of whom are workers, earn their 

living each year in seasonal agriciiltural labor, working to plant, care 

for, and harvest the crops which eventually find their way to American 

dinner tables. This agricultural labor force moves through fairly 

identifiable geographical patterns called migrant streams. These 

migrant streams originate in South Texas, Southern Florida, and 

Southern California, become more diffuse in the Northern state major 

3 
crop locations (see Figure 1,1) . 



Figure 1.1: 

TRAVEL PATTERNS OF SEASONAL 
MIGRATORY AGRICULTURAL WORKERS 







■li-coaTiaui sTiuas p.„„ T ^) 



Leonore Ep^feiftT ■**3C4i.gratory Farm Workers, Social Security Bulletin, 
XXVI, Bil'Cmay, 1963J, pp. 10-11. 

Subcommittee Ori Migratory Labor of the Committee on Labor and 
Public Welfare, The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the United States , 
(Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, February, 1968. p, 1. 

■3 

Public Health Service, U. S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, 
Migrant Health Program: Current Operations and Additional Needs" 
(Washington, D. C. , U. S. Government Printing Office, Dec, 1967), p. 6. 



4120 



As the harvest in the Northern states is completed, the migrant workers 

return to their Southern based points of origin This migration pattern 

has become an institutionalized way of life for tens of thousands of 

individuals. 

The migrant workers and their families constitute a group of 

forgotten Americans. Although their labor is essential to the agricultural 

economy and the ultimate distribution of food in the United States, the 

people who provide this labor receive slim compensation for their 

efforts. All published reports surveyed indicate that both median and mean 

migrant family annual incomes fall below $3, 000. The Washington State 

study showed a mean family income of $2, 300 in 1966 , while the U. S. 

Department of Agriculture reported that in 1965 the average annual 

income of individual migrants exclusively engaged in farm work was 

$1, 046. These figures are fairly consistent if we consider that two 

7 
family members work for every three who do not. 

The Public Health Service indicates that typical housing is "small, 

overcrowded and of substandard construction," and lacks adequate 

Q 

water supply and sewage and waste disposal facilities. They also 

indicate that the mortality rate of migrants from accidents, influenza, 

pneumonia, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases were all greater 

than twice the national averages. Infant and maternal mortality were 

9 
also found to be greater than the national average. These findings are 



It is not the purpose of this assessment to provide detailed documentation 
of migrant worker conditions. The interested reader is referred to a 
brief summary in Abt Associates Inc. , An Evaluation of the High School 
Equivalency Program, 1967-1968 (Cambridge: January, 1969), pp. 1-8, 
and to an excellent bibliography in Consulting Services Corp. , Migrant 
Farm Workers in the State of Washington, Vol. I. (Seattle, Washington, 
November, 1966), pp. 1-50. 

^ Ibid. , Vol. Ill, p. 8. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1967. 

Consulting Services Corp. , o£. cit. , Vol. II, p. 60. 

Q 

Public Health Service, op. cit. , pp. 10-11. 
' ^Ibid. , pp. 12-15. 



4121 



supported by the Washington State Study which found the life expectancy 
of Latin American migrants to be approximately 39 years, little more 
than half that of the average U. S. citizen. In addition, both the 

Washington State report and field work undertaken as part of the present 
effort revealed cases of severe mental breakdown on the part of the 
migrants. 

Migrants and their families also receive an education that is 
below national standards. The mean grade level attainment of adult 
migrants is approximately half the national average of ten years of 
education. Migrant children spend as little as 1 7 of the 36 weeks of the 
school year enrolled in school. They typically enter school late, 
change schools frequently, and leave school early. As children reach 
the age of ten they begin to drop school altogether because they are 
needed in the fields. This situation is, however, being improved by the 
development of intensive migrant schools in Texas. 

The social conditions described above are not without their causes or their 
implications for life patterns of migrants. As is depicted in Figure 1. 2, 
the nature of the agricultural industry in the United States presently 
necessitates a migratory life style, which, combined with the employer 
and government interactions, results in poverty level income, inadequate 
health care, and low levels of educational attainnnent. These factors 
and the large size of most migrant families make any transition to 
other types of employment extremely difficult. Migrants are thus 
"trapped" in a migratory cycle which breeds despair, acceptance of 
their fate, and, particularly among those with emerging political 
consciousness, cynicism about any external efforts to improve their lot. 

Several additional points should be made concerning this 
migrant system. First, as in any social system, causality is not 
entirely on a natural or "ecological" basis. On the contrary, human 
activity (both independently and within the shelter of organizational 
policy) is directed towards maintenance of the present state of affairs. 



Consulting Services Corp., op. cit. , Vol. Ill, p. 11. 



4122 



Social Isolation of 

Minority Group* 



Agricultural 

Employer 

Policy 



Physical Isolation 
of housing 



r^ 



Crop 
Work 
Schedule 



Migratory Life 
Style 



Absence of 
Community Ties 
and Power Base 



Agricultural 

Labor 

Market 



Employer 

Wage 
Policies 



Governmental 
Controls 



Wage 
Structure 



Tradition 

Culture 

Religion 



Inadequate 
Education 



1--^ 



Lack of 

Marketable 

Skills 



— ^ 



Poor Medical 
Care 



^- 



Below Poverty 
Level Income 



-^ Indebtedne s s\ 



Large 
Families 



i 



Lack of Occupational Mobility 
Acceptance of Fate 
Despair 
Cynicism 



W SF SP^7 



^7 



Figure 1 . Z: 



Causes and Consequences of Migrant 
Workers' Social Situation 



412a 



usually because it is the best interests of the organization or individuals 
to engage in such activity. Thus, although the migratory life style is 
an ecological result of the schedule of crop harvests, human action is 
used to keep migrants isolated from the larger society. For example, 
organizational policy keeps housing regulations from being enforced 
and employer policy keeps vi^orkers indebted to companies. Perhaps 
most importantly, because of employer policies and lack of government 
regulation the agricultural labor market is maintained in a constant 
surplus supply situation. This results in underemployment and all the 
concommitant problems of low income: i. e. , substantard education, 
health, and housing. 

Secondly, one of the dominant myths about migrant workers and 
their families is that they "choose" to migrate of their own free will, 
and that they are always moving from one place to another "because it 
is in their blood." Conversations with migrants during the course of 
the present assessment have indicated that many of them wish to stop 
migrating but see it as an impossible goal. Migrants are forced to 
follo^v the stream each year out of economic necessity -- because they 
have no jobs in their home base areas, because they owe money to 
growers in the north, because they have borrowed money from crew 
leaders in their home base. 

Finally, although Figure 1. 2 does not include government and 
other institutional efforts to deal with the situation depicted, a number 
of programs at local, state and federal levels directly or indirectly 
serve migrants. Among these are migrants school programs, migrant 
ministries, local and state migrant councils as well as several 

federally funded programs; HEW -funded Migrant Health Programs, 

12 
OEO - funded Migrant Opportunities agencies, and the Experimental 

and Demonstration Programs -- including the present one for South 

Texas Migrants -- funded by the Department of Labor. 



Each of these problems is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 8. 

12 

Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, op. cit. , p. 4. 



4124 



South Texas Migrants and the Impact of Mechanization 

Of the three nnigrant streams noted above, the one originating 

from Texas is the largest. An estimated 125,000 individuals migrated 

13 
from that state in 1968. A sizable portion of these individuals come 

from the four- county Lower Rio Grande Valley. The Commission 

estimates that of the 99,000 migrant workers who have a home residence 

14 
in Texas, 40, 500 live in the Valley. A sizable portion of these participate 

in interstate migrations, although no official statistics indicate the exact 

number. These workers often live in "colonias" (groupings of from ten 

to a hundred families with no municiple services or status). Because of 

the rural location of these colonias, they are difficult to reach with 

supportive services. Moreover, there are few jobs aside from those in 

agriculture. Even the availability of these jobs is limited. Last year, 

during the peak farm employment month of April, 21, 200 workers were 

15 
employed in agricultural work in the Valley. 

Migrant workers in the Valley, like all migrants, face the prospect 

of decreasing employment opportunities in seasonal farm labor because 

of increasing mechanization of almost all phases of agriculture. The 

Good Neighbor Commission explains the situation in Texas: 

There is substantial proof that demand for unskilled, 
seasonal farm labor continues to decrease and will 
continue its decline with the steady advance of mechani- 
zation. However, year-round farm workers in Texas 
are in short supply and a number of cotton gins failed 
to operate this last year for lack of experienced gin 
hands. This apparent paradox can be explained by 
considering the degree of skill possessed by the migrant 
workers. Today the hired farm worker must have some 
basic education and some skill in the operation and 
maintenance of farm machinery. Today Texas is 
industrializing and urbanizing and industry is very much 
in the labor market with the offer of better earnings, 
city dwelling, better schools, etc. , which.tempt many 
rural skilled workers away from the land. 



13 

The Texas Good Neighbor Commission, "Texas Migrant Labor; The 

1968 Migration," p. 6-2. The Good Neighbor Commission has adjusted 

raw data provided by the Texas Employment Commission to compensate 

for workers regulated under Texas Bureau of Labor Statistics activities 

and workers not counted by either agency. 

14 

Ibid. , p. 7-2. 

Texas Employment Conrimission, "Texas Farm Labor: 1968 Annual 
Report, " p. 7. 6 

The Texas Good Neighbor Commission, o£. cit. , p, 1-3. 



4125 



The situation is quite similar in Northern states: mechanization is 
decreasing the overall demand for seasonal workers and increasing the 
skill level needed for jobs which are available. One of the most difficult 
aspects of this situation is that mechanization proceeds unevenly, nnechanical 
technology being nnore adaptable to some crops than others. This results 
in a disrupted migratory pattern, reducing the number of days a migrant 

can expect to work during a season, and thus making the migration even 

17 
more unattractive than previously. 

Migrants are thus faced with a situation in which there will be 
fewer unskilled jobs and less security in those jobs. Though industriali- 
zation of Texas and the rural to urban migration of former year-round 
skilled farnn hands has created new employment possibilities, inability 
to speak English, lack of education, and low skill levels (as well as the 
systemic barriers to leaving the migrant stream) have prevented most 
migrants from availing thennselves of these opportunities. The situation 
is a classic one of structural unennployment, even more pronounced in 
the Rio Grande Valley than in most locations because of the rural isolation 
of the population. 

The Experimental and Demonstration Project for South Texas Migrants 

The United States Training and Employment Service, through the 
efforts of its Farm Labor Operations office and the Texas Employment 
Commission have instituted an "Experimental and Dennonstration Interstate 
Program for South Texas Migrant Workers." The program singles out 
two basic areas of concern. First, a program of employability services 
is needed for those migrant fannilies who, because of diminishing job 
opportunities and for other reasons, wish to leave the migrant stream 
and settle out. Second, a wide range of supportive services (including 
employability services) must be available to families which follow the 
migrant strean:i to Northern states. In this regard, the program 
proposal maintains that, "In many of these states, supportive services 



17 

Joseph Kasper, Speech at the E and D Project Conference, Chicago, 

July 22, 1969. 



4126 



either exist or can be developed, and through a coordinated effort on the 

part of various governmental and private agencies, such services can 

18 
and must be brought to the migrant family. " 

Given these needs, the program's overall purpose and scope is 

to "develop and determine the feasibility and value of a coordinated 

interstate program of multi-agency resources focusing on the problems 

of Mexican-American migrant farm workers and their families home- 

19 
based in South Texas. 

Though operational objectives are never explicitly stated, a 

careful reading of various documents plus conversations ■with project staff 

have enabled Abt Associates to generate four objectives which project 

staff generally identify as the objectives of the project. These objectives 

all fall within the overall goal of building into the various states' farm 

labor and rural manpower services a capability for arranging supportive 

and employability services for their migrant clients. The objectives are 

as follows: 

1) to demonstrate that a coordinated network of state employment 
services can provide the connmunications framework necessary for 
serving a migratory population; 

2) to provide or arrange for provision of needed supportive 

services to migrants both during their Northern migrations and their 
winter sojourns in South Texas; 

3) to provide the opportunity for upward job mobility on the 
part of migrants; 

4) to provide necessary assistance to enable those migrants who 
wish to do so to settle out of the migrant stream. 

The program is designed as a ten state coordinated effort involving 
the Farm Labor and Rural Manpower Offices in each of the states. The 
program is serving a sample group of 794 migrant families (approximately 
4,700 individuals) who reside in South Texas. Basic pilot activities 
designed to meet the objectives are as follows: 



1 ft 

"Experimental and Dennonstration Interstate Program for South Texas 

Migrant Workers, " (n. p. , n. d. ), p. 2. 
^^ Ibid, p. 2-3. 



4127 



For Texas: 

1. Identify a sample of 794 migrant families who have 
migration destinations in a target area in one of 
nine northern states. 

2. Determine needs of these families for supportive and 
manpower services while they are in northern states, 
and forward such information to the appropriate states. 

3. Upon migrants' return to Texas determine the interest 
of families in settling out and provide necessary 
assistance. 

4. Through outreach and follow-up determine the need 
for manpower and supportive services, and provide 
referral to appropriate agencies where these needs 
can be met. 

5. During the time when sample families are in 
Northern states, provide the outreach and referral 
services to recent former migrant families who did 
not enter the 1969 migration. 

For the Demand States: 

1. Determine the need of sample family members for 
manpower and supportive services. 

2. Expedite the referral of those individuals needing 
assistance to agencies and organizations which can 
provide them. 

3. Follow-up to determine whether these services have 
been rendered. 

4. Determine long-range needs of sample family members 
and forward such information to Texas. 

5. Determine the desire of families to relocate per- 
manently at the end of the migratory work season and 
provide them or make necessary arrangements for 
counselling, job placement and relocation assistance. 

6. Engage in a variety of other activities to ease the 
transition, adjustment and assimilation of settling 
out families. The backbone staff used to implement 
these activites are to be Rural Outreach Interviewers 
(ROI's) - bilingual interviewers knowledgeable in 

the available services in a given area. 

In addition to these basic activities described above, many of 
the Northern states are engaged in special add-on activities intended 
to explore innovative services and methods of service delivery. One 



4128 



state, for example, is concentrating on mediation of disputes between 
employers and workers, while another is surveying needs of settled- 
out families during the winter months. 

A Brief History of the Project 

The present Experimental and Demonstration Program grew out 
of activities conducted in project HOPE, a study of migrants and 
their needs conducted at the Hope, Arkansas Migrant Rest Stop by 
William Hood, Director of the E and D Project in Texas during the 
fall of 1968. Various meetings during that period between personnel 
of the Texas Employment Comnnission and Department of Labor led 
to the gradual evolution of the present concept of an interstate 
multi-agency coordinated effort. The concept was finalized during 
December of 1968 and proposals were received from Northern states, 
analyzed and returned for resubmission. Revised proposals were 
received at the January National Manpower Conference, and various 
decisions were made at that meeting concerning allocation of effort 
between Texas and Northern states. 

At this point the Texas Employment Commission had already 
received some funds ($85,000) for developnnent of the program. 
Texas, therefore, spent the spring months recruiting ROI's and 
other necessary staff, as well as requesting necessary funds, 
selecting the migrant family sample and interviewing fannilies to 
determine their general needs . 

Northern state employment services, which were brought 
into the program at a later date than Texas, spent the spring 
months developing programs for their own states and requesting 
operating funds. Delays in funding caused several states to get late 
starts in recruiting and training staff, and in at least one case, 
necessitated a cutback in program scope. Characteristically, 
these early months of the program's o;ieration were disorganized, 
principally because of the limited time available for requesting and 
obtaining funds, and for recruiting and training staff. The program 
had originally not been scheduled for full-scale operation until the 
1970 migration, but the Farm Labor Operations national office felt 
that the needs of migrants were so critical as to warrant a 



10 



4129 



startup for the 1969 migration even if that meant less groundwork. 
By the end of July, 1969 problems caused by late starts were 
generally solved, apparently without deleterious effect to the program. 

Thus the summer months were spent by demand state program 
personnel identifying available services in their local areas (and in 
some cases attempting to develop the needed services), locating the 
migrant sample families who were scheduled into their local areas, 
interviewing family members, deternnining long-range needs, and 
trying to help meet immediate needs . 

During this same period, Texas E and D staff worked to 
develop necessary training programs for returning migrants. In 
addition, some two hundred non-migrating families were contacted 
and provided whatever supportive and employability services were 
available. This activity was intended not only to deal with the 
structural unemployment problems of South Texas , but also to provide 
on-the-job training for ROI's in preparation for the return of sample 
families to South Texas beginning in September. 

As of this writing (October, 1969), migrants have begun to 
return from the North and demand state E and D staff have begvm to 
forward folders containing in-depth interview information on contacted 
families to Texas. Texas ROI's are contacting migrants and beginning 
to place some of them in available job training programs. 

Introduction to the Assessment 



The remainder of this report presents findings, conclusions, 
and recommendations concerning the Experimental and Demonstration 
Program for South Texas Migrants. The report is based on: 1) over 
90 man-days of field interviews with project staff, members of 
other related organizations, employers, and migrant workers; 
2) qualitative and quantitative analysis of data gathered during this 
field work; 3) inputs supplied by other companies involved in the 
assessment (specifically. New TransCentury Corp. and Interstate 
Research Associates, Inc.); and 4) library research. 

Since the E and D Project has not yet completed one full year 
of operation, the present report should not be construed as a final 



11 



4130 



evaluation of the project. Rather it is intended as an assessment based 
on a current reading of the situation, designed to provide a constructive 
basis for deciding whether to refund the program, and, if the program 
is refunded, making program modifications toward the ultimate goal of 
helping migrant agricultural workers meet their own life goals. Thus, 
less effort has been devoted to documenting program successes than to 
identifying problems and proposing possible courses of action. 

To this end, Chapter 2 presents conclusions about the 
attainment of objectives and an assessment of program objectives 
compared to migrant needs. Recommendations are then presented 
at two basic levels: 1) those relatively minor modifications of the 
program which will increase its effectiveness without structural 
change, and 2) maximum impact modifications requiring more basic 
redirection of the project effort. Finally, since it is the belief of 
Abt Associates Inc. that short-run recommendations tend to obscure 
the need for long-term planning, an attempt is made to balance the 
recommendations with a more general statement of projected trends 
and potential long-range governmental responses. 

The remainder of the report is concerned with specific 
findings upon which the conclusions and recommendations are based. 
Chapter 3 deals with overall program structure, communication and 
coordination, while Chapter 4 concentrates on the Texas E and D 
Project. Chapters 5 and 6 present the results of quantitative 
analysis , while Chapter 7 is concerned with sample migrant families 
experiences with the project. Chapter 8 presents miscellaneous 
findings not directly related to the E and D Project, but of concern 
and interest to anyone involved with helping migrants. Finally, 
Chapter 9 presents a formal study design for evaluation of long- 
term project success. 



12 



4131 



2. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Introduction 

The conclusions and recommendations contained herein cover a wide 
range of E and D Migrant Project concerns. They represent a composite 
view of the program's operation in ten states which is based on 1) eighteen 
man-weeks of field work; 2) extensive quantitative analysis using data 
gathered during field visits, and 3) library research concerning migrant 
labor and social conditions as well as legislation and programs impinging 
upon migrants. 

The results of this activity are summarized in this chapter under 
several headings. First, the project is discussed in terms of attainment 
of objectives. Program objectives are then assessed in terms of migrant 
needs. Findings and recommendations are presented concerning modifica- 
tions which should be made if it is decided to refund the program. These 
findings and recommendations are presented at two different levels; 
1) changes necessary to improve the operation of the the program; 
and 2) maximum impact modifications which to some extent would require 
a refocusing of project activities. Finally, scenarios of long range trends 
in migrant labor are presented and governmental responses to these situations 
are explored. 

Project Objectives Attainment * 

Though operational objectives of the Experimental and Demonstration 
Program for South Texas Migrants are never formally and explicitly stated, 
a careful reading of various documents plus conversations with project staff 
have enabled the assessment team to generate a list of four objectives which 
are generally identified by project staff as the objectives of the project. 
These objectives are subsummed under the overall goal of building into the 
various states' farm labor and rural manpower services a capability for 
arranging supportive and employability services for migrant clients. The 
objectives are as follows: 



*More detailed information on objective attainment is present in Chapter 5. 



13 



41,32 



1) to demonstrate that a coordinated network of state employment 
services can provide the communications framework necessary for serving 
a migratory population; 

2) to provide or arrange for provision of needed supportive services 
to migrants both during their Northern migrations and their winter sojourns 
in South Texas ; 

3) to provide the opportunity for upward job mobility on the part of 
migrants; and 

4) to provide necessary assistance to enable those migrants who 
wish to do so ^o settle out of the migrant stream. 

MAINTENANCE OF CONTACT WITH MIGRANT PROJECT FAMILIES 

The objective of demonstrating that a coordinated network of state 
employment services can provide the communications necessary for serving 
a migrant population requires basically that the project transfer information 
about the physical location and supportive and employability service needs of 
migrants so that migrants can be contacted and served as they move through 
the migrant stream. The program was to include information about migrant 
needs in family folders which were to follow the migrant family from place 
to place during its migration. After the initial recruitment and interviewing 
of families in Texas, three distinct types of information transfer and migrant 
contact were required: 1) transfer of family information from Texas to the 
migrant family's first Northern work location and contact with the family at 
that location; 2) transfer of family information from one Northern location 
to another and contact with the family at the subsequent Northern location; 
3) transfer of information back to Texas from the final Northern location so 
that families may be recontacted and served by Texas upon their return from 
the migration. The present assessment can report only on the first two of 
these types of information transfer and contact, since the third was not yet 
completed as of this writing. 

Transfer of family folders with information gathered from brief 
interviews from Texas to the first Northern states was successfully accom- 
plished. Contact of families in the first Northern location however was not 
particularly successful. Of the 794 families for which folders were received, 



14 



4133 



43 3 families or 54. 6"/o of the total were contacted in their first Northern 
location, leaving 361 families which were never contacted in the North. 
There are three possible explanations for lack of contact: 1) the family 
didn't migrate; 2) the family did not migrate to the Northern project area originally 
specified; and 3) the family migrated to the area but was not located by 
E and D Project Staff. Even if we assume that 20% of sample fannilies 
fall in categories 1) and 2) -- a liberal assuniption, since some projects 
contacted more than 80% of their families -- there are still some 31. 8% 
of families who migrated to the area they had stated in Texas and were 
not contacted by the project. The reasons for this poor contact rate in- 
clude 1) poor staff organization and coordination attempts at locating 
families; 2) lack of specific information about where within a general 
area migrant families intended to work; and 3) in some locations, many 
and large migrant labor camps. Once a migrant family was contacted 
for the first time in a location, maintenance of contact was fairly good 
until the family left that location. Most contacted families were visited 
between once a week and once every three weeks, and more often when 
specific services were being provided. 

Transfer of information from one Northern location to the next 
and making contact with the migrant family at the second location were less 
successfully accomplished than the first Northern contacts. During the 
entire summer migration up until September 7, in only twenty-three cases 
were family folders transferred from one Northern location to another. 
Thirteen of these were cases in which folders were forwarded to another 
area because families could not be located in the first area. In five cases 
(involving three families) of the twenty-three cases, E and D staff at the 
second location were able to contact the family. The low level of folder 
forwarding and contact in this area can be attributed to poor information 
about migrant departures from one area and subsequent destinations. Be- 
cause of the sudden nature of migrant departures, contact with located 
families, though frequent, was not often enough to obtain this information. 

ARRANGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY FOR MIGRANTS 

Arrangement of service delivery was defined for the purposes of the 
assessment as a situation in which an E and D staff member had played an 
active role in arranging for a service which a sample migrant had received. 
On the basis of this definition, examination of family folders indicated that 
as of September 12, 1969 a total of 754 services had been arranged in 
Northern states for members of the migrant sample. Of these 754 services, 

15 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 7 



4134 



330 consisted of in-depth interviews conducted by ROIs as requested by- 
Texas. This leaves a total of 424 other services (approxinnately one 
service per family contacted) arranged. The largest numbers of 
services arranged aside from the in-depth employability interviews were in the 
categories of minor medical treatn-ients (54 services arranged), dental 
care (54), job counselling (57), school enrollment (27), and nursery 
and day care (26). Services delivered represented 11. 3% of all needs 
identified and 6. 8% of needs identified excluding the need for an in-depth 
interview. 

An estimate of the cost for service delivery arrangement 
was computed under the assumption that the major output activity 
in Northern states was service delivery arrangement. The cost of 
Northern programs was thus divided by the number of services ar- 
ranged, providing a cost per benefit of service arranged of $791 
compared to a cost per potential service (i.e. , heed identified) of 
$58. The cost per service arranged is quite high considering that 
the actual cost of the services themselves usually did not range over 
$100. The high cost per service arranged may be attributed to a lack 
of readily available services (and a resistance to delivery on the part 
of some non-nnigrant agencies) as well as the difficulties of efficient 
outreach in a rural setting serving a migrant population. In some 
locations cost per service arranged was as low as $279. This lower 
cost resulted from ease of locating migrants and development of 
blocks of services which could be offered to large numbers of nnigrants 
at one time. 

While Northern states were working with sannple fan-iilies who 
had n-iigrated, the Texas E and D Project served an additional 200 
families which had not nnigrated from the Rio Grande Valley. For 
these families, Texas made a total of 106 referrals to job training 
programs (55 were enrolled) and 784 referrals to other service 
agencies. Projections of services received based on a sample of 
64 of the 200 families indicates that Texas performed somewhat better 
than Northern states in service delivery arrangement. Of the approxi- 
mately 250 referrals made for the 64 f.innilies, 76 resulted in services. 



16 



4135 



When an outside agency delivery statistic for the entire group of 200 is 
projected on this basis and non-job placement services provided by the 
Texas Employment Commission are added to this number, the result 
is that an estimated 278 services or 1.4 services per family were 
arranged. 

UPWARD JOB MOBILITY 

The third objective of the E and D Migrant Program was to upgrade 
job skills and jobs of migrant workers in order to offest structural unemploy- 
ment resulting from mechanization of agricultural operations. Final assess- 
ment of attainment of this objective will have to await long term evaluation 
of sample families as compared to a sample of non-project nngrant families. 
Activities to date have consisted of 330 in-depth interviews in Northern 
states (to be used in Texas for job counseling, training program placement 
and job placement) and 8 placements of migrants in non-agricultural jobs 
in Northern states and 49 such placements for the 200 family sample in 
Texas. Northern states were not able to work toward this goal very effec- 
tively because the greater part of migrants' time was taken up by work and 
because the population being served was highly geographically mobile. 
Texas, on the other hand, worked with a less mobile and less intensively 
employed population and was therefore able to accomplish more. 

SETTLING OUT OF MIGRANTS 

The final objective of the program was to settle sample families out 
of the migrant stream. As of October 3, 1969, a total of twenty-live sample 
families had definitely settled out in Northern locations. Seven of these 
families were settled in Idaho, whose add-on proposal concerned settling 
migrants out. The twenty-five families represent 3. 1% of the 394 families 
in the project sample and 5. 8% of those families which were contacted by 
Northern state staff. These percentages are not significantly different from 
the estimated 5. 0% of migrant families which settle out in the North each 
year, and are considerably lower than the 10.0% which Texas had hoped 
would settle out in the North. 

This poor success can be attributed in part to the characte-ristics of 
migrants which provide a high resistance to their settling out in the North; 



17 



4136 



their lifestyle, culture and aversion to cold climate operate against settling 
out. On the other hand, many state projects, particularly in the midwest, gave only 
a half-hearted effort to the attainment of this objective, and did not perform as 
well as other agencies dedicated to settling migrants out of the stream 
because they did not attempt to deal with the more modifiable barriers against 
Settling out such as need for jobs, housing, warm clothing, community 
acceptance, school placement and funds with which to make the transition. 

Assessment of Project Objectives and Migrant Needs 

The goal of the Experimental and Demonstration Program for 
South Texas Migrants is to help migrant workers with their present problems 
and those incipient problems resulting from increasing mechanization of 
agricultural activities by developing a capability for service referral and 
delivery arrangement within state employment services. 

The program itself did not clearly specify what operational objectives 
would be required if the goal was to be met. Indeed, many staff at all levels 
of the program are unclear about program objectives, and there is consider- 
ably less than total agreement on objectives among those who are able to 
specify a set. The assessment team developed the list of objectives already 
described above from a careful reading of various proposals and procedures 
manuals and discussions with program staff. The objectives of maintenance 
of contact, arranging supportive services and helping migrants to obtain 
better jobs are all fairly widely acknowledged as program goals by state 
level project staff. 

There is more disagreement and ambivalence concerning the fourth 
goal, that of settling sample families out of the migrant stream. More than one 
state E and D Project director has declared it an unfeasible objective. Because of local 
community pressure on the project in some states, project coordinators have 
in many cases approached the objective with kid gloves, carefully presenting 
their activities as being directed toward aiding those families who of their 
own initiative have a strong desire to settle out, or presenting a "balanced 
view" of the advantages and disadvantages of settling out with families 
interviewed. In many locations even the "balanced view" was not presented 
to all families which were contacted. In short, there was considerable 
controversy and lack of coordinated policy concerning the goal of settling 
miigrants out of the stream. 

An assessment of each p:c ram objective and its relation to migrant 
needs follows. 

18 



4137 



MAINTENANCE OF CONTACT WITH MIGRANTS 

Any assessment of project objectives and their relevance to migrant 
needs must in part depend upon the impact of successful objective attainment 
versus the resources devoted to and difficulty in attaining such a goal. Such 
is the basis for cost-effectiveness analysis, and while there is insufficient 
quantifiable date to do a formal cost-effectiveness study, the concept serves 
as a good basis for examining objectives ot the E and D Project. 

The objective ■was one of demonstrating that coordinated communication between 
different state employment services could be used to provide more effective 
service arrangements for migrants. Optimally, objective attainment would 
reduce repetition of information-gathering and improve the ability of local 
employment services to plan to meet needs of migrants. Neither of these 
benefits has materialized to any great extent. Information exchange has not 
taken place in sufficient quantity or depth to reduce the repetition of informa- 
tion gathering. 

The second benefit is also of minimal importance since services available 
have never been constrained by migrant needs. The amount of time and 
money devoted to maintenance of contact with sample family migrants has 
been considerable. Northern states spent much of their time trying to locati- 
families in the sample, and a great deal of their effort was fruitless. 

Because of its experimental nature, it is understandable that the projet t 
worked with a pre-selected sample of migrant families during its first year 
of operation. Much useful information has been gained from this approach. 
But due to the low cost-effectiveness of such an approach with reference to 
migrants it seems unadvisable to continue with the objective of maintaining 
contact with a pre-selected group. If the program is funded for a second 
year of operation, it is suggested that instead of devoting time and effort to 
locating specific families. Rural Outreach Interviewers should work with 
whatever families happen to be in their geographic area. In cases where 
migrants would benefit from services which could be provided in their home 
base area but not during migration in Northern states, necessary information 
concerning family name, home base address, and familyneeds could be lorwaj'led 
to the appropriate home base employment service office. 



4138 



ARRANGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY 

Again, using the framework of cost-effectiveness analysis, assessment 
of the objective of arranging services for migrants suggests that some revision 
should take place. Optimally, arrangement of service delivery has a direct 
impact on migrants: a need is met. Attempts at making such arrangements 
during the first year of E and D operation were not totally successful, mainly 
because of a shortage of available services and resistance to providing ser- 
vices for migrants by various agencies and groups. This difficulty in obtain- 
ing services is reflected in a high cost per benefit of services arranged (see 
Chapter 5). Clearly the present constraint on migrants receiving services 

is not an inadequate outreach function, but rather, lack of available services. 
It is suggested that if the E and D Program is to operate for a second year, 
whenever staff members recognize services shortage rather than lack of 
outreach to persons with needs to be the current constraint on services, 
project staff should devote increased time to service development and less time 
to outreach for service arrangement, particularly when a reading of the local 
situation indicates that needed services are either unavailable, not easily 
obtainable, or oversubscribed. 

UPWARD JOB MOBILITY 

Optimal effectiveness of providing migrants with better jobs or oppor- 
tunities which lead to better jobs is quite high. A long range rather than a 
short term need is met: the migrant enjoys what can be a permanent change 
in income and permanency of employment. The macro-situation in migrant 
labor is also improved because unemployment and underemployment are 
reduced. The costs of objective achievement in this area is not substantially 
greater than that of arranging other services. In terms of E and D Program 
resources, the cost of arranging services necessary for upward job mobility is 
greater by perhaps a factor of 10 than the cost of arrangement for other services 
yet the benefit is such that it provides the migrant with a basis for meeting his 
his family's needs on his own. 

Thus, under optimal conditions the objective of upward job mobility 
is a highly cost-effective one. Objective attainment of the E and D Project 
in this area has not progressed sufficiently for valid assessment, particularly 
in Texas where the bulk of this type of activity will take place. It is apparent 



20 



4139 



however that Northern states are not able to function very successfully in 
meeting this objective because of the itinerant nature of the population they 
serve. Only when a migrant family decides to settle out can Northern 
states achieve their objective. Texas has a better opportunity 
in the area of providing upward job mobility because of the more lengthy 
stay of migrant families and their low level of employment during that 
period. On the other hand, the availability of jobs in the Rio Grande Valley 
is not particularly great. Thus, though the objective is a cost-effective one 
in terms of migrant needs and available resources, objective attainment is 
a difficult task. It is recommended that the objective of upward job mobility 
be continued and that local office explore the pre-conditions for attainment 
of this objective and develop programs (e. g. , economic and job development) 
to meet these pre-conditions so that more migrants will be able to obtain 
jobs outside the migrant stream. 

SETTLING OUT OF MIGRANTS 

The final E and D Program objective of helping migrants settle out 
of the stream, like the objective of upward job mobility, has a high effec- 
tiveness. Although resource costs associated with attainment of this 
objective are also quite high (higher even than those associated with upward 
job mobility), these increased costs are not without their benefits. The 
likelihood of success in resettlement is increased when other needed services 
are arranged in addition to a job. The E and D Program has not been too 
successful in attaining this objective until now, principally because of a lack of 
commitment to the objective on the part of certain program staff in Northern 
states, but also due to the difficulties involved in successfully settling out 
families. Like upward job mobility, the objective is a cost-effective one, 
but one which requires careful task definition and execution. 



21 



4140 



Findings and Recommendations 

Findings and recommendations are presented below under three 
categories: general findings recommendations concerning changes which 
are suggested for the program if it continues for a second year in any form, 
recommendations which should be implemented only if the program is to 
continue to operate with the same general objectives and structure as it 
presently has, and finally, recommendations which should be considered 
if there is a desire to alter significantly the program's objectives and 
mode of operation, in order to maximize cost effectiveness of impacts 
on migrants. 

GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Program Administration, Coordination and Operations 

^Objectives 

Finding: There is considerable lack of agreement between state projects 

on the goals and objectives of the Experimental and Demonstration Project 

for South Texas Migrants. Indeed, in various states the project is working 

toward quite different ends. At the "front line" (Rural Outreach Interviewer) 

level of the program, there is both confusion about objectives and actions 

and, in some cases, ignorance of objectives. Differing perceptions of 

objectives and lack of knowledge of objectives have led to poor coordination 

between states and have hampered the program's success. 

Recommendation: It is suggested that program administrators 
at the Washington, D. C. office hold a workshop with state level 
staff in which participation of all members is encouraged so that 
a consensus can be reached concerning goals and objectives 
of the program. Such clarification will result in better 
coordination between states and more effective action toward 
attaining the agreed upon goals and objectives. 

*Late Funding • 

Finding : Though several states complained that late funding had hampered 
the success of their operations, there were few cases of irreparable 
damage and by mid-summer most states seem to have overcome any time 
loss caused by funding delays. 



22 



4141 



* Hiring 

Finding : Quantitative analysis indicates that the adequacy of hiring procedures 
affects the quality of staff in terms of its experience in similar work and 
its commitment to goals and objectives of the project. There was also 
found to be a relationship between commitment to the project on the part 
of staff and the effectiveness with which staff were working to arrange 
services for migrants. 

It was also found that staff who worked on the project who had 
been previously engaged in employability activities did not perform as 
well in the areas of service development and Arrangement _ 

Finally, some states (for example, Tex;as) hired Anglo non- 
bilingual Rural Outreach Interviewers. 

Recommendation : Hiring guidelines should be established by the 
national office and influence exerted on the states to adhere to 
guidelines as closely as possible. These guidelines might take 
the following form for the position of Rural Outreach Interviewer 
and local Project Coordinator (criteria are listed in order of 
importance): 

Rural Outreach Interviewer: 

- bilingual 

- former migrant 

- two years experience outside migrant 

stream 

- high school education or equivalent 

- "street knowledge. " 

- committed to goals and objectives of program 

- young (20-30) 
Local Project Coordinator: 

- experience in a social service agency or the employment 
service 

- middle aged (30-50) 

- college degree or some equivalency of experience 



23 



4142 



*Civil Service Criteria 

Finding : Many potential outreach workers could not be hired because they 
did not meet state Civil Service criteria for the job equivalent of outreach 
interviewer. The most serious deficiency was in education. Many of the 
settled out migrants have not even finished high school, whereas most 
states require some college for the position of ROI. 

Several states were able to hire migrants by substituting 
experience for the requisite education. The ROIs who were hired in this 
manner have proved to be as qualified as college -trained interviewers, 
and were very effective in establishing rapport with migrant families. 

Recommendation : Hiring of Rural Outreach Interviewers according 
to criteria described above should not require exceptions to state 
Civil Service criteria. The person who has settled out of the 
migrant stream has received far more education about migrants 
in and out of the migrant stream than could be taught in a college 
classroom. This experience alone is the equivalent of the 
formal educational requirement. Project direction in the various 
states should develop strategies for obtaining properly qualified 
personnel. These strategies might include: 

1) specifying new civil service positions with special criteria 
and working for their acceptance 

2) negotiating with Civil Service to substitute pertinent for 

irrelevant criteria on already approved positions. 
*T raining 

Finding: There is a definite link between the length and adequacy of training 
on the one hand and the ability of staff to operate effectively toward arranging 
service delivery for migrants. In states where training periods were short 
and did not include on-the-job training, emphasis tended to be on state 
employment service policies, operations and procedures. With this type 
of training, project staff were poorly prepared to perform the tasks of 
service development, migrant contact and arranging services. 

Recommendation: Training for new staff should emphasize the 
unique knowledge and skills necessary for working on the E and D 



24 



4143 



Project. Included should be education in tasks necessary for 
objective attainment, such as service agency coordination methods, 
service development methods, outreach methods, discussion of 
possibilities of the ROI role as a migrant advocate, methods of 
coordination with other states, and so forth. Before a new 
staff member begins to work in a given area, he should be given 
location orientation by someone familiar with the area. This 
orientation should include introductions to key persons in the 
employment service and other agencies, education in the location 
of migrant labor camps, introduction to employers, explanation of 
the local political situation, and so forth. 

*Workshops 

Finding : Instruction of and information exchange between project staff 

members, both within and between states, is limited. Many project 

staff members report feeling alienated from the E and D Project organization 

and making mistakes which they felt could be avoided if they knew of others 

experiences. 

Recommendation: Workshops should be held in Northern states 
for all project staff in three -state areas after the first few weeks of 
project operation so that common problems can be discussed, 
feelings of project solidarity can be established, and problems of 
interstate coordination can be worked out. In addition, regular 
regional and tri- regional meetings should be held to resolve problems. 

^Service Availability Handbook 

Finding; there is a lack of information about availability of services in 
other local areas which makes it difficult for project personnel to counsel 
migrants adequately and help them plan for service delivery in a different 
location. This gap is most serious at present between Northern states and 
Texas, because that is where the greatest information exchange is utilized. 
The result has been that Texas has promised services to migrants in Northern 
states where no such services exist in Northern states, and Northern states 
have not been able to properly counsel migrants about opportunities in Texas 
because of a lack of information. 

Recommendation : That the National Office coordinate the develop- 
ment of a handbook listing all services and their availability and 



25 



4144 



source in the various locations. This handbook would be distributed 
not only to E and D personnel, but also to other service agencies. 
The handbook should be periodically revised on the basis of new 
information. 

*Camp Location List 

Finding : In local areas where there are numerous camp locations, farm 
placement offices do not have adequate information about camp locations, 
owners, owners' phone numbers and other relevant information. This 
lack of information has made maintenance of contact with migrants a 
difficult task. 

Recommendation: Project staff or other personnel in these 

states should obtain or compile such a list. 
^Settling Out 

Finding : There is an ambivalence among state project directors towards 
the goal of settling migrants out of the stream. Rural Outreach Inter- 
viewers and other staff at the local level are unsure of what steps should 
be taken with regard to ascertaining desire of nnigrants to settle out, 
and have no clearcut plan of action to help those families who do 
wish to settle out. Finally, the E and D Project does not have funds 
available for use in helping families to settle out, and many of the problems 
of transition from the migrant stream to a settled out life (problems such 
as need for income until a job can be found, need for winter clothes, 
etc. ) are ones which require money rather than services. 

Recommendation: It is suggested that the E and D Project 

at all levels explore what services and resources can be offered 

to families which are interested in settling out. One possibility 

involves the granting of a stipend from the National Office to a 

local area for each family which settles out the money to be 

applied directly to that objective. Whatever resources turn out 

to be available, project staff should offer these resources to 

nnigrant families as an incentive for them to settle out. 
^Recruitment of Migrants for E and D Work 

Finding: Rural Outreach Interviewers maintain extensive and close contacts 
with the families which they are able to contact. If ROIs were to 
continue to operate in this same role, they would eventually become 



26 



4145 



hardened to the problems of migrant families, and therefore, less 
effective in dealing with these problems. The experience itself, how- 
ever, is a positive one, particularly for former migrants, because 
it improves their ability to operate in the non-migrant world. 

Recommendation : The E and D Project should work to benefit 
migrants not only through the services of the program, but 
also by recruiting migrants to work in the program. Outreach 
interviewers should be encouraged to use this first step as a 
basis for mobility into college, supervisory or training positions. 
Such activity will provide the Mexican-American migrant popu- 
lation with an increasing number of mennbers with skills 
necessary for their community; it will help employment ser- 
vices to come closer to minority group integration, and it 
will provide employment services with a skilled supervisory 
staff for E and D Project expansion or vio rk on similar projects. 

2. Program Personnel and Structure 
^Overall Coordination 

Finding: There is an absence of exercise of authority for overall coordination 
of the E and D Project. Although certain documents indicate that the 
Texas E and D Director is to fill this role, he has neither the time, the 
interest, nor the authority to do so. Coordination has occurred on an 
informal basis between Texas and regional staff in the Midwest and 
Northwest, \vith the Federal Farm Labor Office serving as an informal 
mediator. The Federal Farm Labor Office has worked to meet needs of 
individual states for additional funds and new progranns, but has not 
provided sufficient overall direction for the on- going operations and 
problems of the program. 

Recommendation : The National Farm Labor Office should 
fill the leadership and authority void now in existence by 
making decisions not only concerning funding, and program 
development but also concerning operation and procedures. 
Communications channels should be structured such that 
problems filter up to the lowest administrative level at which 
they can be resolved. Routine communication which does not 
require new policy decisions should take place at the lowerst 
possible level of administration. 



27 



4146 



-Job Counselor 

Finding: Quantitative analysis indicates that the presence of a job 
counsellor employed full time by the E and D Project results in higher 
rates of settling migrants out of the stream. Projects which did not 
have a full time job counsellor seemed to have difficulty working well 
with regular employment service job counsellors. 

Recommendation: The E and D Project should employ a full 
time job counsellor at each project, if possible. This 
individual need not have all the qualifications of a regular 
job counsellor, and should engage in other activities re- 
lating to the E and D Project beside counselling. For 
example, the job counsellor could serve as project coor- 
dinator and service developer. 
'-Bilingual ROIs 

Finding: In a number of locations ( particularly Texas), Anglo-American 
individuals were recruited for the project positions even if they were 
not bilingual. This policy was justified on the grounds that no Mexican- 
Americans met the educational requirements. Such a policy is counter- 
productive to the project's objectives, since Anglos who are not bilingual 
have difficulty establishing rapport with any Mexican-American and cannot com- 
municate at all with non-bilingual Mexican-Americans. 

Recommendation : E and D Project directors should make 
intensive efforts to recruit bilingual former migrants for 
staff positions. The National Farm Labor Office should 
exert all influence possible to see that such a policy is 
carried out. 

*Relation of Project to Local Office Manager 

Finding: Presently, some outreach interviewers report to and are 
directed by the local office nnanager. The regular policy and practice 
of many local office managers is not consistent with the type of activity 
being performed by the outreach worker. This results in a conflict be- 
tween the local office manager and the ROI which usually results in the ROI 
being less aggressive and less effective in providing counsel and services. 

Recommendation: The local office manager should be advised 
as to why the outreach approach is necessary. If this concept 
can be conveyed, greater participation and enthusiasm may 



28 



4147 



be secured from the local office manager. 

An E and D coordinator operating at the local 
offices could promote this concept with both the ROIs and 
the local office manager. At the same time, he would 
act as a buffer between ROIs and the local office manager. 
This would allow greater autonomy of operation for the 
ROIs. 
*Local Office Manager Contacts 

Finding: Local office managers are in a position to secure agreements 
from other local community agencies, but have not done so to the extent 
possible. Local office managers know and coordinate with numerous 
agencies in the local community. However, only limited use has 

been made of these contacts, since local managers have not been fully 
oriented to the goals and objectives of the project and are not familiar with 
the kind of agreement needed for the outreach effort. 

Recommendation : More informaticn should be given to 
local office managers so that they will be better able to obtain 
the commitment of services in the local area for the benefit 
of the program. This would eliminate nnany of the difficulties 
which the outreach workers have previously encountered in 
going to the agency on individual cases and getting service 
commitments on a one-to-one basis. 

3. Migrant Information 
*ED-5 Forms 

Finding: The actions required to meet a migrant's needs are unclear because the 
Family Data Sheet (ED- 5) specifies needs and final outcome only and all 
other information concerning action taken regarding those needs is 
scattered and/or buried informs such as the daily log kept by the ROl. 
Recommendation : An "Action Log" for each need of each 
family member should be maintained in the action folder to 
indicate the latest action taken with regard to that need 
and the next action which has not been taken but should be 
taken. This information should be kept until all action 
necessary, desirable or feasible has been taken. The out 
come should then be entered on the Family Data Sheet. 

29 



4148 



*DiverBity of Forms 

Finding; The form and level of information being reported in the various 
states varied. There is little correspondence in terms of forms being 
utilized, or in the way common forms are filled out. 

Recommendation ; All forms being utilized should be obtained 
so that standard forms can be developed on that basis. The 
standard forms should include information which will most 
accurately and uniformly document the E eind D Project. 

*Overdocumentation 

Finding; Many of the projects are documenting their process of activities 
in such detail that they spend an excessive amount of time on paper work. 
Overdocumentation hinders the outreach workers and is so voluminous 
that it is difficult to interpret without first being summarized 

Reconnmendation; Outreach interview reports should concen- 
trate on reporting outcomes rather than devoting excessive 
time to process. The level of information can be maintained 
(even improved) and more tinne will be made available to 
the ROls for contacting agencies and families. 
*Space for Reasons for Nondelivery 

Finding; Forms supplied by Texas provide for only limited responses. 
Many states object to two columns on the ED- 5 for services needed and 
services completed. Such representation does not show the efforts 
required to secure those services and reasons for non-delivery. 

Re commendation ; More space should be provided to 
reasons for non-delivery. This information will be useful 
to documient deficiencies and bottlenecks in service delivery. 

4. Service Agency Coordination and Service Development 
•Special Character of the Migrant Population 

Finding; Many services in Northern states are not oriented toward 
Mexican- American migrcmt workers' needs and situations. Some 
services are underutilized by migrants because of cultural and 
communications barriers to knowing about, feeling a need for, and 
"feeling at home with" such services. The E and D Project is 
working to reduce such barriers. In other cases (such as food stamp 



30 



4149 



programs and unemployment compensation) criteria for receipt of 
services discriminate against migrants. This most frequently occurs 
when previous income is used as a predictor for future need. Finally, 
the turn- around time for receipt of some services is too long to bene- 
fit migrants. 

Recommendations : The Department of Labor should engage 
in an intensive effort to educate other federal agencies about 
the special nature of the migrant population and its needs. 
Similar efforts should be carried out at the state and local 
employment service levels. 
-"Local Coordination among Agencies 

Finding: There is a general lack of coordination among service agencies 
working to help migrants in local areas. This lack of coordination is 
manifested in duplication (e. g. , more than one program), overlap 
(e. g. , two agencies providing the same service to some of the same 
migrants) gaps (e.g. , when overlap occurs, needs which could be 
met are left unmet; and when there are no programs to meet needs), 
timing (e. g. , programs which are not geared to migrant arrivals and 
departures), and titne of day (migrants cannot take advantage of ser- 
vices while they are working in the fields). 

Reconimendation: The problem of coordination should be 
dealt with at all organizational levels so that the already 
scarce resources available for services are not wasted. 
Federal agencies involved in migrant services should set 
up a planning force to develop a method of task allocation 
at the federal level. 

The results of this planning effort should be made 
known to involved regional and state agencies and offices. 
These offices should be asked to comply with federal coor- 
dination guidelines. Finally, local planning force meetings 
should be held with all agencies and interested groups. 
These planning groups should incorporate 
and modify as necessary the federal coordination guide- 



31 



36-513 O - 71 - pt.7A 



4150 



lines so as to optimize the use of locally available resources 
for migrants. 
♦Service Availability Information 

Finding: One reason for low levels of service delivery is that Rural 
Outreach Interviewers are poorly informed about service .availability 
in their local areas. A considerable amount of tinne is wasted dis- 
covering or rediscovering service availability. 

Recotnmendation ; The Department of Labor should compile 
a master checklist of services which could and/or should be 
available to migrants. This checklist should then be dis- 
tributed to state and local employment service offices, 
where intensive efforts should be made to locate such 
services and document their availability, capacity, source, 
requirements for delivery, and other pertinent information. 
This information should be compiled on a local, state and 
national basis and distributed to all project areas. It should 
be updated as necessary. 
*Block Service Development 

Finding: Identification of potentially available services, coordination 
with service delivery agencies, and development of previously un- 
available services have been activities which have been slighted to 
some degree in the E and D Project. One extremely prevalent aspect 
of this problem is the tendency to secure services on a one per need 
basis rather than developing blocks of services for blocks of needs. 
Reasons for poor service development include: 1) poor emphasis 
in training; 2) lack of a personnel position in charge of this type of 
activity; and 3) ROI reluctance to assume such a role. Quantitative 
analysis of program data indicates that the adequacy of activities 
devoted to finding services has a direct impact on the ability of the 
E and D Project to deliver services to migrants. 

Recommendation : Greater emphasis should be given on 
methods of service development during training. This 
training should include instruction on how to obtain com- 
mitment for large blocks of services. Finally, one E and D 

32 



4151 



staff member at the local level should be given clear authority 
for coordinating service development. 
^Service Delivery Seminars 

Finding: Outreach interviewers gained most of their knowledge about 
services by trial and error, while on the job. The trial- and- error 
method did effectively teach the ROIs how services are obtained, al- 
though it required a great deal of time. Other ROIs were then forced 
to go through the same process to learn about the same service. 

Recommendation : Informal seminars could be conducted 
on the job to discuss service delivery; the problems which 
the outreach workers have encountered could be comn'juni- 
cated to the group during such sessions. The presence of 
an experienced interviewer to transmit previous experience 
of ROIs would provide a more uniform and broad base of 
knowledge for all. These sessions would also serve as 
a forum for comparing experiences and actions taken for 
different family situations. A more formal seminar might 
be conducted among outreach workers from several different 
states. 
♦Negotiations with other Agencies 

Finding: E and D Project staff make little use of services available 
through employment service facilities. On the other hand, ROIs have 
not developed effective coordination methods whereby they would act 
as outreach personnel for the other agencies. 

Recommendation: The E and D Project should exploit its 
outreach capability by negotiating with other agencies to 
guarantee a screening/transportation/intake function in 
exchange for guaranteed services. This would permit 
the "purchaser'' agency to concentrate on service delivery. 
♦Migrant Rest Stop Services 

Finding; Migrants do not take advantage of available services in 
Northern states for many reasons, foremost among them being 
their remoteness from service delivery locations and their lack of 
time during the work season to take advantage of services. 



33 



4152 



Recommendations : The migrant rest stop program should 
be continued and strengthened by making short turnover 
services (such as medical checkups, innoculations, and 
quick dental work) available in one location. 

5. Migrant Needs for Services 

=:= Migrant Information Gap 

Finding: Migrants suffer from an information gap because of their high 

geographic mobility and social isolation in migrant labor camps. 

This information gap prevents migrants from being aware of their 

legal rights and social options. 

Recommendation ; The ROIs should use their presence 
in migrant labor cannps to provide information to migrants 
that they could otherwise not obtain. Migrants could be 
educated in wage deduction rights, social 
security rights, legal rights and methods of obtaining 
such rights. The Department of Labor should prepare 
information outlines on these and other topics to be 
distributed to ROIs. 

*Education in Impact of Mechanization 

Finding; The economics of the migrant way of life as compared to 
settling out is not well understood by nnigrant families (who have 
a great deal at stake in such a move). Migrants do not understand 
the implications of mechanization, nor do they realistically consider 
the change from a short migrant work season by whole fannilies to 
a full work year by a family head. 

Recommendation : The Department of Labor should pre- 
pare and disseminate to migrants a bilingual pamphlet 
describing the impact of mechanization on their lives and 
the possible options available to them. The pamphlet 
should provide a realistic picture of the costs and benefits 
of each option. The pamphlet should be distributed to all 
ennployment service offices serving nnigrants to other 
federal agencies for distribution through their offices 



34 



4153 



serving migrants, and to E and D Project staff for 
distribution during their work with migrants. 

*Migrant Loan Fund 

Finding: In some cases employers involve migrant farmworkers ina cycle 

of economic indebtedness by loaning them money during the winter 

months or during periods when there is no work available and deducting 

loan repeayments from family wages at a later date. The practice bears 

some resemblance to "company stores" in coal mining towns during 

the I920's. 

Recommendation : The Department of Labor, in conjunction 
with state employment services, should work to end this 
unhealthy practice and foster migrants' ability to manage 
their own affairs by establishing a no-interest migrant loan 
fund which would provide loans to migrants during their 
down time. 
*Skilled Farm Labor MDTA 

Finding: Skill requirements for available agricultural jobs are in- 
creasing even as the total demand for migrantlabor is decreasing^ Both 
these trends, of course, are due to mechanization of agricultural tasks. 

Recommendation : The Department of ■'-'abor, in coordination with 
state employment services, should set up additional MDTA 
courses specifically for the purpose of training migrants in 
the operation of agricultural and food processing equipnnent. 
^Migrant Labor Underemployment 

Finding: Even during the migrant labor season, there is unemployment 
and under ennployment of migrants due to geographic surplus and crop 
schedules. The pool of available migrant labor is maintained at a high 
level so that shortages can be avoided, but the impact on the migrant is 
underemployment. 

Recommendation : The Departnnent of Labor should explore 
the feasibility of implementing a migrant labor force geo- 
graphic and time-based planning and allocation model which 
would maximize migrant employment by eliminating labor 
shortages and surpluses. The nnodel would also have the 



35 



4154 



impact of reducing the size of the total migrant labor force 
ajid would thus decrease overall unemployment. A more 
lengthy discussion of this n:iodel is included in Appendix II 
of this assessment, 

*Impact of Mechanization 

Finding: There is a great deal of rumor and myth surrounding the impact 
of mechanization, but facts about its projected impact on the migrant 
labor pool are not readily available. Although there is some information 
about the rate of mechanization of various crops, the degree to which 
mechanization will unemploy and underemploy migrants is not clear. 
Nor is there information available about costs in comparison to benefits 
of various courses of action by present employers of migrants. 

Recomnnendation ; A study of the impact of mechanization, 
perhaps utilizing a dynamic programming or industrial 
dynamics approach, should be made so that better- planning 
for the transition can be made by employers, government 
and migrants. This better pleinning would minimize the 
adverse effects of the transition. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NECESSARY CHANGE SITUATION ONLY 

1. Program Administration and Coordination 
*Negative Attitudes 

Finding; Negative attitudes toward the project's objectives and 
activities on the part of some state E and D Project Directors and local office 
managers (often not directly connected with the project) have restricted 
the activities of project staff in some local areas and caused the program 
to operate less effectively than it could. Quantitative analysis indicates 
that such factors as attitude of the state director have an impact on 
all project operations from hiring and training to service delivery and 
settling out. 

Recommendation; If the program is to be continued within 
the same general structure, steps must be taken by the 
national and regional Farm Labor Operations offices to 
modify the attitudes of state project directors who are 

36 



4155 



presently opposed to the program. Where these attempts 
are unsuccessful, steps should be taken to minimize the 
negative impact of the state directors' attitudes. Such 
steps might include extensive work with local staff members 
by regional staff and, in general, strong support to local 
staff in their activities. In cases where local office 
managers are opposed to project operations, attempts 
should be made to change their attitudes. Where this 
is unfeasible, regional and state level staff should set 
the project up so as to minimize the authority and in- 
fluence of local office managers on the project. 
*Communications Channels 

Finding; Communication between various state projects is slow^ and 
channels of communication are cumbersome, mainly because information 
must flow from a local to state office, then to another state office, and 
finally to the second state's local office. The difficulty and time con- 
sunned by use of such channels inhibits the annount and type of information 
which flows through such channels. In many cases, ROIs do not 
utilize communication channels for small bits of information (e. g. , 
more detailed migrant destinations) because of the amount of work 
involved. 

Recommendation: Communications for routine information 
should be streamlined by having direct exchange of infor- 
mation (both by mail and by phone) between local offices 
in different states. State offices could be sent carbon 
copies of such communications so that they would be aware 
of transactions' content. 
^Settling Out Approach 

Finding: State project E and D staff have reacted to the settling out 
situation in two general ways: 1) In the Midwest states, ROIs have 
been instructed to provide a "balanced" picture of settling out to 
migrants. They have done so, carefully describing the pros and 
cons of such a move to migrant families. The result has been little 
or no interest in settling out on the part of sample families. 



37 



4156 



2) In the Pacific Northwest region, ROIs (who are often settled- out 
former migrants themselves) have acted as advocates of settling out in 
their discussions with migrants. This tends to yield increased interest 
in settling out and concrete activity (e. g. , job counselling, placement 
and housing location) towards that goal. 

Recommendation ; If settling out is to be an objective of the 
project , project tasks and operations at the local level should 
be modified so that the objective can be achieved. ROIs should 
be encouraged to discuss with all families problems and benefits 
of settling out. A clear set of service capabilities (e. g. , job 
placement, housing location, transition subsidy) should be 
maintained, and migrants should be informed of the availability 
of these services should they desire to settle out. 

2. Program Personnel ajid Structure 

*Project Organizational Connections 

Finding; In a number of Northern states, the local Employment Services 
and Farm Placement Bureaus represent employer -oriented operations 
in which the primary stress is on employability and filling manpower 
needs of local employers. This situation is often reinforced by social 
connections among employers and Employment Service representatives, 
all of whom are to some extent part of a managerial elite in No rtliern state 
farming communities. In addition. Farm Labor Bureaus are showing 
iacr easing concern for survival of their placement and clearance function. 
This is a result of: 1) knowledge that migratory patterns are in many 
cases routinized, and, therefore, no longer need clearance orders; 
and 2) more stringent Federal housing regulations for migrants which 
have precipitated a decline in the number of clearance orders processed 
by the Farm Labor offices. 

Thus, in the present situation, the Farm Labor office can often 
stay busy only by: 1) not enforcing housing regulations strictly, and; 
2) not alienating those employers who, though they could recruit 
without ES help, do go through Ennployment Service channels to get 
their labor. 



38 



4157 



Placing a migrant-oriented service arrangement project within 
the framework of such an organization in many cases unnecessarily 
restricts project activities and prevents ROIs from being optimally 
effective. Quantitative analysis indicates that during the past year, 
projects operated most effectively if they were located within the 
local Employment Service office but were independent of direct control. 

Recommendation: Ways should be sought whereby the E and D 
Migrant Project can become independent of any local office 
control. Regional and state staff should work to arrange pro- 
jects so that they are located within local E.S. offices but are 
not under the direct or indirect control of regular employment 
service personnel. If such an arrangement cannot be established, 
the project should be located outside of the local Employment 
Service office (for example, in a jobmobile). 
*Local Project Organization 

Finding : Direct line control of the E and D Project by the Local 
Office manager has in most cases where it has occurred resulted in a 
loss of project effectiveness. ROIs felt constrained in their roles: 
in some cases LOMs placed restrictions on their working hours and 
activities which made it impossible for them to work towards attainment 
of the project's objectives. Quantitative analysis shows that projects 
which operated under direct local office control were generally ineffec- 
tive. On the other hand, analysis of data indicates a definite need for 
a clear directive and managerial position in the E and D Project at 
the local level. Finally, projects which employed a full-time job coun- 
selor were found to operate more effectively than those without one. 

Recommendation: The local E and D Migrant Project should be 
independent of direct Local Office Manager control. There is 
a need for a project coordinator and for a job counselor at the 
local level. It is suggested that one person fill these two roles. 
The person's principal duties would be direction and coordination 
of ROI acticities, development of service commitments and new 
services, counseling of migrants, and liaison between the project 
and the local office in order to effectively utilize the offices' 
capabilities in job training and job placement. 7he organization 



39 



4158 



of tive project would be as follows: 



State E anl^ D nirectnrf 



Local Office 
Manager and 
other personnel 



Local 

Coordinator/ 

Counselor 



RQl9 



■I'ROI Role 

Finding : There is a lack of clarity concerning ROls' role. The con- 
fusion occurs in part because the term "outreach interviewer" in other 
contexts refers to a representative of a social service agency who 
recruits participants for the agency's programs. The ROIs do not in 
general fill this type of role. They rarely have any services which 
they themselves can offer migrants. Instead, they must usually act 
in the role of migrant advocates who pave the way for migrants to 
receive services from a variety of sources. 

Recommendation : Negotiations should be carried out with service 
agencies to allow ROIs to act as their direct outreach interviewers 
with full powers to arrange services. If this approach proves 
unworkable, ROIs' role should be redefined as that of migrant 
advocate and ombudsman. This redefinition would require giving 
ROIs a broader mandate as to the types of activities they would 
engage in. Such activities might include migrant education in 
family budgeting, pursuing legal rights of migrants, and acting 
as a persistent champion of migrants' rights to services from local 
agencies. 

3. Migrant - Program Interaction 

'I'OEO Gaidelines 

Finding : Many of the E & D project families are above OEO poverty 
guidelines. This means that they do not qualify for any OEO programs. 
OEO provides the services which are most beneficial to migrants and is 
a major resource used by the Rural Outreach Interviewers. 

Recommendation : Texas interviewers should ensure that families 
selected for the sample will qualify for OEO help in the states to 
which they are going. 



40 



4159 



*Needs Identification 

Finding : Due to the limited depth of the interview.s ccnducted by Texas 
ROIs, many needs of migrant families wore not stated or were not 
researched sufficiently to allow Northern participating states to try 
to plan for service delivery. 

Recommendation : More thorough interviews should be conducted 
in Texas to verify family needs. Summaries of needs by category 
of service and Northern destination should be forwarded to appro- 
priate Northern staff. 

* Promises in Texas 

Finding: Many promises were made to project families by Texas inter- 
viewers which could not be fulfilled by Northern states. Some services 
promised by the Texas ROIs do not exist or were not contemplated as 
within the scope of the project. A great deal of time has, therefore, 
been spent in Northern states apologizing to families for over-promises 
and then regaining families' confidences that some things could really 
be done. 

Recommendation Texas interviewers should not make promises 
which cannot be kept. Texas interviewers should know what 
services are available in the North and should conduct more 
interviews to ensure that families understand the project and 
what it can and cannot do. 

*Destination Information 

Finding: Present information supplied by Texas to Northern states is 
not as complete as it might be. Northern states in most cases had 
difficulty making first contacts with migrant families on the basis of 
available information. In many cases more detailed information about 
destinations was available in Texas but not provided to Northern states. 

Recommendation : Texas should make every effort to obtain 
and supply more detailed information about family destinations 
to Northern states. Of particular help would be inclusion of 
a copy of the Annual Worker Plan (giving a series of destinations 
and approximate lengths of stay) in each f amily folder . 



41 



4160 



* Loss of Contact 

Finding : Contact with the migrant family is usually lost after the first 
stop on the migrant itinerary, since ROI contact with sample families 
is not frequent enough to be sensitive to departures. Thus, family 
folders are seldom forwarded to the migrant family's next sojourn location. 

Recommendation : Some method should be provided to allow the 
migrant to inform the Employment Service of his new location after 
he has left an area where contact has been established. One method 
might be to provide the migrant with a pre-paid post card addressed 
to the office which last contacted him. The migrant would fill in 
his new address after he had arrived there, whereupon the old 
office could forward the appropriate folder and the family's new 
address to the new location office. 

4. Service Agency Coordination and Service Development 

*Lack of Service Availability 

Finding : A number of services (e.g. medical and dental care, eye exami- 
nations) were either unavailable or not available in sufficient quantities in 
many project locations. In general, the lack of available services rather 
than poor outreach activity is responsible for the low level of service 
delivery. 

Recommendation : The Department of Labor should determine what 
services were unavailable that could be reasonably provided. It 
should then report to federal, state and local governmental agencies 
and other organizations on needs for additional migrant services 
so that appropriate agencies can work to provide these services 
whenever possible. 

*In-season Placement in Programs to begin at end of Season 

Finding : Little activity toward the objective of upward job mobility has 
taken place as yet. Northern states maintain that they cannot engage in 
counseling, placement in job training slots or placement in jobs until 
the end of the farm labor season. Since migrants rapidly depart at the 
end of the season, no time is left for placement activity then. 



42 



4161 



Recommendation : Though actual placement cannot occur until 
after the farm labor season, Northern states could include policy 
provisions for placing migrants during the season in programs 
which begin after the season ends. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAXIMUM IMPACT OPTION 

*Presented Sample 

Finding: Efforts to maintain contact with a preselected group of migrant 
families as they move among various Northern state locations have not 
been particularly successful. A great deal of project effort and resources 
has been devoted to this activity, and the effort has not resulted in any 
substantial benefits for the families involved. 

Recommendation : It is suggested that the E and D Project 
drop efforts to maintain contact with a preselected group 
and keep extensive family records, and devote the freed 
human and financial resources to more extensive outreach 
activity and providing funds for actual services. ROIs 
would thus work with all families in a camp. Information 
exchange among states would be substantially reduced: only 
in cases where a service could not be provided in one area, 
would the office of the migrant's next destination be informed. 
This would be most useful in cases where migrants wished 
to enroll in a training or education program in the home base 
area. 
*Negative Attitudes ' 

Finding: Negative attitudes toward the E and D Project on the part of some 
state E and D directors and local office managers have had adverse effects 
on the project. 

Recommendation: The revised objectives of the program would 
significantly reduce the need for interstate and interoffice coor- 
dination within the Employment Service. Reduced coordination 
needs decrease the need for the project direction. It is there- 
fore suggested that ROIs be granted more autonomy in their work, 
and that they use this autonomy to operate principally as links 
between migrants and other service agencies. The project 
coordinator/counselor would direct and coordinate the effort 

43 



4162 



as well as provide liaison to the Employment Service and develop 
new services. 
*Service Agency Resistance 

Finding: There is a resistance on the part of many local and state service 
agencies to providing services for migrants who are not year-round 
comnnunity residents. This resistance is manifested in a variety of 
ways, from outright refusal to arrange services to making procedures 
and processing time for service arrangement beyond the ability of 
migrants to meet. 

Recommendation : The Department of Labor on conjunction with 
State Employment Services should document cases of discrimin- 
ation against migrants. Documentation should include information 
on what service agency is involved, where it receives its funds, 
and how migrants are excluded. The Department of Labor should 
report exclusions policies to those federal agencies who are 
involved in funding. If the appropriate agencies cannot rectify 
the situations, the Bureau of the Budget should be informed of 
fund misuse. Where legal questions are involved (e. g. in the 
enforcement of housing and wage regulations), the Department 
of Labor should work with the Department of Justice to bring 
pressure to bear concerning enforcement. 

In cases where federal funds are not involved, the 
Department of Labor should encourage state Employment 
Services to initiate similar actions at the state level. 
*U8e of E and D Funds 

Finding: The program cost through the end of February, 1970, will be 
approximately $780 per family. Little of this nnoney has been directly 
applied to the costs of benefits for migrants. The great bulk of the 
money has been used for program staff, travel, supplies and commun- 
ication. Secondly, the cost per service delivery arranged in Northern 
states averaged somewhat over $600. 



44 



4163 



Recommendation ; Ways should be sought to utilize project 
funds for purposes of direct benefit to migrants. Because of 
the reduced staff necessary to serve the same population size 
(resulting from dropping the maintenance of contract objective), 
funds could be nnade available for a variety of programs, 
such as: 

1. Paying some or all or the costs of services 
provided by other agencies, thus increasing 
the incentive for those agencies to serve 
migrants. 

2. Providing grants to groups of migrants who 
wish to provide some service such as improve- 
ment of camps, or developing of services upon 
receipt of an adequate proposal. 

3. Providing low interest loans to migrants for 
direct profit snnall business investments. 

4. Providing stipends for use by families which 
are settling out during the transition period 
fronri agricultural work to employment at 

a full-time non-agricultural job. 

^Settling out as an Objective 

Finding; Lack of clarity and lack of support of the objective of settling 

migrants out of the streann has lead to poor objective attainment of this 

area. 

Recommendation : ROIs should be given greater freedom in working 
toward this goal. Procedures should be explored whereby the rate 
of settling out can be increased. These procedures might include 
more detailed survey of families concerning their settling out in- 
tentions, development of incentives for settling out, informing 
migrants of such incentive programs, and providing stipends for 
the settling out transition. 
*ROI Temporary Duty 

Finding: The utility of the ROI is not maximized by his presence in the 
Employment Service office. Some ROIs interviewed reported that they 
felt they could work more effectively toward meeting migrant needs if 
they worked at other locations. 

45 



4164 



Recommendation : ROls should be assigned to temporary duty 
working out of delegate agencies such as Migrant Opportunities 
Centers. This practice would have the advantage of increasing 
the ROIs' abilities to work with these agencies and increasing 
the outreach capability of agencies which provide most of the 
services. 
Migrant Labor and Scenarios of Government Operations during the 1970'3. 

In order to effectively aid the migrant population in dealing with its 
special problems, it is important to consider basic problems and ultimate 
government goals, as well as assessing current operations and recommending 
modifications of existing programs. A long-range theoretical analysis of 
the problem has the advantage of being unconstrained by the realities of 
present day politics and programs. Approaches can be considered which 
might not be imnnediately feasible under present conditions, but which, 
nevertheless, may represent the optimum methods of dealing with problems 
of the migratory agricultural labor force. 

It is particularly important that this type of analysis be done for 
migrant -related activities, because this labor force is a population with the 
unique characteristic of high cyclical seasonal mobility which makes it 
even more difficult to deal with than other poverty income groups. During 
the decade now closing, for the first time there has been increased interest 
at the federal government level in dealing with the problems of nnigrants. 
The result has been the addition of several federal programs to the already 
existing (though generally inadequate and ineffective) state and local programs. 
The federal programs include the Public Health Service's Migrant Health 
Program, OEO's Community Action Migrant Programs (CAMPS), OEO's 
Migrant Opportunities programs, the High School Equivalency Program 
(HEP) for migrant children, and, of course, the Department of Labor's 
Experimental and Demonstration Program for South Texas Migrant Workers. 
Though the objectives of each of these programs differs somewhat from those 
of the others, there is necessarily some duplication of effort and waste of 
resources. Numerous times during the course of the present assessment, 
situations have been discovered in which representatives of several different 

46 



4165 



social service agencies and programs were competing for members of the 
migrant population. In one case, more than ten different agencies were 
working with migrants in one camp. 

Such situations point up an interesting irony: although it is a 
foregone conclusion that presently available services are insufficient to 
meet migrant needs, present activities are inefficient and poorly allotted. 
The needs of migrants are too great to allow such a situation to continue 
unabated; yet, in many cases there is a competitive and uncooperative 
situation existing among the various agencies, with each seeking to establish 
that it has the unique capabilities necessary to deal with the migrant popula- 
tion. 

From a theoretical point of view it may be agreed that such compe- 
tition is inefficient and costly. There is an obvious need to consolidate or 
coordinate the efforts of various agencies, retaining the advantages of each 
while avoiding their disadvantages. 

The question at hand thus becomes "What should be the structure, 
coordination and activities of government organizations for the migrant 
population? " The answer to such a question depends on several factors: 
1) definition of migrant problems to be dealt with; 2) assumptions concerning 
the role of government in dealing with social problems; and 3) the projected 
situation with respect to other actors (e.g., migrants, employers, and 
unions) . 

In the course of its assessment of the Experimental and Demon- 
stration Program for South Texas Workers, Abt Associates has identified 
a set of major problems facing migrant workers. Some of these problems 
are inherent in the present social system of agricultural labor; others 
are caused by actions towards migrants by other groups; and still others 
stem from projected changes in the migrant situation resulting from 
mechanization and other factors. The problems identified are discussed 
in other sections of this report. Briefly they are: 

1. Below poverty level median incomes of migrant families; 

2. Unethical and unfair practices relating to the distribution of 
wages to migrants; 

3. Economic indebtedness of migrants to employers and crew 
leaders ; 

4. Declining job opportunities in migrant labor; 

47 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 9 



4166 



5. Loss of income due to surplus of labor; 

6. Employer loss of income due to short-term labor shortages; 

7. Lack of cooperation of some local and state agencies in providing 
services to migrants; 

8. Poor health conditions and medical care; 

9. Poor housing; 

10. Inadequate education; and 

11. Difficulty in making the transition from migrant work to other 
occupations. 

Several assumptions should be made explicit in order to initiate 
government activities to deal with these problenns. First, we may assume, 
with the National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, that "the United 
States today has the economic and technical means to guarantee adequate 
food, clothing, shelter, health services, and education to every citizen 
of the Nation. " The problems listed above are not to be taken lightly; 
solutions can and must be achieved in some manner or another. 

Second, assumptions must be made about the role of government 
in dealing with social problems such as those listed. The Democratic 
administration just completed based its programs on the proposition that 
where various private sectors of our society had failed to deal with their 
problems, or had generated problems which they were incapable of dealing 
with, it was then the role of government to act to deal with such problems. 
The present Republican administration eschews such an active role of govern- 
ment and works to base its solutions to social problems on policies and 
programs which permit other sectors to operate more effectively to deal 
with their own problems. Let us then make two assumptions in order to 
develop scenarios: 1) the problems described above must be dealt with in 
some manner as part of our national priorities, and 2) the government's 
role in this activity should be to restructure the operation of various private 
sectors so that they may operate more effectively to deal with these social 
problems. 

The situation which the government will face in the agricultural 
labor market may be extrapolated on the basis of present policies and 



The President's National Advisory Commiission on Rural Poverty, 
The People Left Behind (Washington: U.S. Government Priiting Office, 
1967), p. xiii, 

48 



4167 



trends. Contemporary sociological theory^ indicates that cultural and 
social changes are usually adjustments to changes of a technological or 
economic nature. Though economic change cannot be easily predicted 
because it is largely shaped by private practice and public policy, tech- 
nological change can be characterized as a monotonically increasing 
function (see Figure 2. 1). This is because technology acts to decrease 
operating costs per unit of demand (increase efficiency), and because 
within a given problem area, resources devoted to research and development 



Measure of technology 
and applications in a 
system. 




Time • 



Figure 2. 1: 
Examples of Monotonically Increasing Functions 

plus the various spinoff and feedback effects of technological innovation 
yield fairly constant change rates of technological impact. 

Although actual data on degree of mechanization is presently unavail- 
able, the trend is nevertheless clear: mechzinization will continue over the 
next decade to decrease the overall demand for migrant labor and increase 
the dem.and for skilled migrant and year-round labor. There will still be 

residual needs for unskilled migratory labor, but by 1980, the great bulk 

3 
of American crops (one estimate is 90%) will be machine -harvested. 



See especially William F. Ogburn, On Culture and Social Change 
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964). 
3 
Joseph Kasper, speech at the Chicago meeting of E & D personnel. 
July, 1967. 
4 
See, for example, J. Zvi Namenwirth, "Short and Long Term 
Trends in American Political Values: A Content Analysis of 64 Political 
Party Platforms, " (ujipublished paper). 

49 



4168 



Several other trends can also be projected. According to the 
Texas Employment Commission, there is presently under way a migration 
of skilled farm hands to urban areas in Texas. This trend is likely to 
continue in other sparsely populated states as they continue to industrialize 
during the coming decade. Thus, there will be a continuing demand for 
skilled farmworkers during the 1970'8. 

One other trend seems both projectable and worthy of note: migrant 

workers during the coming decatie will continue to move toward political 

and social consciousness. Studies of changing value concerns in American 

5 
society indicate that the United States is presently undergoing a transition 

from concern with the problems of the economy euid distribution of wealth 
(a concern that has been dominant since the 1920 's) into an era where the 
concern is more with the distribution of power and control over destiny of 
individuals and various social groups. This concern is evidenced by the 
increasing political and organizing activity of various groups which consider 
themselves disenfranchised: blacks, Puerto Ricans, students and youth, 
Indians, and Mexican-Americans, Because of increased access to information 
independent of established media, these various groups have been formulating 
analyses of their respective situations and seeking ways of promoting and 
protecting their interests in those situations. It is more than likely that 
this increased concern with power will continue through the 1970 's, with the 
migrant population as well as with other groups. 

On the basis of these projections, a scenario for the coming decade 
might be as follows: Mechanization will lead to increased rates of unem- 
ployment at the very time when migrants are beginning to develop political 
consciousness. Differential rates of mechanization in various crops will 
disrupt present seasonal sequences of migrant employment. Since migrants 
will be increasingly aware of the affluent society around them as well as 
the activities of other disenfranchised groups, these conditions will generate 
increasingly greater dissatisfaction than presently exists. Expectations will 
be rising at a time when total opportunities are declining. Resistance to 
social change will remain strong in the locations where migrants live--i.e. , 
in South Texas and in the rural regions of the North. Migrants especially 
Mexican-Americans, will continue to be discriminated against and excluded 
from the mainstream culture. 

50 



4169 



The scenario described above does not include two crucial variables 
which will operate in the agricultural labor situation: 1) the activities of 
labor unions, and 2) governmental responses to the emerging conditions. 
Both of these factors will largely depend on government legislation concerning 
union organization of agricultural workers. The unions will perform very 
different functions depending on whether they have to continue the fight for 
the right to organize, and the required role of government will depend in 
great degree on how successful unions are. These alternative situations 
are depicted in Table 2.2. Thus, two alternative scenarios errTge within 
the context of the general situation in the 1970 's: 

I. Barriers to unionization situatio n. In the case where the 
government does not allow farm labor unions to come under the 
National Labor Relations Act or similar legislation, increasing 
unemployment and other structural problems lead to increased 
migrant dissatisfaction with their social conditions and increasingly 
radical activities by unions in attempts to gain recognition and 
the right to bargain collectively. Since there would be no ongoing 



Governmental 
Approach to 
Unionization 





Functional Activities 
of Unions 


Government Services 
to Migrants 


No legislative 
action 


Continuing attempts 
to gain recognition. 
No benefits for 
workers. 


Sufficient services to 
deal with entire range 
of migrant problems. 


Legislation 
providing for 
union organi- 
zation. 


Organizing, negotia- 
tion of contracts, 
establishment of 
benefits 


Residual services not 
provided by union. 









Table 2. 2 
Consequences of Two Government Approaches to Attempts 
at Unionization of Migrant Approaches 



51 



4170 



anion serving migrants, governments ^ould be faced with the choice 
of either providing the institutional framework necessary to serve 
migrants' needs or accepting the costs in social tension and dissatis- 
faction if needs are not met. 

II. Unionization situation . In the event of passage of legislation 
permitting migrant workers to elect representatives for collective 
bargaining purposes, a union would emerge as aji institution advo- 
cating the interasts of migrant workers. Federal legislation and 
regulations impinging upon this union could have substantial impact 
on the responsiveness of the union to its workers and their needs. 
With effective legislation, the farmworkers' union could emerge as 
an organization capable of protecting migrants' rights, advocating 
their interests and serving their needs through collective bargaining, 
negotiation on working conditions, and programs such as medical 
insurance and retirement plans. 

Table 2. 3 presents a chart displaying present and projected problems 
facing migrant workers, reasonable objectives with respect to those problems 
and types of solutions possible under the conditions of Scenarios I cind II 
described above. As the chart indicates, a greater governmental involvement 
will be required under the conditions of Scenario I (Barriers to unionization) 
than under Scenario II (Unionization). This is the case because unions can 
provide the solutions to the present powerlessness of migrants which is the 
key factor in many of their problems. Unionization would protect the migrants 
from unfair practices by employers. In addition, it would provide migrants 
with financial resources sufficient to deal with many of their problems on 
their own. Finally, unions provide a natural organizational structure for 
the instigation of benefit programs such as loan funds and medical insurance. 
These functions would have to be carried by governmental organizations 
should Tinions be prevented from organizing. 



Seymour Martin Lipset's book. Union Democra cy (Garden City, N.J. 
Doubleday, 1962) provides an interesting discussion of tEe factors affecting 
the democratic tendencies of vinion organizations. 



52 



4171 



^ 2 :H -5 .2 ;5 



•o c 5 X f, .- 
(u o i: u " o 

2 S ^ S ^ S c 

^ <2 " '-^ J >2 '-2 

u .S .^ g'J !s c 



:3 ^ 


4-> 


lU 










nr 




-t-> -^ 




n) 


Jh m 


■^ 




(t) m 


■>, 


n 


a, b; 


XI 





0) 






_! 


rs 




U 




u 


tH 


a 


rt 


0. 


c 


J 


01 


c 




W 




u. 


3 


1) 
X) 


C3 


c 


w 


3 



O c 



— 3 ■" 

o o c 



>- 00 > J) 

rt rt o DO 
(1< ? BO n! 





0) 


*jj ^ 


•-< 






00 
C 


g-« 






o 


x; 


00 ^^ 




XI 


X 




J-, 


m 


T3 n) 






^ 




> 







■V 


c 


T1 




<u 






C 




■-H 


nt 


iti 


rt 


c 

s 

1) 




s 

c 




C 



u 


m (0 


u 


T3 



nS nS u 

T3 O 

■a - vi w 

'^ o >» ^ 

c ": " ^ 

3 C ^ ^1 

d o u S 

. o on > 

K t. > i- 

,'" <=^ '""c 

b< O m C 





*i 




c 






n 






Ih 




(U 


01 




<u 


g 







Oil 


^ 


c 







T3 


nj 




c 






cfl 


rn 






e 




D 








,n 






n 










cd 


& 





to 



Is 



^ 0.S 






■"(to 
C J- ■-• 



■2 S r, ^ 

> S 3 ^ 



W av 



^ C (J 
^03 

-2 -I " 
3 -3 



E 



^ 5^ "^ « 

P n '^ lU 

S |_^ .s -z 

= S ^ - £ 

jS (U '/> -^ 00 

C *i nl u f, 

nl 0) _ ■" 

-o "^ "^ 

0) c; § rt O 

T3 (p Qj *-" ^*^ 

■^ a t. op „ 

□ D U 'c 13 






O 
, C ^ to w i^ 

ti O u C (n 
C 00 t, -O ^ .2 3 

C C 3 P C *^ "> 
'^ t = 3 2 J! -O 

K 3 0) c '*^ t; - u) 

•'3"rt-^'^E^O0 
g>,3t,oo'-"'n! 
•-5 u t, O ■;: fc, O t! 



^"5 



>° O- rt O 



^ S 



■:3 ^ 

n) ^ m 

■M x: T3 

a ° * 

w£ E 



>• a 

O V 

6 I* 

" s ^^ 

tn o tn 

m >" >« D 

« ° m ■-' 

^ ii i: s 

T3 m m j- 

c; ::; J' ?, 



iT c 


'> 










•^ c 


4; 


4; 




a 


to" T3 








-n 





O 1^ 
■" o 



C ^H IT) " 00 

O O x; 0) n) 

o XI 3 ■ 
cm' 



O 3 



« ^ o 

5 w x2 

2 h 01 

" ^ - '" u, 

S o.!5 * o 

" t< 3 o n 

o 3 .ti tc rt 

t-J w X 00 --I 



^ E o ^ o 

4) *-« CJ *-» -M 



J -x^ 



a; 


in 


u 


t; 




V 


14-4 


C 


ID 









Hi 


4) 


en 


4) 


n 


00 

11) 


k. 




0) 
> 


V 


ra 


3 
rr 


00 

E 


■" 


u 


•/) 


(U 



4172 











o 

0) 




••-4 




h 




h 


00 


lU 


w 


lU 




n) 




0) 


a 


T3 


h 




D 


■r' 



d >„ 



.2? fi ." o< 



I (U m « d ^ 

J) ,'5 3 o >< ti 
CO W 



Id X 00 O. 
1! 



iiX 




>2-o 



nl (1) 

O H) h 

S £ 3 

<; S "3 



01 




OJ 




Jl 




t) 


►— * 


rt 


n 






>H 


u 


& 


n) 


U 


C 


(fl 


D 


G 






















-0 





c 


W 


d 






£ o 






S £S 



ao a; 



d v« M 



00 <u 



J, 4! 



H) O > M 



.X -2 






2; " 

c o 



tn W 0) i 



5Pc 



^, (3 O C 
00 c 4> '-i^ 2 

C 3 4) 00 2 



(4 w nt 



C ™ ™ 



£-a 

m n) 
I- X 
00 O J, 
O « M 

ti C d 

<; S'3 
2.° ^ 



"^ :«, 



m d 

^ u 

d 00 

in .T 

S £ 



c 


c 




V 


rt 










l4 


00 










•3 


£ 




cr 








rt 




u 






TJ 


h 




l4 







U 






00 


c 






o 


C 


T) 




0) 


•fH 






> 




T3 





d 






T> J3 



CL| (u o 



™ :3 00 t. 

I. !^ -^ "1 

o i " -T -° 

VH CO „ ni •-< 

),i ^i ™ 

<" ■y JJ d t) 

" "• 5 -^ li 

<« ^1 ° 3 .2 

-J3 op ^ O 00 

nJ 'c (U . ° 

I- > « 

«J 00 ° o* ^ 

tx^ ^ J3 So 



in 5) g 

c '::3 ° . 



5 c # 






^ /^ «* 4J .fh 4) 





ini 




cl 




IT) 








or 






<u 


£ 









01 


tH 


C 


D 








XI 


nt 


c 


^M 


n) 


01 


r, 


£ 












n 










U, 


oj 



n) 


6 








rt n) 








T5 


U 




C 


nl 


C 4) 
o „ 


X 




Hi 

ID 


£ 


t^ 




V 


n3 c 


O 


n) 


JD ^ 



•2£ 





£ 


'd 


"H 


>. cr 




o 


v 








A 


a 





rt Ul rH 



diS^^ss 



-^ £ 



W 4) 01 

^ '3 60 

o S 'IS 

J rt £ 



BB 



54 



4173 



Given the problems and objectives, functions served by government 
under the two scenarios have been shown to differ. Since effective organiza- 
tional structure differs according to functions served, it is appropriate to 
consider the shape of government operations separately for the two scenarios. 
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS UNDER SCENARIO I (BARRIERS TO UNIONIZATION) 

Under the conditions of continued barriers to unionization, a broad 
spectrum of operations and services would have to be provided for migrants 
in order to effectively deal with their situation as described above. These 
activities are outlined in Column 3 of Table 2.3. 

A government organization to effectively implement all such activities 
would have to be designed with three major criteria in mind. First, because 
local power structures and particularly non-migrants service agencies often 
act to impede service delivery to migrants, the organization would have to 
operate independently of local control and have its own resources for serving 
migrants. Independence from local control would appear to be the only way 
to protect the migrants' interest from being swallowed up by other more 
established interest groups. Second, because of the unique characteristics of 
this population- -their language barriers, high geographic mobility, long 
working hours during the harvest season, isolation in migrant camps, and 
lack of community ties or knowledge of areas where they work --it is important 
that any organization to serve migrants should be designed so that 1) as 
many services as possible will be under one roof, and 2) services which are 
run by the organization be geared to the special timing (seasonal and daily) 
needs of migrants. Third, because of the high mobility of migrants, an 
effective organization to serve them must operate as a system with similar 
and coordinated components in different geographic locations. Although 
formation of such an organization would lead to duplication of administrative 
costs with other service agencies, it would also yield more effective use of 
service resources both for migrants and non-migrants. 

A government organization with the three characteristics described 
above (independent, multi-functional; interstate system) could provide any or 
all of the following services: 



55 



4174 



1. employment of migrants; 

2. contracting with employers to provide labor; 

3. allocation of the migrant pool in such a way as to maximize 
employment and work efficiency; 

4. health zuid medical insurance program; 

5. migrant loan fund; 

6. self-help housing program; 

7. migrant camp housing subsidies; 

8. job training and placement program; 

9. supportive services; and 
10. settling out assistance. 

Although the federal government may have neither the desire nor the resources 
for engaging in all of these activities, solution of the problems facing migrants 
in the barriers to unionization situation will require some degree of effort in 
each activity area. Given the need for these activities, the government could 
respond in a variety of different ways, with different mixes of programs and 
different organizational structures for program operation. 

The example which follows illustrates a conceivable governmental 
organizational response that addresses itself to all the needs of the migrants 
but where there is no \inionization. One response to the problems would be 
to form a non-profit, government-subsidized cooperative corporation inde- 
pendent of present government agencies. This corporation would act as a 
clearing house for migrant employment- -similar to the private temporary 
manpower employment agencies. It would meet the design constraints of 
independence, multi-functional operations, and interstate system components. 
It would provide a broad range of services to both employers and employees. 
Among other functions, it could relieve farmers of the burden of providing 
housing for workers, provide migrants with subsidies (less than working 
wages) for periods when they are available for employment and there is no 
work, and work to encourage the transition towards long-term geographically 
stable employrre nt. Such an organization would not necessarily have to 
provide all services in-house. Regular job training and adult basic education 
programs could be utilized. But it seems essential that firm commitment 
of entry slots for such programs be negotiated between the migrant organ- 
ization and other groups. Similarly, though a migrant organization serving a 
given geographic locale would not necessarily have to employ a full-time 
lawyer for legal assistance or a full-time doctor, routinized procedures for 

56 



4175 



obtaining such services should be worked out. In all cases where it was 
decided not to provide services in-house, fvinds should be available for ob- 
taining those services from other sources. In some cases, such a procedure 
would be far more efficient. Care should be taken in developing procedures 
for services and other compensations so that the reward structure operates 
to prevent migrants from becoming welfare -dependent persons. The program 
should work to increase self-reliance wherever possible. Finally, the 
organization should be run by migrants and former migrants. It can thus 
act as a school for managerial experience where migrants can learn skills 
necessary to acquire positions in other business organizations. More 
basically, it will provide additional jobs for a group with a very high unem- 
ployment rate and give migrants the dignity of having some power over their 
own domain. 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS UNDER SCENARIO II (UNIONIZATION) 

Should unionization occur, the federal government will play a somewhat 
reduced role. One of the primary activities will be formulation of policy 
regulating union relations with growers and food processors. If unions 
develop as effective collective bargaining agents within the framework of 
these regulations, a number of problems presently facing migrants will be 
eliminated. Moreover, the seriousness of all problmes will be significantly 
reduced. This is because vinions will boost migrants' incomes and rationalize 
their relations with employers, and this change will have a spinoff effect on 
the various social problems (health, legal problems, housing) usually associated 
with poverty. 

Under these conditions the various government functions would be as 
follows; 

1. centralized labor information exchange; 

2. an integrated program for job training, placement and resettlement; 

3. supportive services; 

4. self-help housing; 

Since the population needing supportive services would be greatly 
reduced (migrants would be able to afford their own) and since self-help 
housing in an endeavor requiring special expertise, both of these functions 
could be handled independently of a migrant labor organization, with only 
coordination and referral activities necessary. The other two functions are 
clearly within the mandate of the Department of Labor and associated state 

67 



4176 



employment services. To be effective in performing these functions, the 
Department of Labor would have to 1) provide an arrangement for more 
formal coordination between state rural manpower services in use of a 
computerized information exchange system; and 2) develop a special program 
concerned with handling the resettlement of migrants to other occupations. 
Such a program would differ only slightly from the present E and D Projept. 
Differences would lie in the degree of control of training programs, the types 
of services used to ease resettlement, and the removal of present constraints 
on effective operation as discussed in recommendations outlined in the 
previous sections. 

SUMMARY 

Problems facing the agricultural labor market will continue to 
intensify during the coming decade due to a declining job market and a 
large pool of unskilled laborers. The type of governmental response 
necessary in such a situation depends largely upon whether unions are 
permitted to hold elections and engage in collective bargaining for migreint 
workers. Should \inions form, governmental functions will be largely 
those of 1) reducing barriers to occupational mobility, and 2) providing an 
information exchange system to aid in the efficient allocation of migrant 
labor. On the other hand, if unions do not organize, the government will have 
to deal with not only the problems of information exchange and resettlement, 
but also with a much broader range of problems caused by the poverty 
existence level of migrant workers and its concomitant problems of power - 
lessness, ignorance, and poor health. The increasing political consciousness 
of the migrants themselves will necessitate a nneaningful government response 
in either situation. In the case of barriers to unionization, the government 
will be providing amelioritive action for problems but will have little influence 
on the nascent chcinges in the social world of migrants resulting from 
attempts to unionize. If, on the other hand, barriers to unionization are 
reduced, the government will be in a position to influence the direction and 
impact of that change. 



58 



4177 

Mr. Weber. I must say I am pleased to see a little restraint in our 
evaluation reports. 

Senator Mondale. I agree with that. 

Mr. Weber. The history of manpower programs is oversell and un- 
derdelivery as we all can see. The program is now entering its second 
year. In its first year, it was largely concerned with identifying the 
problem, developing contacts, and providing counseling service to the 
migrants. 

The second year will involve a concerted effort to deliver manpower 
service to these people, to move them into the industrial sector. So, in 
a way, it is encouraging that we have been able to identify this group 
and get an administrative handle on it, but the extent to which we will 
be able to deliver is still an open question. 

Senator Mondale. Is that a program that you directly run? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. You agree that we have to know the truth about 
these programs. The evaluations indicate that in the first year, the 
program contacted only 54 percent of the families. Cost for delivering 
of service was high. Only eight migrants were placed in nonagricul- 
tural jobs, only 49 workers were placed in Texas. Only 25 families had 
settled out in Northern States. You are familiar with the survey 

Mr. Weber. I am not disturbed by that too much. It is at the begin- 
ning. This is sort of a first movement out of production process. It 
is a federally initiated and run program involvnig 10' State agencies. 
You had to develop complicated administrative procedures. 

Senator Mondale. What kind of resources are you applying ? What 
would be the estimated expenses? 

Mrt. Weber. $750,000 the first year, plus obviously it brought into 
play the existing resources of the 10 State employment service offices. 
But it is funded at $750,000. 

Incidentally, Senator, this is out of a total E. & D. budget of ap- 
proximately $15 million. In other words, around 8 percent of our 
resources in that area. 

Secondly, the job bank. The job bank is a new development in em- 
ployment service operations which will ultimately give migrant 
workers greater access to employment opportunities outside the mi- 
grant stream. 

In the Baltimore area, which served as prototype for this system, all 
ES counselors and interviewers in the area, plus some 20 cooperating 
agencies, are provided with a daily computer printout of all job 
openings listed with the ES or the cooperating agencies. 

The result has been a sharp reduction in pointless referrals and visits 
to employers and a sharp increase in placements of disadvantaged 
applicants. The heart of the system is the job bank book, reproduced 
directly from the master computer printout. It contains a listing of 
both job openings and apprenticeship and other training opportunities. 
Each morning, copies of the book are put on 50 different desks in the 
ES central office and 15 or more outreach stations throughout the 
Baltimore area. 



4178 

Plans are already underway to extend job banks to rural areas. The 
Maryland agency has recently started to produce a job bank which 
covers job openings in several small towns. Books will be regularly 
distributed to selected OEO offices at designated rural locations and 
serviced by itinerant ES personnel. 

For the first time, on an organized and continuous basis, rural areas 
with limited employment prospects will have access to all job op- 
portunities in local and contiguous urban areas of Maryland. 

Some of the 75,000 agricultural migrants originating m the Kio 
Grande Valley and the 30,000 who migrate from Florida have ex- 
pressed a desire to settle in the Northern States to which they travel 
vearly. The availability of job bank books at their point of origin and 
points of employment in the Northern States could be a useful tool 
for counseling, and actual job offers. 

Senator Mondale. Has that been used with migrants yet? 
Mr. Weber. Not yet. I think it is important to note the job bank is 
an exciting development and we think it will really deal with this basic 
deficiency that you find in all labor markets, that is deficiencies of 
information. We had one job bank last January. The administration 
made a commitment to have 55 by the end of fiscal year. Presently, we 
have 13. We think we will have 41 more, all 55, by September. The 
13th just opened in Minneapolis-St. Paul. 

Senator Mondale. That is an appropriate ratio. 
Mr. Weber. There are 13 of them. 

This is the basis of building up to a national system. For example, 
in California, we are going to have six, we hope, by next September, 

and clearly, to the extent that this sort of information is now in 

Senator Mondale. Are they going to be plugged in together so that 
Texas will be plugged into Minnesota, and that sort of thing? 
Mr. Weber. Ultimately. 
Senator Mondale. How long will that take? 

Mr. Weber. I am hard pressed to venture a guess. I would say our 
planning horizon on that would be 2 or 3 years. 

Senator Mondale. Do you have any special efforts as part of this 
computer bank approach to concentrate some part of it on the special 
problems of migrants ? 

Mr. Weber. In a fairly direct way, yes. That relates to the third 
problem that I want to discuss with you that is so-called Ottumwa 
project. That is a way of improving delivery of employment sei-vice 
to rural areas. We are putting it into effect, one in each of our 10 
regions. The one in the Southwest and the one in the Mountain States 
region will have capability of providing service to migratory workers 
and particularly Mexican-Americans. 

Let me briefly talk about that, if I may. Senator. 

An experimental program conducted in southeastern Iowa by the 
public employment service has established a pattern for opening up 
a wider range of nonfarm job opportunities to farmworkers, includ- 
ing migrants. 

Prior to the project, a 12-county rural area in Iowa was served by 
four small local public employment offices, each responsible for a 



4179 

specific geographic location. The project replaced this arrangement 
with the establishment of a "central" office, located in Ottumwa, the 
economic and commuting hub of the area, and the designation of the 
four "satellite" or "feeder" offices, responsible to the central office. 

Job orders and applications taken in the feeder offices were held 
for a period of 24 hours and then transferred to the central office. This 
gave both applicant and employer access to opportunities available 
over a much wider geographic area, and made available to the worker, 
particularly, a broader spectrum of farm and nonfarm job openings. 

In view of the success of this project, similar programs are being 
launched in the 10 administrative regions of the Department's Man- 
power Administration. 

Senator Mondale. Do you know how many migrants are served by 
this program ? 

Mr. Weber. Probably very few. 

Senator Mondale, Do you have any kind of evaluation or reports? 

Mr. Weber, Yes, 

Senator Mondale. Are there any we can look at ? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir; a rather weighty report. 

Senator Mondale. Would you submit one for the record. We would 
appreciate seeing it. 

(The information subsequently supplied follows :) 



4181 

EXIBIT E 



y^'i'''^ 







I/, ^l'..:',;.'(,'in'.'.'l('l|ln'nV>, 



;i!v^,«liif!linMiiiIife 



BREAKTHROUGH 

rural manoower services 







Final Report - Ottumwa, Iowa Experimental 6 Development Project 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 10 



4182 



This report on a special manpower project was prepared under 
contract with the Manpower Administration, U.S. Department of 
Labor, under the Authority of the Manpower Development and Training 
Act. Organizations undertaking such projects under the Government 
sponsorship are encouraged to express their own judgment freely. 
Therefore, points of view or opinions stated in this document do not 
necessarily represent the official opinion or policy of the Department 
of Labor. 



4183 



BREAKTHROUGH IN 
RURAL MANPOWER SERVICES 

FINAL REPORT OF THE OTTUMWA, IOWA 
EXPERIMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 

Iowa Employment Security Commission 



4184 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Ma.npower and Manpower Administrator 

WASHINGTON, DC. 20210 




The extensive publicity and attention given our troubled urban 
centers have, for the most part, overshadowed the equally serious 
social, economic, and manpower problems of rural America. This 
has been unfortunate since the problems of rural and urban areas 
are not mutually exclusive, but have a cause and effect relation- 
ship. The problems of rural America have contributed largely to 
the present dilemma of our cities. 

The Ottumwa E4D Project is representative of the growing aware- 
ness of this situation. The project was an attempt to find more 
effective ways of bringing limited resources to bear on manpower 
problems in a rural area. I commend the Iowa Employment Security 
Commission for conducting its project in a working situation rather 
than an ivory tower, and for making the many painful decisions in 
realigning lines of authority and communication. 

The best recommendation for any experimental project is how the 
results are utilized. The Ottumwa experiment speaks eloquently 
for itself — the Iowa Employment Security Commission has retained 
the area concept organization in Ottumwa and is making plans to 
reorganize the entire employment service in Iowa on the Ottumwa 
model. I encourage every person in policy-making positions in 
the employment security system to give this report his careful 
consideration. 




MalcsDim R. Ubvell, Jr. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Manpower and Manpower Administrator 



4185 



FORWORD 

by Arnie Solem 

The Ottumwa Experimental and Demonstration Project was designed 
several years ago to find solutions to several serious problems facing those 
who provide manpower services to people in small towns and rural areas. 
There was the overall problem of providing a full range of services at a 
reasonable cost. Another set of problems has grown out of the technological 
revolution in agriculture. While large scale operations benefited those able 
to enlarge their farms, those with small acreages were often driven to 
supplementing their farm income by commuting 50 miles or more to work. 
The competitive drive for efficiency permitted few communities to enjoy 
adequate health facilities, schooling, libraries or the means of acquiring 
a skill. Many rural people were ill- equipped to get ahead in the growing 
cities. Some of them became the rural poor and some added to the fast 
growing ranks of slum dwellers and people on welfare. 

Although major programs such as the soil bank gave farmers more time 
to adjust to technological change, this benefited mainly the owners of land as 
distinct from employees or renters. Rural youth who had educational oppor- 
tunities were generally able to make a good adjustment. Young men without 
a skill, however, found fewer and fewer opportunities in the cities. Our 
studies revealed that many were afraid to go unprepared into urban centers 
and with good reason. Little attention was paid by successive adminis- 
trations to the problems of rural youth until they became problems of urban 
areas. When the massive migration of rural people to the cities led to riots 
and soaring welfare costs, a whole battery of new, and generally excellent 
programs, was developed to help the now urban poor make some kind of ad- 
justment. 

There was recognition that the source of many problems of the urban 
poor were generated in the rural areas, but little was done to apply remedies 
at that point. The rural poor were scattered, unorganized and without 
leadership while dramatic and militant demands for remedial measures 
came from the urban areas. It was argued, also, that it would be too ex- 
pensive to carry on the kinds of manpower programs in rural areas that 
were being developed in the cities. Techniques, such as personal out- 
reach, did not fit rural settings in the same way as they did urban areas . 



4186 



Although the growing manpower legislation had many good provisions 
in terms of content, it was difficult to administer. The new focus on making 
the disadvantaged employable required a wide range of services such as 
training under the Manpower Development and Training Act, recruiting and 
screening Job Corps candidates and finding jobs for graduates, operating 
Youth Opportunity Centers, and similar new activities. 

Most of our 1200 local employment offices are small town and rural 
area offices where the work loads do not lend themselves to specialization. 
It is wasteful of scarce telents to have a high grade counselor work only a 
few hours a week at his profession. Nevertheless, specialized services, 
such as counseling, are needed. The remainder of his working time might 
have to be in routine activities. Salaries for counselors in most States were 
also comparatively low. It was difficult to recruit and train people who could 
span a wide range of program areas such as were generated by the new legis- 
lation. 

To sum it up, the numerous small offices scattered throughout the 
country were severely handicapped in providing the many new and specialized 
services needed to prepare the disadvantaged for better employment. Com- 
munity services in the way of health, basic education and the like were 
frequently not available in the areas served by small offices. Organizations 
such as those concerned with welfare, vocational education and other com- 
munity agencies were usually located in the larger towns. Any attempt to 
consolidate offices and to eliminate those that served too small an area met 
and still meets fierce resistance in these days of declining small towns. 
Appeals are made to the State and Federal political structure, which makes 
the closing of offices impractical. 



4187 



It was in the midst of this situation that the Ottumwa Project was con- 
ceived. Might it not be possible, for example, through the use of modern 
methods of communication to inform the rural poor who were scattered 
throughout the rural areas of the opportunities for skill training and jobs? 
The new job markets or "functional economic areas", stretching 50 miles 
or more from a "central city" had now become a practical operating area. 
The automobile made it possible for people to commute 50 miles or more 
to work, to shop or for recreational purposes. Why could they not commute 
equally far for maipower services? Seivices could be extended in an organ- 
ized way to those unable to do so. In most instances a fairly large central 
city was located within this large labor market area, which could be the hub 
of a new method of providing a wide range of manpower services at a reason- 
able cost. It was not necessary to close small offices. By establishing an 
area office and converting the small outlying offices to "satellite" offices of 
the larger centers, the staff of the whole area could be deployed without 
antagonizing the people concerned about losing their employment office. 

Simple as it might seem to test out answers to these problems, there 
were many serious barriers that the personnel of the Iowa Employment 
Security Commission had to overcome. Not only were State salaries low 
but tenure was very limited. Specialized staff, such as the labor economist, 
the communications research man and the counselors, were difficult to re- 
cruit. 

It is a real tribute to the Project staff that the Ottumwa Project became 
such an outstanding success. Personnel in charge of the administrative 
office of the employment service in Des Moines, such as Jerome Corbett and 
Ken Hays, provided excellent leadership. William Hood, who was in charge 
of both the area office and a mobility project, contributed many of the good 
features that came out of this experimental Project, 

Evaluations based on the cost per individual served and the quality 
of service leads us to conclude that the major objective was met in full 
measure- -that methods were developed for providing quality manpower 
services to people in small towns and rural areas at a reasonable cost. 



4188 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



The development and execution of the activities carried on by the 
Ottumwa Experimental and Development Project and the preparation of this 
report on those activities required the direct and indirect cooperation and 
assistance of a great many individuals; the contributions of only a few can 
be formally acknowledged. Credit for the inception and nurturing of the 
basic concepts expressed in, and explored through, the Project belongs to 
Mr. Arnie Solem, former Administrator of Region VI of the Department of 
Labor's Bureau of Employment Security. The support and assistance pro- 
vided by Mr. Solem during the preparation of this report is also acknowledged. 

To a large degree, much of the success the Project attained is to be 
attributed to the efforts of the national staff of the Manpower Administration. 
The constructive criticism and the operational suggestions provided by this 
staff kept Project attention focused on the areas and activities where positive 
results would have the greatest effect. The contributions of this staff to the 
format and the content of this report also were greatly appreciated. 

Without the cooperation of the Iowa Employment Security Commission, 
and the active assistance of the Employment Service Director, Jerome 
Corbett; the Chief of Local Office Operations, Kenneth Hays and the Chief of 
Administrative Services, Erwin Frerichs, the Project would not have been 
possible. The further assistance of Mrs. Cheryl Moses and Tom Weinman 
of the lESC Information Services Department in the preparation, reproduction 
and dissemination of this report is also acknowledged. 

Finally, the contribution made by a dedicated and resourceful staff most 
certainly must be noted. The ideas and the effort contributed both by satel- 
lite office staff members and by staff assigned to the area office strengthened 
Project operations greatly. In fact, credit for whatever success the Project 
experienced ultimately rests with this staff- -with the individuals who actually 
did the job. 

In closing, it is to be noted that the Ottumwa Project was funded under 
Title 1 of the amended Manpower Development and Training Act of 1963, out 
of the allocation for Employment Service Experimental and Demonstration 
Projects administered by the Experimental and Demonstration Program 
Office of the Manpower Administration. The funds and the authority to 
experiment granted by this Act made the Project possible. The interest 
and the active assistance of the Experimental and Demonstration Progr^ 
Office made it profitable. 



Ottumwa, Iowa 
January, 1969 




by Bill Hood 




4189 



CHAPTER 1 
THE OTTUMWA PROJECT— AN OVERVIEW 



The Project 



The Ottumwa Experimental and Demonstration Project was initiated to 
develop more economical and more effective ways for delivering compre- 
hensive manpower services to residents of rural areas. The Ottumwa 
Project involved a fundamental restructuring of rural Employment Service 
operations- -development of more effective ways of delivering effective ser- 
vices required bringing the service delivery system into greater harmony 
with the demands made by changed and changing rural labor market condi- 
tions and socioeconomic patterns. The Ottumwa Project, which was funded 
under Title I of the amended Manpower Development and Training Act of 
1963, was administered by the Iowa Employment Security Commission under 
contract with the Manpower Administration Office of Special Programs. The 
Project lasted two years and began operation in October 1966. 



4190 



The Rural Environment 

That rural America, as much as the more urban areas, has felt the 
impact of technological change and is experiencing the consequent social 
and economic dislocation is widely recognized. Everyone knows advanced 
agricultural technology has sharply reduced the need for farmhands and for 
farmers. Sometimes, though, the degree to which this is happening can be 
astounding. 

For example, an unpublished 1965 Iowa State University study indicates 
a 57 per cent reduction in the number of farms in Southeastern Iowa would 
be necessary if the size of the average farm in that area were to be economi- 
cally competitive today. It is equally well-known that changing technology 
has also affected other rural industries. The closing of the rural mines in 
Appalachia, in central Iowa, in northern Missouri and in the Rocky Mountain 
States is just one example. Both agricultural and nonagricultural industrial 
obsolescence has become a common rural malady. The inevitable conse- 
quence of this industrial obsolescence is pools of unemployed and under- 
employed workers poorly equipped to find work in other industries and in 
other areas. In short, many of the employment outlets offered by yester- 
day's rural economy are disappearing. 

On the other hand, the technological revolution has had its beneficial 
effects in rural America as well. The agricultural technology, which so 
adversely affects demand for farmhands and for farmers, has opened vast 
new opportunities in the agri-business field. Advanced technology has also 
brought rural electrification, automobiles and better highways. With these 
have come broadened horizons and increased individual mobility for residents 
of rural areas. The result has been a fundamental change in the rural socio- 
economic environment. Center cities, with a dominance derived from their 
ability to deliver relatively wide varieties of goods, services and employment 
opportunities have emerged. These center cities have led to the develop- 
ment of area labor markets which extend miles into the countryside and 
which incorporate and encompass the geographically smaller labor markets 
of former years. Dr. Karl Fox of the Department of Economics at Iowa 
State University has studied this changed socioeconomic environment and has 
identified and documented the emergence of what he calls "Rural Functional 
Economic Areas". According to Dr. Fox, these Functional Economic Areas 
are relatively large multi- county units vvtiich exhibit the basic characteristics 
of an organized economic layout. 



4191 



The emergence of the Functional Economic Area has received more than 
academic recognition. For example, in Iowa voluntary multi-county eco- 
nomic development programs, initiated and widely participated in by the 
private sector of the economy, have developed. TENCO, as the first, is 
probably the most famous of Iowa's multi- county economic development 
programs. However, a total of eight such multi-county organizations now 
are functioning in the State. Recognition of the reality of the Functional 
Economic Area has progressed to the point where Iowa's former Governor 
approved a proposal which will divide the State into 16 such areas for all 
state governmental functions. Similar proposals have been made in Pennysl- 
vania and Nebraska as well as in a number of other states. 



Area Organization 

The Ottumwa Project was undertaken to develop ways of strengthening 
the ability of the Employment Service to function effectively in this changed 
rural socioeconomic environment. In the Ottumwa Project, four previously 
independent and relatively small rural Employment Service offices, located 
within a single, 12-county Functional Economic Area, were merged into a 
single operational unit. 

An area manager was appointed and, although managers remained in 
the satellite local offices because the project was of limited duration, re- 
sponsibility for all Employment Service activities in the area were central- 
ized in the area office. The individual administrative areas of the respective 
satellite offices were abolished except for reporting purposes and the area 
manager assumed responsibility for directing the development of interagency 
relationships and the cultivation of areawide community support. To tie the 
four satellite offices and the area office together and to provide for the un- 
restricted communication necessary for efficient operation with dispersed 
operating units, a leased line telephone communication system was intro- 
duced. Leased line communication permitted management and technical 
personnel to operate from any part of the territory equally effectively and 
to always be immediately accessible to satellite office personnel. Before 
the introduction of adequate communication facilities, effective coordination 
of areawide activities had proved almost impossible. 



4192 



Fully developed, project operations featured both the centralization and 
the decentralization of Employment Service activities. Generally speaking, 
"extensive services" --services requiring direct contact with large numbers 
of individuals- -were decentralized while "intensive services"- -services de- 
livered by technical specialists or having areawide impact- -were centralized. 
As a consequence, responsibility for outreach, intake, local job development, 
placement and employer relations activities in the counties having regular 
Employment Service facilities were decentralized and assigned to the satellite 
offices. Satellite office personnel were also responsible for identifying unmet 
manpower needs in their counties and for communicating this information to 
the area office. 

To further decentralize intake and outlet activities, outstation centers 
were established in cooperation with county Community Action Agencies and 
other appropriate public organizations in the eight counties without regular 
Employment Service facilities. By formal agreement, sufficient Employment 
Service training was given to cooperating agency personnel to enable them to 
perform Employment Service outreach, intake, placement and follow-up 
activities. Consequently, though regular Employment Service personnel 
served the outstation centers only one day a week, full-time Employment 
Service manpower services were delivered in these eight counties. The 
professional Employment Service personnel assigned to the individual out- 
station centers on the one- day -a- week schedule were responsible for out- 
reach, intake, local placement, follow-up and manpower need identification 
activities in the individual counties and responsibility for general super- 
vision of the individual outstation centers was delegated to the satellite office 
manager whose office was geographically closest to the outstation center. 
Successful Employment Service outstation center experience led to the assign- 
ment of representatives of other manpower-oriented agencies to the centers 
on a regularly scheduled basis and county multi- agency service centers 
evolved as a direct result of Employment Service initiative. 



4193 



To provide opportunity for staff specialization and for the development 
of program depth, "intensive service" activities were centralized in the area 
office. To facilitate the delivery of the "intensive services", three oper- 
ational units were formed within the area office. 

The largest group of centralized functions were those concerned with 
employability development- -counseling, selection and referral to training, 
Job Corps recruitment and the service programs for special applicant groups. 
Responsibility for these activities was assigned to the Employability Develop- 
ment Unit which was coordinated by the chief counselor. 

The interarea job development and placement function, augmented by a 
labor mobility project and regarded as an intensive job development and 
placement program, was the prime responsibility of the Area Placement 
Unit which was coordinated by the area placement specialist. Job develop- 
ment and placement services for clients served by the Employability Unit 
and for those applicants the satellite offices and the outstation centers proved 
incapable of placing locally were performed by the staff assigned to this Unit. 

Finally, responsibility for the collection and dissemination of labor 
market information and for public relations and public information activities 
were centralized in the Community Relations Unit, coordinated by the com- 
munity coordinator. Since industrial service and employer relations activi- 
ties were undertaken only in direct support of job development and placement 
efforts, responsibility for these activities were delegated to the satellite 
offices and the outstation centers which, together, constituted the fourth 
operational unit, the Field Services Unit. This Unit was under the direct 
supervision of the area manager. 



4194 



Area Operations 

To facilitate operations and to assist in the coordination of the activities 
of the four operational units, centralized applicant and job order files were 
established, consisting of duplicate copies of all application records and em- 
ployer job orders from both the satellite offices and the outstation centers. 
Besides providing Employability Unit personnel with the means for identifying 
individuals whose need for intensive services had not been recognized by 
Field Services Unit personnel, the centralized applicant files enabled both 
Employability Unit and Field Services Unit personnel to have immediate, 
simultaneous access to basic applicant information. Problems developing 
in the course of carrying out the individual plans of service for particular 
applicants could be quickly and effectively discussed by telephone without 
the delay of mail transfer of records. 

The centralized applicant and job order files were also extensively ' 
utilized by the Area Placement Unit. Regular interarea placement pro- 
cedures were suspended within the area and, through extensive use of the 
leased line telephone facilities, regular file search, selection and referral 
activities were pursued on an areawide basis. Regular interarea placement 
procedures were also suspended between the area office and selected em- 
ployment service offices outside the area. The centralized applicant files 
became the basis for extensive and effective interarea telephone job develop- 
ment activity. The centralized applicant and employer order files provided 
the basis for the direct exchange of job opening and available applicant in- 
formation between the area office and these selected offices outside the area. 
The centralized applicant file also contributed to the Area Placement Unit's 
effort to encourage positive recruitment by employers from outside of the 
area. Areawide data, by showing the depth of area manpower resources, 
proved to be very enticing to recruiting employers. In addition, the central- 
ized files proved to be a valuable source of current, areawide job opportunity, 
employer recruitment and wage rate data for the use of the counselors and 
Community Services Unit personnel, and of current, areawide applicant 
availability information for the use of placement and employer relations 
personnel. 



4195 



Finally, the centralized files permitted the introduction of an "indi- 
vidual applicant" approach to measuring services. Briefly stated, the 
methodology used to develop "individual applicant" data was to relate the 
services performed and the results achieved to individual applicants rather 
than to separate totals of appli cations , referrals, placements and other 
transactions. Through the use of electronic data processing equipment 
and techniques, "individual applicant" data provided insight into the quality 
of the service performed rather than simply a running total of the numbers 
and types of transactions completed. For reporting purposes and in the 
interest of measuring the impact of the changed procedure introduced during 
the Project, "transaction data" was also accumulated. 

Not infrequently the difference between "total transactions" and the 
actual services provided to individual applicants were nothing less than 
astounding. To illustrate, when pre -project records were translated into 
"individual applicant" data, only 6, 627 individual applicants accounted for 
the 10, 037 applications active in the four Employment Service offices in the 
area during the year before the Project. 

Introduction of an "individual applicant" approach to data collection had 
made two facts abundantly clear. In the first place, the Employment Service 
was not actually serving nearly as many area residents as transaction data 
made it appear. Secondly, and even more astounding, 3, 400 individuals or 
over 50 per cent of the total applicant clientele served by the four offices 
had expressed interest in interarea placement by registering for work in at 
least one other office besides the one closest to their residence. That this 
many applicants went to the trouble of registering in more than one office 
in the area is impressive evidence the people regarded the area as a single 
labor market whether the service agency did or not. Similarly, "individual 
applicant" data showed the 5, 578 placements properly reported by these four 
offices during the pre-project year actually represented only 2, 655 indi- 
viduals. Here again, traditional transaction measurement was found to be 
grotesquely misleading with a discrepancy of over 30 per cent between what 
had actually happened and what transaction data implied had happened. 



4196 



Area Management 

The development of staff and resource depth permitted by area oper- 
ation and encouraged by unit organization fundamentally changed the type of 
management required in the rural Employment Service. Centralization of 
areawide management responsibility had created a role for full-time manage- 
ment in the rural Employment Service. The part-time management concept 
which had traditionally characterized rural Employment Service operations 
was supplanted by a new conception of the roles of first and second line rural 
Employment Service management. In the Ottumwa Project, the first line 
management role of the area manager was more creative than administrative. 
The staff and resource depth achieved through area organization permitted 
area responsibility for the day-to-day administration of individual programs 
and activities to be delegated to competent specialists who served as working 
supervisors. As a consequence, the area manager was able to concentrate 
upon bringing area resources into better focus on the more critical man- 
power needs. Freed from the welter of administrative detail- -from the 
housekeeping duties which so often consume management resources without 
materially benefiting operational performance- -the area manager's prime 
responsibility became the creation of the most effective and comprehensive 
area manpower service program as available resources allowed. 



4197 



Under these circumstances, the role of second line management was 
one of critical importance. As working supervisors, responsible for the 
effectiveness of activities within their units as well as for participation in 
actual performance of these activities, second line management personnel 
were both the means through which management decisions were converted 
into action and, through their active participation in actual production activi- 
ties, management's eyes and ears as well. Competent performance of their 
roles required that second line management personnel remain constantly 
alert to developing problems and continuously search for more effective and 
more efficient ways of utilizing available resources. As a consequence, 
second line personnel became a prime source of innovative ideas which 
contributed to the strengthening and expansion of manpower services during 
the Project. 

The involvement of second line management personnel in the develop- 
ment as well as the implementation of programs and policies led to even 
further staff participation in the management function. Unit coordinators, 
unable to develop the technical competence and expertise necessary for 
effective program innovation in each of the areas of specialization within 
their units, delegated responsibility for activities within their area of tech- 
nical competence and commensurate authority to individual program special- 
ists. As a result, the management function pe]n<^aded the entire organization 
and a type of participative management evolved. The active participation of 
the entire staff in the management process not only brought their expertise 
and experience to bear on the technical problems associated with expanding 
and strengthening manpower services, it also secured their personal commit- 
ment to the programs and activities they had helped to develop. There is no 
better incentive to exceptional performance- -to complete realization of po- 
tential- -than personal commitment. 



4198 



The Impact of Area Organization on Services 

The innovative procedures permitted and encouraged by area operation 
and unit organization had significant and substantial impact on both the quality 
and the extent of the manpower services delivered in the area by the Employ- 
ment Service, The centralization of intensive service programs and activi- 
ties allowed Field Services Unit personnel to specialize in outreach and in- 
take activities. The outstation center program which the staff depth and 
flexibility achieved through area organization substantially strengthened the 
ability of the Employment Service to reach out to individual applicants in need 
of service. 

During the Project's second year, the total number of individual appli- 
cants served by the Employment Service was 25 per cent greater than the 
number served during the pre-project year. While the number of applicants 
residing in the counties in which regular Employment Service facilities were 
located increased by 11 per cent, the number of individuals reached by the 
Employment Service in the eight outlying "forgotten" counties increased by 
over 82 per cent- -from 1, 214 before the Project to 2, 212 during the Project's 
second year. The ability of the Employment Service to reach out to residents 
of both the outlying counties and the counties in which Employment Service 
facilities were located had been strengthened substantially and, reaching the 
potential client, is the necessary first step in any successful service delivery 
system. 



4199 



Of equal significance, before the Project only 3,5 per cent of the non- 
agricultural job openings processed by the four Employment Service offices 
were from outside the four counties in which these offices were located. On 
the other hand, information derived from the 1960 Census indicates 46 per 
cent of the area's nonagricultural employment opportunities lie in these eight 
counties. Decentralization of local placement and local employer relations 
activities through the outstation center program resulted in a 400 per cent 
increase in the number of job openings received from employers in these 
eight outlying counties. The significance of this substantial increase in the 
number of job openings listed with the Employment Service lies in the in- 
creased placement potential. To be effective, a manpower program, whether 
urban or rural, must be able to place its clients in competitive employment. 
Successful exploitation of the placement potential offered by outlying areas 
such as these eight "forgotten" counties is a necessary first step in this 
direction. 

Though the local economy deteriorated steadily during the Project period 
(Ottumwa itself lost five sizeable industries, one of which had had peak em- 
ployment of over 1,000) the number of individual applicants permanently 
placed by the Enployment Service increased steadily. During the year before 
the Project, a total of 2, 655 applicants or 40 per cent of the total applicant 
traffic served by the four offices were placed in permanent jobs. During the 
first Project year 2, 670 applicants or 43 per cent of the total applicant popu- 
lation were placed in permanent employment. 

During the second Project year when the innovative techniques introduced 
during the Project were fully operational, 4, 146 individual applicants were 
permanently placed. In other words, the number of applicants placed in 
permanent jobs by the Employment Service was 56 per cent greater during 
the second Project year than during the year before the Project, while the per- 
centage of the total applicant population permanently placed increased from 
40 to 50 per cent. Interestingly enough "transaction data" shows no appreci- 
able difference in activity between the two periods and gives no indication of 
the substantial extension of services the permanent placement of 56 per cent 
more applicants implies. 



4200 



Finally, the number of applicants placed in permanent employment 
through job development also increased steadily throughout the Project 
period. Through job development 153 per cent more applicants were placed 
in permanent employment during the second Project year than in the year 
before the Project. 

The centralization of intensive service activities and of the implied 
supportive services permitted by area organization made it possible for 
staff specialization and program depth to develop. The development of staff 
specialization and program depth, in turn, created the means through which 
effective, cooperative interagency relationships at the working level could be 
worked out. To illustrate, development of formal agreements for the cooper- 
ative outstation centers culminated in the evolution of county-level multi- 
agency service centers. Similarly, the practice of holding periodic "staffing 
sessions" with members of the Employability Unit, the Field Services Unit 
and the Area Placement Unit, which were initially begun as a means for 
improving internal communication and for developing service programs 
for particular individuals, eventually evolved into informal interagency 
program development conferences. Participation by representatives of other 
manpower -oriented agencies became regular. As a result of Employment 
Service initiative, an informal, multi-agency service center capable of 
developing and carrying out employability development plans for both indi- 
viduals and special applicant groups evolved. 

Of equal importance, centralization of intensive service activities 
permitted expansion of service without augmentation of staff. Though the 
counseling staff was not at full cdmplement at any time during the Project's 
operation, centralization of the service, along with the resulting staff special- 
ization and cooperative interagency working level relationships, made it 
possible for counseling service to be extended to a 50 per cent larger number 
of individual applicants. Regular counseling service was extended to the 



4201 



Operation Mainstream Program operating in the area. Delivery of program 
counseling service on this scale had never been undertaken in this area be- 
fore and resulted in the direct extension of service to over 50 disadvantaged 
applicants. In addition, centralization of the counseling function permitted 
scheduled service to be extended to the Neighborhood Youth Corps projects 
operating in the area and for supportive Employment Service counseling to 
be provided to M. D.T. A. students at the Area Vocational Technical School. 

Centralization of M.D.T.A. selection and referral activities yield 
substantially increased selection of target group members for M.D.T.A. 
training. Especially significant here was the priority which could be assigned 
to Operation Mainstream, Work Experience and Training Programs and 
Neighborhood Youth Corps graduates already being served by the centralized 
counseling service. Competition for available M.D.T.A. training slots was 
fierce. During the second Project year, over 1, 500 area residents were 
identified as being available for and potentially eligible to receive M. D.T. A. 
training. Yet sufficient training slots were available for only one-tenth of 
this number. As a consequence, the ability to assign priority to the training 
needs of prime target groups achieved through the centralization of M. D.T. A. 
selection activities became vitally important. 

The intensive effort made possible by centralizing interarea and intra- 
area job development and placement activities in the Area Placement Unit 
resulted in over a 1, 000 per cent increase in the number of individuals placed 
in permanent employment outside their home communities. Of the factors 
contributing to this substantial rise in interarea placement activity, the 
successful effort to promote positive recruitment by out-of-the-area em- 
ployers, coupled with imaginative recruitment techniques such as the tele- 
vision "Jobs-A-Go-Go" series, probably had the greatest impact. Hundreds 
of additional out-of-the-area job opportunities were opened to area residents 
as a direct consequence. 



4202 



The staff specialization achieved through area organization made it 
possible for industrial services to be extended to employers in the eight 
outlying and previously unserved counties. Staff specialization also made 
possible the development of a pilot cooperative high school program based 
upon an exhaustive survey of 1967 Iowa high school graduates which re- 
flected the expressed needs of the young people themselves and of school 
administrators and counselors. This Cooperative High School Program, 
developed by the centralized counseling and public information sections 
during the second Project year, subsequently was adopted as the model for 
the 1969 Cooperative High School Program in Iowa. 

Staff specialization and awareness on the part of appropriate personnel 
of an incipient manpower need resulted in the development of two particularly 
effective Summer Youth Employment Programs. These Summer Youth Em- 
ployment Programs again were tailored to the needs of the young people and 
to the resources of the communities in which they were undertaken. Inci- 
dentally, the success of these two programs had led to community interest 
in starting similar programs in the future, using local financial resources. 

The centralization of labor market information collection and dissemi- 
nation activity allowed development of employment- -unemployment bench 
marks in five additional counties in the area as well as the development of 
more accurate and more realistic labor supply and demand information for 
the use of industrial development groups. Finally, an Area Job Opportunity 
Bulletin was developed to meet the need of such public agencies as the public 
schools, the Vocational Schools, the Department of Social Welfare and the 
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. This bulletin gave current information 
on the types of jobs actually available in the area, the minimum qualifications 
set by employers in different occupational areas and prevailing wage rates. 



4203 



Centralization of public information activities enabled the Employment 
Service to make optimal use of available mass communication media. The 
development of the potential offered by radio and television was particularly 
significant. Utilization of radio and television for client recruitment, job 
recruitment and for communicating manpower problems and needs to the 
community was pursued extensively and effectively. 

As an illustration, the four "Jobs-A-Go-Go" television job recruitment 
programs resulted in the placement of nearly 400 individuals, or about 100 
workers a program, in out-of-the-area employment. The significance of 
this performance becomes even more vast when it is realized that nearly 50 
per cent of these individuals had had no recent contact with the Employment 
Service, nearly 60 per cent were from the rural, outlying counties and almost 
35 per cent could be classified as disadvantaged. 

Perhaps the most eloquent testimony to the effectiveness of area organi- 
zation and of the innovative techniques and procedures area organization en- 
couraged is the adoption of the concept by the Iowa Agency. The 1969 Iowa 
Plan of Service provides for area organization in Ottumwa in the post-project 
period as well as the development of area organizations in three other lo- 
cations. The Ottumwa experience demonstrated that in-depth service in 
rural areas can be delivered by the Employment Service. 



4204 

Mr. Weber. I should note the Ottumwa project did not involve use 
of job bank and in the extension of this to the 10 regions we are in- 
corporating the job bank, which should further enhance the flow of 
information. 

Senator Mondale. That would appear to be more intrastate directed. 
It is a region within the State, is it not ? 

Mr. Webes. That is correct. It works oft' sometliing called func- 
tional economic area. 

Senator Mondale. It seems to me the migrants' problem is more 
interstate. It might be intrastate in a largo State like Texas, but it 
would be a tradeoff between beets in Minnesota, some canning in 
southeast Minnesota, specialized crops in Wisconsin, cherries in 
Michigan. That would seem to be the general market. 

Mr. Weber. It is clear there is a major logistics problem, delivering 
effective manpower service to migrants. You have to do it essentially 
at sending and receiving points — when they stand still and when they 
are not engaged in employment. So, the notion of providing intensive 
service while they are in an interstate status is just fraught with 
despair. 

To the extent we have a project in a rural area of Texas which is a 
traditional source of migrant labor, you will be able to reach these 
people before they are pulled into this stream or into that stream 
where it is so difficult to offer them all sorts of service, educational 
service, health service and what have you. 

Senator Mondale. It is from the time that migrants are in the 
stream that we have heard a lot of complaints. It seems like the farmer 
has an incentive to get the farmworker a little early in order to insure 
a supi^ly of labor. And there is no one that is telling the migrant that 
he may have three or four options. 

In either the Midwest, or on the west coast, is the migrant ever told 
that there are jobs available 100 miles away that would prevent several 
weeks of unemployment, or higher wages. They are not supplied that 
kind of information, or are they ? 

Mr. Weber. It is available through local farm office and we do try 
to work it into this annual plan. 

Senator Mondale. But in the local farm office there would be a 
tendency, would there not, for the placement officer to try to deal 
with labor supply problems of his area ? 

Mr. Weber. He wants to serve his clientele. 

Senator Mondale. That would be the good old farmers, and I find 
that understandable. The farm labor official is not about to go and 
tell farmers in his area, "I just sent all your available labor supply 
to Michigan because they can make 4 cents more an hour." If he wants 
to stay alive in his job he is not going to do that, is he ? 

Mr. Weber. I agree there is that incentive and disposition for offi- 
cers to see local folks, but that is why we have regional offices and 
that is why the regional offices require a report which is known as in- 
season farm labor report, which includes estimates of the supply- 
and-demand situation in particular local markets in some instances on 
a weekly basis so that the regional people can be sensitive to imbalances 



4205 

in supply and demand and issue appropriate directives to smooth out 
the flow. 

I don't want to give the impression that this is a smoothly function- 
ing system which always gets the right picker, the right vineyard at 
the right time ; it is not. 

The process is inherently unstable. It is not as if the migrant is likely 
to automatically move on the basis of the information we offer. They 
have their own preferences which reflect their own skill and back- 
grounds and judgment concerning whether they want to pick cherries 
or blueberries. 

I am just indicating to you that we do have the capability and we 
try to make it work with the very real constraints that are presented 
by this market situation. 

Senator Mondale. According to Mr. Paarlberg, and his analysis of 
Department of Agriculture statistics, this matching requires more 
sophistication. In terms of mechanization, the system is working less 
well, because in fact the number of hours the migrant is working is 
dropping at a much faster rate than the number of jobs is declining, 
which would mean there is a growing mismatch. 

It seems to me if we are concerned about this mismatch, we would 
try to really gear up in this area in a combined way of discouraging 
migrancy because that is what the economics would dictate. 

Secondly, we would be trying to realize that it is a major, national, 
sophisticated, logistical problem to get these farmworkers where they 
should go? 

Mr. Weber. Absolutely. 

Senator Mondale. Maybe we should take a couple of those C-5's 
and fly them around. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Weber. The Department of Labor has good relations w4th the 
Department of Defense. 

Senator Mondale. Proceed. 

Mr. Weber. Let me now turn to the last problem and that is the 
specific problem of commuters in Mexican border areas. I am aware 
that this subcommittee has taken a keen interest in the problem of 
commuters in the Mexican border areas. The term "commuter'' is 
sometimes used to refer to "wetbacks" or border visitors who work 
illegally in the United States. 

I will restrict my discussion to "green carders" — the approximately 
50,000 aliens who have been legally admitted for permanent residence 
in the United States but who have chosen to maintain their domicile 
in Mexico while commuting to work in the United States on a regular 
basis. 

Green card commuters also cross over from Canada to work in the 
United States. In 1966, it was estimated that there were about 11,000 
Canadian commuters. Because of their small numbers, labor standards 
similar to those in the United States, and stronger labor organization, 
Canadian commuters have less impact on the border communities than 
their Mexican counterparts. 

The following adverse effects of the Mexican commuter system have 
been identified by our Department : 



4206 

1. Wages are lower along the border because of the impact of 
the impact of the commuter ; 

2. Unemployment is higher in areas where commuters are 
present ; 

3. The incidence of violations of the wage and hour law is 
greater in the border areas, and 

4. Collective bargaining in the border areas is hampered by the 
availability of commuter- workers. 

The difficulties in changing the present commuter system stem from 
the fact that the system has been recognized and accepted administra- 
tively by the United States for over 40 years. 

It is now considered a right by Mexican nonresident aliens and many 
other border residents. The economies and the social and political 
makeup of the U.S. border cities have been shaped by the availability 
of a large pool of low^-skill and relatively low-wage Mexican labor. 

The Department of Labor is greatly concerned about the impact of 
commuter employment on the wages and working conditions of Amer- 
ican workers. But this is an extremely complex problem that the 
Department of Labor alone cannot resolve since control essentially 
falls outside our administrative jurisdiction. The Labor Department 
can, and does, of course, promote more effective enforcement of its 
own programs. 

A number of alternative solutions to this problem have been offered. 
However, certain basic factors should be taken into account in any 
solution which is eventually developed. The precipitous termination of 
the commuter system would result in the imposition of an undue hard- 
ship both upon the commuters and upon the U.S. border cities in which 
they are employed. 

Also, the 50,000 commuters obtained their immigrant status on the 
good faith assurance that the United States would not change an ad- 
ministrative practice of 40 years standing. 

The studies that have been made conclude that if forced to choose 
between taking up permanent residence in the LTnited States or sur- 
rendering their 1-151 cards, an overwhelming proportion — as high as 
80 or 90 percent — would move to our side of the border. 

They would become residents of communities which for the most 
part are already in some economic distress and are ill-equipped to 
handle unanticipated massive demands for services. If the commuters 
and their families are to be relocated without seriously disrupting 
these border communities, provision must be made to insure the avail- 
ability of basic service such as housing, education, medical care, and 
family assistance. 

Consideration should also be given to a concerted industrial develop- 
ment program to bolster the economy of tlie border areas and expand 
employment opportunities for all of the residents of the Southwest. 

We recognize that the migrant agricultural worker is in an eco- 
nomically vulnerable position in the ITnited States. As I have sug- 
gested, this condition can be ameliorated by stabilizing the migrants' 
employment, improving their wages and living conditions, and by 
bringing them under the protection of our system of social legislation. 



I 



4207 

Ultimately, we must cope with the problems involved in helping 
these individuals and their families move out of the migrant streanJ 
iiiis task— whether it involves the Mexican commuter or the domestic 
agricultural worker— will be a substantial one that demands our best 
eltorts. Much remains to be done. In the Department of Labor, we have 
made a start in meeting our responsibilities in this important area 
or manpower policy. 

That concludes my statement. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your most useful 
analysis. 

As you observed, this committee has been increasingly concerned 
about^the border commuter problem. I think that situation is creating 
possibly the biggest source of new poverty in America today. 

I believe it is growing. I believe there are very few restraints at the 
border. I think its implications are national, and not local. I think, as 
you have observed, it results in reduced work opportunities, minimum 
living and working standards and conditions, and breeds a general 
violation of American social and economic legislation. It creates a de- 
pressed economic situation in southern Texas and California that re- 
minds one of a 1930*s depression scenario. 

This is a main source, a breeding point, so to speak, of migrant 
farmworkers. Even in Florida, because many of them move over there 
from south Texas in desperation. Meanwhile, we have these beginning 
manpower programs that you have testified about that are trying to 
solve the problem by encouraging the people to leave these border 
areas. Yet for each person who leaves, many new persons are pre- 
pared to enter, and do enter, from Mexico. 

Last year we maybe relocated 30 or 40 families out of the stream 
in one effort, and perhaps others in other efforts. Thousands of workers 
in the meantime are coming across from Mexico. A virtually inex- 
liaustable supply of unskilled, tragically impoverished, Mexican rural 
farmworkers that are coming into our already dejjressed border 
economies and labor markets just desperate for work. 

I do not see any reasonable effort underway by anyone today to meet 
this problem. 

First of all, I don't even think we know how many are coming across. 
Do you know, for example, how many green card holders there are 
in Mexico? 

Mr Weber. 50,000. 

Mr. Knebel. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is mak- 
ing a cumulative census of so-called commuters. Their definition of 
"commuter" is someone who crosses twice or more weekly. 

Senator Mondale. Now, how many total green card holders are 
there ? 

Mr. Knebel. There are approximately 3 million people in the United 
States who have 1-151 cards. 

Senator Mondale. How many of those are immigrants ? 

Mr. Weber. They would all be immigrants. 

Senator Mondale. Resident immigrants awaiting citizenship ? 



4208 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir. With respect to the group you are talking 
about along the border, it is estimated that about 50,000 cross on a 
regular basis. 

Senator Mondale. That is a daily commuter count ? 

Mr. Knebel. There is an additional estimate of approximately 5,000 
who cross to do seasonal f armwork. 

Senator Mondale. Only 5,000 ? 

Mr. Knebel. That is the count that has been made. 

Senator Mondale. What do you think of that count ? 

Mr. Knebel. I think they probably have not counted everyone. 

Senator Mondale. How close do you think it is ? 

Mr. Knebel. There is no way of making an accurate count. 

Senator Mondale. Who is supposed to count them ^ 

Mr. Weber. As they identify a person as maintaining a residence 
in Mexico and crossing, they mark his card so they have a cumulative 
count. 

Senator Mondale. Who does that ? 

Mr. Weber. INS. 

Sentaor Mondale. How many nonresident aliens holding green 
cards are there in Mexico, do we know 'i 

Mr. Weber. I don't know. 

Senator Mondale. Do we know^ how many green cards w^ere issued 
last year? 

Mr. Knebel. Very few. For Mexicans not too many. We could 
supply the figures for the record. 

Senator Mondale. I wonder if we have these figures. As you know 
green card status has a lot of significance, because if you give one 
green card to the head of the family, everyone in that family becomes 
eligible to enter the United States without a labor certification. Some 
of those Mexican American families make maximum use of the privi- 
lege, and some become relatives almost overnight. It is a very loose 
practice. 

Mr. Weber. We can get specific data on the number of immigration 
visas that were ofiered to Mexican nationals in the preceding year and 
this would be subject to the recent immigration law of the Western 
Hemisphere quota. 

Mr. Mittleman. Would these all be sixth ])ref erences ? 

Mr. Weber. There is no preference for Western Hemisphere. There 
is a preference system for the Eastern. 

Mr. Mittleman. Don't you have to give a labor certification? 

Mr, Weber. Yes, sir; but there is not the same system of prefer- 
ence that you have for the Eastern Hemisphere. 

Mr, Mittleman, Is the Labor Department certifying a shortage 
of lielp in agriculture? 

Mr. Weber. No, sir; it is my understanding that those are under 
so-called B and C lists. That is labor surplus areas. And only in a very 
rare case would we certify that. As you know w^e have these three lists. 

Mr. Mittleman. So, actually, if what you say is correct, no one has 
actually, no Mexican has actually gotten a visa on the premise he is 
going to come to this country and do agricultural work ? 



4209 

Mr. Weber. I cannot say no but undoubtedly that figure is very low, 
because these would be subject to the so-called availability test. We 
already have evidence of adverse effect. So, there might be a few rare 
cases involving particularly rare skills, but this is information we will 
be glad to provide for the record. 

Senator Mondale. Would you do that ? 

(The information subsequently supplied follows:) 

In 1969 and the first quarter of 1970, certifications were made for 297 persons 
with rare agricultural skills, for example, horse trainers, landscape gardeners, 
chicken sexers, and so forth. 

Mr. Weber. Most of our people are from Latin America. The largest 
occupational group, as you know, is made up of live-in maids and I 
am pleased to report that the number of certifications that we have 
made in that area has dropped precipitously. At one point, it was 
50 percent of our total labor certifications made in the Western 
Hemisphere were for live-in maids. 

Senator Mondale. I don't think we are one bit as effective in solving 
the farm problem as we are with maids. The Department of Labor is 
very actively involved in criticism of the Canadian problem, but I 
don't see the same effort down there. At least that is my impression of 
the problem. 

Let me turn to one other matter. 

I went down to a border crossing point one day at 4:30 in the 
morning, and just stood there. I nearly was arrested because they did 
not want anybody around with a camera, and I had one. They actually 
started checking credentials, which they were not doing when I first 
arrived. We had Mexicans backed up to Mexico City for about an 
hour. They came across by the thousands. 

Now, 40 percent of them at least were producing birth or baptismal 
certificates showing they are U.S. citizens. Now, would they be re- 
flected in our commuter figures ? Do you count U.S. citizens ? 

Mr. Weber. No. 

Senator Mondale. That is very interesting because I think most of 
those baptismal certificates were phony. Twenty-five-year olds ap- 
peared with brand new certificates. Very impressive. No one even 
looked at them. I think there are thousands of people coming across 
with certificates which obviously are not Government-sponsored cer- 
tificates, and which could be easily issued by a mock priest, or a priest 
who is trying to help. I am not complaining about the priests' role ; for 
the underlying problem is far more serious. 

I have complained to INS about this. If what I saw at that one 
border that one morning is correct, there must be hundreds and 
thousands of people crossing that border. 

Some of them are commuters coming over daily, and some of them 
coming over on a permanent basis, some with phony baptismal certifi- 
cates, but not many of them even reflected in any of our statistics 
because they are treated as U.S. citizens. 

Is anything being done about that, do you know ? 

Mr. Weber. I cannot respond to that, constructively. As you indi- 
cate that is within the responsibility of INS and Justice and it is the 



4210 

border patrol which carries out the surveillance. Mr. Knebel tells me 
that the estimate of U.S. citizens living in Mexico, who commute on a 
regular basis, is approximately 20,000. 

Senator Mondale. But the Labor Department has no responsibility 
and does not review that? 

Mr. Weber. No, sir. 

Senator Mondale. What about children coming across the border 
who might be working in violation of child labor laws. Does the 
Department of Labor have any responsibility for that? 

Mr. Knebel. I am not sure I understand the question, Senator. 

Senator Mondale. I saw many kids coming across the border, many 
of whom I think were 13 and 14 years of age. 

Mr. Knebel. If they were employed in violation of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, the child labor provision of Fair Labor Standards Act, 
certainly the Labor Department has responsibility for enforcing the 
law in the establishment where they would be employed. 

Senator Mondale, I saw a State employment service man enlisting 
workers at a shapeup point right at the Mexican border. I assumed he 
was paid for by the Department of Labor. Does he have any responsi- 
bility, when he is down there, to check into possible child labor 
violations ? 

Mr. Weber. I am sure, regardless of formal responsibility, he has a 
normal administrative and moral responsibility to not refer to em- 
ployment, somebody who is under age. And if he is doing it he is 
certainly guilty of complicity. 

Senator Mondale. It is my impression that w^e will never end the 
curse of a stream of migrant w^orkers as long as this hemorrhage exists 
alon^ the Mexican border. I don't think there are any meaningful 
restrictions there today. I think it is the cruelest institution and 
phenomena in America today. 

In all fairness to all of the Federal agencies, I don't think any 
of them give a damn. It is getting worse, not getting better, and 
the damage caused by that one phenomena exceeds by 1,000 percent 
anything that we are doing to try to correct the problem from the 
other end. 

This is a long-standing phenomena, not to be visited solely upon 
the present administration. We are all to blame; but I wish we could 
come up with a strong program to deal with this problem. Until we 
do, I think the daily tragedies visited upon those people is just beyond 
human description. 

Mr. Weber. There are two aspects of the problem. I cannot say 
that I agree that the situation has improved so much. It has not im- 
proved so much. Secretary Wirtz went with Public Law 78. We used 
to have 400,000 braceros coming into this country. That stopped as 
a formal matter. There is the whole additional question that Senator 
Murphy raised of how many illegals are coming in and how you 
deal with this problem. 

Undoubtedly it is a problem. Essentially, it is a question of enforce- 
ment — enforcement by the INS and border patrol. With respect to 
our capacity to enforce wage and hour laws. I am sure if you had Mr. 



4211 

Moran, Wage and Hour Administrator, before you, he would tell 
a plaintive tale about deficiencies in personnel. 

I concede that with respect to the commuter problem, there are 
certain conflicting equities and a policy has not been established or 
formulated. Senator Muskie has introduced a bill and so has Senator 
Kennedy, and I have cosponsored both bills and introduced one 
myself. I understand that these bills are pending, but substantial 
formal steps have been taken in other problem areas which required 
only the administrative will to carry them out. We think we have 
done this with respect to live-in maids to some extent. 

Senator Mondale. The Department of Justice helped to develop a 
policy for marihuana, but no one is even helping the poorest of all. 
I am not being critical of any specific individuals. I think there has 
been a lack of attention in all administrations, and by all agencies, 
including the legislative branch. 

Here we have had these troubled discussions about the plight of the 
migrant, and at the same time that we search for ameliorative pro- 
grams, we are refueling institutions, and perpetuating a situation that 
by any standard is just getting worse. 

We stopped the braceros program, and now we let persons in with 
baptismal certificates. I bet the makers of baptismal certificates are 
in the millions. Why be illegal when all you need is one of these pieces 
of paper. There is nothing to it. I complained of this to the INS a 
year ago, and the only thing INS has done since is block me at the 
border when I went across for a meal one night. They looked at 
every bag I had. They knew who I was. 

But the tragedy is that no one cares about what is happening to the 
human beings. They know about it, and they just don't care. 

Today we found out that the victims, the migrant farmworkers, are 
not even being counted. 

Once again, I just don't sense any urgency. 

One final question, do you have any advisory boards that work 
with State employment security agencies? Are there any migrants 
on any of those advisory boards ? 

Mr. Weber. The one particularly in issue is the one in California 
and the regulations provide for labor repi-esentation. I understand that 
the present arrangement with respect to that advisory board is un- 
satisfactory in terms of our regulations. This was one of the issues 
laised in the petition presented to the Secretary last month and will 
be the basis for discussions between the Federal agency, California and 
the other parties to the suit. 

Senator Mondale. Wouldn't it be a good idea if the Department 
of Labor would establish an advisory council with actual migrants on 
it to suggest ideas for the development and implementation of policies 
and programs affecting their lives? Would not that be a good idea? 

Mr. Weber. I think that as a matter of procedure the Department 
should be responsive to the petition and interests of groups affected by 
particular programs. With respect to the form that would take — 
a particular migrant worker or representative of a particular labor 
or social welfare organization — I don't think I can make a specific 
judgement at this time. 



4212 

Senator Mondale. Wouldn't it be fair to say of all the problems 
that we face in the farm labor market, perhaps the most severe, or 
as severe as any other, is the plight of the migrant, with all the special 
language problems, cultural problems, instability problems, interstate 
problems, the fact that most social and economic legislation does not 
extend to them, the lack of any kind of political machinery, and the 
sorts of things you testified to in your statement — wouldn't it be well 
to have some input from those w^ho have to live that life and are 
living it ? 

Wouldn't we all be better off ? We have heard testimony about the 
migrants plight. You have heard it, too. There are all kinds of examples 
in the law suit filed in California about migrants being told in farm 
labor offices that they are going to make big money in, say Illinois, 
or Minnesota. 

They come back broke. Educational television last year filmed a 
documentary. They actually followed a crew" from Arkansas to Long 
Island, New York. We heard, and we saw, the pitch of the crew 
leader that employees were going to make a lot of dough and be 
able to send it back for Christmas. 

They all ended up broke ; and the working conditions, the housing, 
everything, was terrible. I don't think it is possible for any of us to 
understand that. I think the migrants themselves can tell us more 
about that than the experts. I think the test of our system rests upon 
how it works out in their lives. 

Finally, of course, there is just simple decency. Just the fact that 
most depressed people in American life are not even consulted must 
be corrected. They cannot send in a petition. They are not eligible to 
vote. Most of them cannot even speak the English language. There 
are high levels of illiteracy. They have no money, no steady employ- 
ment despite their search for work that takes them around the coun- 
try. They are just totally impotent — economically and politically 
powerless. 

Wouldn't it be well to just go an extra mile with them, and let them 
be heard on a consistent basis ? 

Mr. Weber. I guess I have three general answers to make. One, 
nobody can quarrel w^ith your broad overview. I think probably that 
reflects the substance of the situation as it exists. I think it is important 
to note — and that is what my statement tried to point out — that in 
many ways it is not a matter of willfulness by somebody setting out 
consciously to exploit them, but, rather, they operate in a market situa- 
tion which has great potential for these sorts of excesses and abuses. 

So, they do not have the same economic status, the same economic 
mechanisms and earning ability that the broad range of workers 
enjoy. 

This is compounded by the fact, as you correctly indicate, that they 
often lack political leverage and institutions. 

The administration in two very significant ways has tried to say 
we are going to enable you to tap into the system. The UI benefits 
were 

Senator Mondale. I applaud you for your position. You used it 
effectively. 



4213 

Mr. Weber. Through the UI amendments, we are saying to the 
migrants, in effect, "if you can't get into the institution, we will move 
the institution over to you and it will create a whole new set of incen- 
tives on the part of the employers to regularize employment." 

Secondly, the Secretary, testifying before this committee in May, 
made a recommendation with respect to extension of collective bar- 
gaining which deals in part with market problems but also the gen- 
eral problem of broad power. 

So, the administration has made some constructive suggestions in 
this direction. Beyond that, you asked where we should put our dollars. 
The migrants are disadvantaged. On the other hand. Congress, through 
the appropriation process and legislative process, has said that our 
mandate lies with some group that we now call disadvantaged. 

There are approximately 11 million disadvantaged in this Nation. 
A large number of them live in urban ghettos and we are trying to 
emphasize and direct our program toward that segment of the popu- 
lation. I think it is probably true, not specifically with respect to the 
migrant worker alone, but with respect to rural problems in general 
that there has been some pragmatic imbalance which overlooks the 
fact that there are a lot of |X)or people in rural areas : some are mi- 
grants and some are living in tar paper shacks in one place. 

Let me cite a particular set of statistics. We have a concerted service 
program — an interdepartmental program to aid some of these rural 
areas in a couple of counties in Minnesota. The averages age in some of 
the counties is 64. That is an incredible fact. The average age is 64. A 
study of New York City graduates indicates that 95 percent of those 
who graduate high school leave those rural areas. Now, there is pov- 
erty there and many of the problems that manifest themselves in the 
city are really rural problems. 

These problems are just showing up at the receiving end. Making 
a system to deal with urban problems work is difficult, but you look at 
the rural problem and it is really a tough nut to crack. This certainly 
includes the migrant worker problem. 

Where, for example, are you going to put a training center? We 
have experimental training centers operating in an old Job Corps 
building, on an Air Force base, and on an Indian reservation. 

They are not doing the job. How you provide service is still another 
problem. So, I would say that migrant workers have special problems. 
We are trying to be aware of them. I think, overall, we try and put 
numerical weights on our responsibilities to these problems. 

There are 11 million disadvantaged and 275,000 migatory workers. 
We are doing a fair amount, I think, and we do have a commitment. I 
think we are listening to them. We listened to Mr. Chavez and his 
representatives at some length at hearings in California with respect 
to a determination involving use of green cards. 

If we do not listen, apparently there are the courts and they are 
being used by such groups as the California Rural Legal Assistance 
organization. Obviously, from a bureaucratic point of view, we are 
going to be irritated by this but from an operating point of view, we 
are going to benefit. We told that to the California agency and indi- 

36-513 O— 71— pt. 7-A 12 



4214 

cated that we should not look at this as a bargaining situation, but in 
terms of the details which those groups presented to which we should 
be sensitive. 

So, there are a lot of ways of getting input and I assume these hear- 
ings will be a constructive step m that direction. 

Senator Mondale. We have tried to expand these service programs, 
including rural legal service programs. There is no such program in 
southern Texas and we need an expansion of those programs. I think 
they underscore the powerlessness of these people, and this is a way 
to get visibility. But would it really hurt to have a small amount of 
money set aside to bring a few of those migrants in, and go over these 
programs with them, and let them talk directly to the Department? 

Mr. Weber. Steps like that are feasible 

Senator Mondale. I don't think it would cost a lot. This town is 
loaded with advisory committees, they seem to meet all the time. If we 
let a little money slip into the hands of some migrants to do some 
advising, it would not hurt anjdihing, would it? 

Mr. Weber. We do, for example, fund an organization called SER — 
Service, Employment, and Redevelopment. It is a Mexican-Ameri- 
can group representing 12 or 13 organizations, approximately. They 
presumably reflect the interest of their constituents. In a sense, I guess, 
I might take a little issue with you. If you look back upon the history of 
the migratory labor problem, there has been a study almost every 3 
years beginnmg with "Grapes of Wrath" as well as a series of Presi- 
dential commissions on the problem. 

People are aware of the problem. I think it is important to continue 
to look at it and assess the impact of mechanization on the problem. 
The important thing is to develop the administrative resources to deal 
with the problem in a constructive way and to resolve some of these 
outstanding policy issues that are before us, such as the green card 
problem. There is a problem of enforcement. 

Senator Mondale. The Department of Agriculture testified that 
this is the first year in history that they have ever even projected 
future unemployment and job loss trends. Never have they done this 
before. 

Mr. Weber. Let it be said that the Department of Labor has funded 
numerous research studies dealing with projections for labor demands 
in specific areas and specific crops. 

Senator Mondale. Have you made projections in each of these 
areas ? 

Mr. Weber. Yes, sir ; we have. For example, various issues of Farm 
Labor Developments deal with problems of mechanization. 

Senator Mondale. Do you have a similar projection for labor supply 
in America? 

Mr. Weber. Not that I am aware of. Of course, the real problem in 
economic terms is there. It used to be something called Say's law, 
which says demand generates its own supply. That is probably a 
statement of facts in farm labor, but that does not deal with the ques- 
tion of declining demand — what happens to the people who would 
normally turn to this occupation ? 



4215 

Senator Mondale. Particularly where you have this manpower 
coming across the border, for entirely different reasons. 

I appreciate your contribution here today and I am grateful to you. 

I order printed at this point in the record the interrogatories that 
the subcommittee submitted to the Department of Agriculture and the 
Department of Labor, and their respective responses thereto, in addi- 
tion to a list of all publications submitted and several excerpts from 
those publications. 

(The material referred to follows:) 



QUESTIONS POSED BY THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATORY LABOR 
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 
CONCERNING MIGRATORY FARMWORKER MANPOWER AND ECONOMIC ISSUES 



(The. following qiestions and requests are presented simultaneously 
to both the Department of Labor and the Department of Agriculture. 
Answers to these questions will be considered in conjunction with Sub- 
coiimittee hearings on Migrant Manpower--A Study in Economic Power lessness . 
The purposes, scope, and intentions of these hearings are outlined in the 
attached Staff Paper.) 

To avoid duplication of response when data alone are requested, the 
Subcommittee recognizes that one Department may defer to the other. However, 
if and when one Department so defers to another Department, the Subcommittee 
requests that reasons for such deferrence be specifically stated. Addition- 
ally, for all questions or requests involving anything other than the sub- 
mission of data and statistics, the Subcommittee requests the responses of 
both Departments. Similarly, when requested data is not available, the 
Subcommittee requests that each Department comment on the reasons for the 
unavailability of such data. 



4216 



DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 



Do we know how many migratory farmwork(;rs , and working and non-working 
dependents and relatives, there are in this country? 

a. What is the current standard for determining whether a worker is 
to be considered a migrant farmworker? 

b. Are all data relating to migratory farmworkers, and working and 
non-working dependents and relatives, based on these definitions? 

If so, what are the reasons for choosing these particular definitions' 
If not, what other definitions are used? What are the reasons for 
using each such definition? 



2. For each of the last 10 years, and in 1930, 1940, 1950, and 1955, and 
for future years where projections have been made, please answer the 
following: (For each figure give.i, please specify the definition of 
mlgrancy used, the source of the data, and indicate measures of statis- 
tical reliability. If no data are available, please explain why.) 

a. How many migratory farmworkers have there been (will there be) in 
this country? Please indicate foreign nationals separately. 

b. How many have done (will do) only migratory farmwork? 

c. How many, and to what degree, have (will) migrant workers been (be) 
employed outside of agriculture? What other kind of jobs have been 
(will be) performed by these workers? 

3. What are the current sources of demographic data for the migratory farm 
working force? Specifically, can we classify and cross-classify this 
group by age, sex, marital status, educational level, school drop-out 
rate, English language proficiency, skill level, family size, ciiildren's 
school status, other household members (by number, occupation, time 
devoted), parents' occupation, and place of residence (by size, geographic 
location, industrial concentration, frequency of permanent change per 
year, and unemployment -underemployment -subemployment level)? (This list 
is not to be considered inclusive. If other personal characteristics and 
da^a can be Identified, please state them.) 

a. Please supply us with as much such detailed demographic data as you 
have for the most current period as well as for each of the last 10 
years, and in 1930, 1940, 1950, and 1955. Please explain fully the 
definitions and changes in definitions during the time periods on 
which the data are based. Please explain also the sources for such 
data and comment fully on their statistical reliability and inherent 
shortcomings, if any. 



4217 



b. If data on any or all of cne above-mentioned demographic data 

and personal characteristics are not available, please explain why. 

c. Please supply us with any analyses of changes in the demographic 
composition of the migratory farm labor force over the last 10 years, 
and projections for future change (including all assumptions on 
which the projections are based) which you possess. 

d. If no analyses of change and/or projections have been made, please 
explain why. 



II. The Subcommittee's investigation of migrant farmworker manpower and 
economic problems by definition encompasses an analysis of present 
and projected earnings and employment data. The following 12 aspects 
of earnings and employment are under consideration (the list is not 
to be considered as inclusive, and any additions are welcomed). 

(1). Level of earnings of all jobs for individuals and families, by 
type of earnings (hourly, piece rate, salary), and by type of 
employment (agricultural, agriculture-related, non-agricultural, 
as well as for various types of employment within agriculture); 

(2). Geographic location of earnings specified in (1); 

(3). Value and amount of withholdings associated with earnings 
specified in (1); 

(4). Value and nature of perquisites associated with earnings specified 
in (1); 

(5). Additional income, and sources for such income, associated with 
earnings specified in (1); 

(6). Comparable data ((1) through (5) above) for nonmigratory workers 
similarly employed; 

(7). The number of jobs in agriculture per year by number, type, 
duration, location, specific crop, and dates; 

(8). The number of jobs outside of agriculture performed by migratory 
workers per year by number, type, duration, location, and dates; 

(9). Jobs outside of agriculture which might be performed l^y migratory 
farmworkers and members of their household by location, type, wage 
level, part-time/full-time status, regular or seasonal basis, and 
dates available; 

(10). Hours of work per day per job (agricultural and non-agricultural 

jobs) performed by migratory farmworkers, including annual average 
and range of hours per job (average hours per day, range of hours 
per day over the life of each job) ; 

- 2 - 



4218 



(11). Annual unemployment and not-in-the-labor force status of 

migratory farmworkers as individuals and as family units by 
frequency, duration, location, dates, amount and wage level 
of part-time work, available, and sources of additional income; 
and, 

(12). Degree of employment (frequency, duration, location, dates) of 
migratory farmworkers as individuals and families in part-time 
work when full-time work is desired, in full-time work yielding 
earnings below the poverty level, and in full-time work below 
worker capacity. 

4. Please supply the following information: 

a. Do there exist data series which reflect on the above 12 aspects of 
migratory farmworker earnings and employment? If so, specifically 
name each series. Please explain data acquisition and compilation 
techniques, and indicate the name of the person responsible for 
acquisition, compilation, and analysis of each series, and indicate 
the length of time-series data now available. 

b. Please supply us with annual data (from "a") for the last 10 years 
and for 1930, 1940, 1950, and 1955. 

c. Have cross-sectional studies been conducted which reflect on the 
above 12 aspects of migrant farmworker earnings and employment? 

If so, specifically name each series. Please explain data acquisition 
and compilation techniques, and indicate the name of the person 
responsible for acquisition, compilation, and analysis of each 
series, and indicate the length of time-series data now available. 

d. Please supply us with annual data (from "c") for the last 10 years, 
and in 1930, 1940, 1950, and 1955. 

e. If no data are available on any one or more of the particular aspects 
of migratory farmworkers' earnings and employment, please indicate 

if such data are available for other groups within this Nation's 
labor force, and why no such data exists for migratory farmworkers. 

f. Please supply any projections for the future regarding any available 
data on any one or more of the 12 aspects. 

III. SOME POSSIBLE CAUSES OF FARMWORKER ECONOMIC AND MANPOWER PROBLEMS 

5. The Subcommittee held hearings on May 21 and 22, 1969, on the Border 
Commuter Labor Problem. The record documents that persons regularly 
cross from Mexico into the U.S., either as holders of so-called green 

- 3 - 



4219 



cards, visitors permits, or birth and baptismal certificates. Others 
cross illegally. In the opinion of your Department, does this border 
situation contribute to the redundancy of the farm labor supply, and/or 
depress living and working conditions along border areas, and/or increase 
the need for United States residents along the border to migrate north 
in search of better paying jobs, and/or cause a depressing impact on 
the entire National farm labor, rural, and/or urban economy? If so, 
please explain why in detail, and please subrtit all reports, analyses, 
and documentation in support of your position. If not, please submit 
documented evidence of why the border situation is not a source of the 
economic and manpower problems outlined above. 



With Regard to Farm Labor Market Information: 

6. Please explain fully the process by which data on the demand for 
migratory farmworkers is collected, compiled, analyzed, and disseminated 
to the migratory farm labor force. 

7. Please explain the process by which information is disseminated to 
farmers and others outside the channels of governmental agencies. 

8. How are employers contacted, and by what government agencies, and with 
what (number)staf f , and with what 1969 budget, to solicit requests for 
migratory farm and farm-related labor? 

9. With regard to the geographic, cultural, and economic relationships 
between those collecting labor market information, farmers and growers, 
and farmworkers : 

a. Please submit either a map, or appropriate document showing the 
number of Federal, State and local government employees, by State 
and County geographic location, that are responsible for collecting, 
compiling, analyzing, and disseminating farm labor market information. 

b. What is the total number of employees in your department whose work 
is directly related to collecting, compiling, analyzing, and 
disseminating farm labor market information? How many of these 
are Mexican-American? Women? Negro? Bi-lingual in Spanish and 
English? How many of the total are presently, or formerly, migrant 
farmworkers? How many of the total are presently, or formerly, 
farmers or growers? 

10. What specific job information is sought and collected? Please explain 
in detail. 

- 4 - 



4220 



11. 



17. 



What steps, if any, are taken to verify the accuracy of this information 
Please explain in detail. 



a. Do present rules and regulations provide for information and 
complaint procedures if inaccurate market information is conveyed? 
If there is no verification of accuracy, please explain why not. 

b. How, if at all, is the accuracy of information disseminated cross- 
checked with the initial requests for labor? 

12. How is information about job demand transmitted to the labor supply by 
what agencies, with what (number) staff, and with what 1969 budget?' 
What is the time relationship between requests and final information 
dissemination? As time may be of the essence in disseminating demand 
information, what steps are implemented to obtain the fastest possible 
dissemination? 

13. What is the role of private individuals within the government -sponsored 
information dissemination program (i.e., what parts of the program are 
carried out by non -government employees)? Please explain these rela- 
tionships. 

14. At what governmental level (local, state, regional, national) is the 
dissemination of labor market information controlled? In the face of 
local, state, and regional competition for migratory farm labor, explain 
fully the criteria and decision-making practices followed in the alloca- 
tion of labor between competing areas. Also, please submit all government 
rules and regulations concerning this matter. 

15. What is the annual cost of the government's regulation of, and participatio. 
in, information dissemination? What is the cost to the states? 

16. What is the extent of information dissemination occurring outside the 
province of government regulation? Please submit estimates of such 
activity, and the basis for such estimates. Are there any criteria 
established (financial or otherwise) to regulate information dissemination 
by private individuals? Can regulation of information dissemination be 
justified in a free enterprise economy? Please comment. 



Has the impact of a possible government withdrawal from the regulation 
and participation of market information on the migratory farm labor 
force been estimated? If so, please supply all data relevant to this 
estimation. If not, why has there never been an analysis of the 
government's role in this area? 



5 - 



4221 



With Regard to Barriers to Job Mobility: 

18. Please supply the Subconmiittee with all existing data reflecting the 
degree, extent, nature, and characteristics of intra- and inter -market 
mobility of migratory farmworkers. 

19. For each of the following facets of mobility within the farm labor 
market and between the farm and nonfarm labor markets, please indicate 
all the available data (including collection techniques and statistical 
reliability), and please supply such data. If no such data is 
available, please explain why. 




kers 



b. Intergenerational occupational mobility - extent by demographic 
characteristics with comparable labor market data for other 
workers (see "a" above). 

c. Job mobility - extent by demographic characteristics with comparable 
labor market data for other workers (see "a" above), and change in 
extent and nature of job mobility over preceeding 10 years. 

d. Geographic mobility - extent by demographic characteristics with 
comparable labor market data for other workers, for changes in 
permanent residence and temporary changes in residence, all cross- 
sectionally as well as over time (see "a" above). Include data on 
inter- and intra- state mobility. 

e. Future mobility projections - extent by demographic characteristics 
with comparable labor market data for other workers (see "a" above). 

Have studies been conducted to determine those factors which influence 
occupational, job, and geographic mobility patterns, and rate, of 
r.igratory farmworkers? If so, please supply these studies and the data 
on which results are based. If no studies are available, please explain 
why not. 

Have studies been conducted to determine the socio-economic status of 
migratory farmworkers relative to other labor market groups, changes 
in socio-economic status over time, and factors influencing socio-economic 
status of migratory farmworkers? If so, please supply studies and data 
on which results are based. If no studies are available, please explain 
why not. - 6 - 



4222 



22. Have studies been conducted to determine the specific roles of educa- 
tion, language, culture, racial discrimination, and labor market 
information in influencing mobility (of all types) of migratory farm 
workers. If so, please supply studies and data on wliich results are 
based. If not, please explain why no such studies have been made. 

23. Since there exist migrant relocation and retraining programs, do com- 
prehensive evaluations of these programs exist? If so, please supply 
these evaluations. If no such evaluations have been made, please 
explain why not. 

24. Have evaluations of different State and Federal, agency and department, 
programs and program components been combined and analyzed as a whole? 
If so, please supply all such overall evaluations. If no such overall 
evaluations have been undertaken, please explain why not. 

With Regard to Worker and Employer Attitudes: 

25. Have data been gathered and studies made which would indicate the 
nature of the work attitudes of migratory farmworkers relative to 
other workers in the economy? Do longitudinal data exist showing 
changes in these attitudes? Have the causes of these attitudes been 
explored? Please supply us with all such studies and data if they 
exist. If no such studies have been made, please explain why not. 

26. Have investigations been made of employer hiring and employment policies 
for migratory farmworkers as compared with nonmigrant workers specifically 
with respect to discrimination on the basis of race, language, age, 

place of residence, sex, and migrancy status? If so, please supply us 
with all relevant studies. If no such studies have been made, please 
explain why not. 

With Regard to the Nature of Demand: 

27. What efforts have been made to describe the exact nature of the demand 
for migratory farmworkers (for example, in terms of requisite skills 
and abilities, job components, etc.)? 

a. Please supply data which reflects as accurately as possible the 
current nature of the demand for migratory farmworkers and the 
behavior of that demand over the preceeding 10 years, and in 1930, 
1940, 1950, and 1955, as well as demand projected into the future. 

b. Please include data to describe the source of the demand (i.e., 
including but limited to employers by size, crops involved, geographic^ 
location, degree of nonagricultural interests, etc.). 

c. If such information is not available, specifically explain why ttiis 
is so. 



4223 



28. What has been the behavior of labor productivity (especially related 
to the introduction of technological advances) in agriculture (and 
specifically in those agricultural sectors using migratory farmworkers) 
over the past 10 years, and in 1930, 1940, 1950, and 1955? What will 
be future behavior? What has been, and what will be, the behavior of 
migratory farmworker earnings over these time periods? Please supply 

all data relevant to these determinations. If no such data are available, 
please explain why not. 

29. What has been the relationship between the productivity of migratory 
farmworkers and their level of earnings in agriculture compared with 
productivity and earnings of nonmigratory agricultural and non-agricul- 
tural workers over the preceeding 10 years, and in 1930, 1940, 1950, 
and 1955? What will be the relationships in the future? Please supply 
all data bearing on these questions. If no data are available, please 
explain why not. 

30. Please indicate the amount of money (direct and indirect - sources and 
recipients) expended annually to improve agricultural technology - 
currently and over the preceeding 10 years. What are projected expen- 
ditures for future years? 

31. Please indicate amount of money spent: (direct and indirect - sources 
and recipients) to reduce output of agriculture, and/or support agri- 
cultural prices - currently and annuilly over the preceeding 10 years. 
What will be the extent and nature of future expenditures? 

32. Please indicate sum spent (direct and indirect - sources and recipients) 
currently, annually over the preceeding 10 years, and projected future 
expenditures, to reduce labor supply in agriculture, and especially in 
migrant agriculture, necessitated by efforts to relatively decrease the 
demand for agricultural labor. Please supply all data on whicti figures 
are based. 



Please indicate measures of relative effectiveness of monies spent to 
cb?.nge the nature of the demand for agricultural (and migratory agricul- 
tural) labor compared with monies spent to change labor supply. Please 
supply all data on which these measures are based. If no data are 
available, please explain why not. 



4224 



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 
WASHINGTON 



App 1 A 1970 

Honorable Walter F. Mondale ^^ 

United States Senate 
Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Senator Mondale: • ' . 



K^ : 



We are enclosing replies to the questions accompanying your 
letter of March 3, 1970, regarding the demographic charac- 
teristics of migratory workers, manpower and economic 
problems, sources of data on migratory labor employment auad 
earnings, factors related to mobility, and other related 
matters , 

You will note that we have coordinated with the Department 
of Agriculture. In scane cases our replies supplement those 
of USDA., and in other cases we have omitted responses since 
the questions were more appropriately answered by the USDA. 

We hope this information will be useful to the Senate 
Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. We will, of course, be 
happy to provide copies of studies or other materials as 
needed. 

Sincerely, 



Secretary of Labor 
Enclosure 



4225 



DEPARTMENT OF AGRlCULToRi 
WASHINGTON. D C ?0250 



Honorable Walter F. Mondale 
Chairman, Subcoiiimittee on Migratory- 
Labor 
United States Senate 
Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Mondale: 

The enclosed material is in response to your request of March 3, 1970 
on problems of migrant farm workers. 

We have answered your specific questions as completely as we can. 
I apologize for the mass of detail, but it appears to be necessary 
to be responsive to the questions. 

I plan to appear before your Committee on April 14 to discuss these 
issues. 

Sincerely, 



y^ Jaj^Aiuk^ 



Enclosures 



4226 



U.S. DEP.4itTMSNT Or' LaBOR 
REPLIES TO QUESTIONS P0S3D BY THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATORY LABO?. TO 
THE DEPARTt^OT OF AGRICULTU1-.E AND THE DEP.4R.T!-ENT OF LABOR CONCERNING 
MIGRATORY FARMivORKER MANPOWER AND ECONOMG ISSUES 

I. DEi.lOGmPHIC DATA 

1. DO VJE OJOT HOW VAM I-aClV.TO.'^Y FARJ.^.v'ORKEP.S , AND V.'ORKIKG AIJD NON- 
WOKICING DEPEt.T)EKTS /d'lD RELM'iVES, TilERE ARE IN THIS COUIiTRY? ' 

a. WHAT IS TJIE CURRENT STARTiAlUD FOR Dm'ERt'UNII^G V.'HETIIER A 
WORRvLR IS TO BE CONSIDER j;;D A MIGPxAIJT FAR;-W0RKi;R7 

(To be answered by USDA.) 

b. ARE ALL DATA RELATING TO MIGRATORY FMJ-^^.-JORKERS , AND WCRKIIJG 
Airo NON-V.'ORKIR'G DEPENDii.'TS AND RELATIVES, BASED ON THESE 
DEFINITIONS? IF SO, V.'HAT ARE THE REASONS FOR CHOOSING TliESE 
PAETICUIJ\R DEFINITIONS? IF NOl', V.'JfAT O'i'HER DEEINITIOrJS ARE 
USED? Wi-IAT ARE TJiE REASONS FOR USlf.'G EACH SUCH DEFINITION? 

The definition used in USDL reports is substantially the same 
as that used by USDA, namely, a domestic farmv;orker temporarily 
resident and employed in an area other than his normal area of 
residence. 

2. FOR EACH OF THE LAST 10 YEARS, ART) IN 1930, 19'+0, 1950 AND 1955, 
AND FOR FUTURE YSA);S V.'HERE p};OJECTIGNS HAVE BEEN MAJDE, PLEASE 
ANSV.'EPv THE FOLLOWING: (FOR EAOi FIGURIC GIVEN, PLl^iSE -SPECIFY THE 
DEFlirtTIOII OF I.n"GRA.T;CY USED, THE SOURCE OF THE DATA, ARTD INDICATE 
).1EASURES OF STATISTICAL RELIABILITY. IF NO DATA ARE AVAILABLE, 
PLEASE EXlliAIH WHY.) 

a. HOW MANY taCRATORY FARl-WORKERS H/vVE THERE BEEN (WILL THERE BE) 
IN THIS COUNTRY? PLEASE IIJDICATE FOREIGN NATIONALS SEPAPxATELY. 

The USDA is providing data from CuiTcnt Population Survey 
statistics on the nmr.ber of different individuals v;ho work as 
micratory farm \/orkers in tlie course of a year. The USDL 
maintains . statistics on inter-State, intra-State, and foreign 
micratory woikers by place of employment as part of its 
seasonal farm labor statistics. 



4227 



The following tv.'o tobies are included: 

1. Table 1. Annuol Peak E.Tiployrr.ent of Micrants and Foreign 
Workers in U. S, Acriculture, 191^8-1968 

2. Table 2. Foreign V'orkers Admitted for Temporary Employ- 
ment in U. S. Agriculture, by Year and Nationality, 
19'42-1969 

Source of these data are State Eriployment Service agencies. 
Reports are received during the active farm season from 26l 
delineated areas throu';hout the comitry. However, these 
reports do not represent nationv.-ide coverage in that they 
are only received if 500 or more seasonal workers or any 
foreign workers (legally admitted) are employed in the area. 
There are several delineated agricultiiral reporting areas 
in most States, but in smaller States, such as Delaware and 
Rhode Island, one area covers the entire State. Generally, 
two approaches are used in collecting these data. In some 
States, scientific sampling methods are used, while others 
largely rely on the informed Judgment of experienced farm 
labor service personnel based on such sources as operating 
records of interstate clearance, number of workers housed 
at migratory labor camps, size of crop, factors of labor 
use per imit of production, etc. Foreign-worker cmplojiiient 
is received from Manpov.'er Administration regional offices 
weekly, and is an exact count. Ko data are available on 
projected employment of migratory workers. 

b. HOW J4AWY HAVE DONE (V.'ILL DO) 0:«.Y J.1IGRAT0RY FARI^mORK? 

(To be ansv.-ered by USDA. ) 

C. HOW MMfY, AIvD TO \ni\T DEGREE, liAVE (WILL) MIGR/UvT WORKERS 
BEM (BE) EMPLOYED OUTSIDE OF AGRICULTURE? WH/vT OTHER KIIE) 
OF JOBS H/WE BEEI-; (WILL BE) PERFORl'ED BY THESE WORKERS? 

(To be answered by USDA.) 

- 2 - 



4228 



On 

o\ 

H 
I 

CO 

ir\ 
0\ 
H 



CO ^ 

+^ -P 

3 o 
■p 



<n 


xi 


+J 


■p 


cJ 


d 


03 


q 


^ 


>^ 


to 




»3« 




-p 




^ 




CO 


;m 


u 


d) 


o 


■S 



M 


,^3 


Vi 


+5 


OJ 


.c 




O 


7h 


^ 


o 




•— - 




1^ 




a 


^H 


•rl 


CJ 


0> 


fi 


U 
O 


1 


fa 





>H 



>>>>>5'>?« • 

+i-P-P+>4^r-|r-Jr-J Mr-fMM 

OOOOOhjt-3'-3<:'-3o;<^ 



888888888888 

CO rovo O OS f-l f)-* r-\ C> G\\r\ 
--t (y\cocQ Q d" iTN H ro cvi uA^ 

_:}• fO OI C3 O OD CX> 0\(X> VO VO VO 
H H H H H 






OOOOQQQQQOQO 

oooooooooooo 
owo -^vo^t^"^' ""^^ """^ ^°3 

fif^ OJ t— -d- r-l rovo oo t— VO Cn cm 
vo t— vo <JN cr\vo a:) co t— t— vo ir\ 
i-IHHHHHHHHHHH 



-p -p 4J , HJ JJ 4J 4J -p . . . 

rt Ph p, -p r^ p, p, p, p< HJ o q 

fl; lU ID O rj aj OJ 0) O (U ca 

a5 cn o'i o oj a) w 02 03 O w hj 



UAOO i/N-rf CM ^1- -d- 00 CJN H O ITS 
covo f- oo (VI l/^cO 0^^0 rn OWjO 
CO H vo ch o _t t— VO H l/^co vo 

-rf crTvo o" t~^ 1/^ 0.? ro CVI CM CO CO 
O) C3 _:r CM CM O On Cvl H H 
CM on CM OJ <-l H 



CO cTs o rH oi ro -rh u-wo ^-c^> cn 
uN lpnvo vn vo '-0 vo vo M5 vo vo vo 
ON CTv On (>> < A <.}\ iJ\ 0\ c:iN ON On on 

.H i-l r-l r-l i-l r-l rS r-) H H r-j .-{ 



3 - 



4229 



'SdhXo ;>« Fc-^^fri Mrr-^^'rvs /v''-'it-.^c-'.1 foa" 'J>^''^'if:>rf 7\n\(r:n?.y,i\i ?:i 

Biri.t.lcti 

3 65/.S^j 52,09!) ■' 13/.?!?^' ■ 

i^ 03, ?or> 62,1T0 19,622 

5 J2,900 h9Mh 19*391 

S 51,3^7 32,of*3 13>771 

T — 3o/rT5 19,632 3»T2^ 

i;,y I<U,916 35r3'^5 3»6'a 

; 112,765 101,000 n,765 

:i 76,525 ,67,500 6,22'y 

I »- 203,6^0 'h/\0?,,OOO 9,0hO 

'> 210,210 '"./i9T,loo , • Tj910 

3-^ 215,321 6/2>U,300 7pVil 



3»0h3T 6/309,033 h^roh 

1/393,650 

'•52,205 5/'^36,oli9 6,171 



)Vli,965 W393,650 6,6l6 

^59,050 2/Ji'i5,l97 , T/5<53 





■ (yc?'.*Mr'3 


CTanadiaa 


pna 




CiSi-piJi-^ 


Xti,\ . 




irui 




iM^^ 


'^ ' • ■ 


'1,055 




5.533 

7,hZL 






5,903 




3,000 


* ■■ 


a,Ooa 




2,600 




5,£00 




6,200 




T,ooo 




6,'coo 




6,700 


590 


T,30Q 


635 


6,900 
0^600 


. K05 


0,200 


G63 


8,600 


ko 


0,700 


IfOl* 


0,500 


S23 


. T,900 


S5 


k,Cro 





3,633 





3,900 • 





a„6oo 





S,300 






^iVr,513 1/'<32,C57 T. 

1959.. n55,'i20 ^t3T,6'!.3 0,TrS 

.-irjCxO " — 3:;;,T29 yx^.^tChS 9^C"0 

X961 — 31.0,375 ?)/29l,'!20 ■ 10/,315 

X9Cp.—^ 217,010 6/l9^,97;.5 ■ 12,923 

1963 2.:^9,2J.0 ?/l£i5,e65 12,930 

a96.'f_ . £00,022 6/l7T,'f36 l'^,36l 

1965——-*- 35,^371 eo^2'dJ^ lO/^T 

3.955 — ~.*— 23,52'v fi,6't7 U-fl?!^ 

.X957-~— «~ 23,603 SA*"-? 3.3,5'f3 

X963-~~«— 13,323 10^723 

l2G9-~— ~- 15,030 13*530 

' ■• 2/ !2hla 60S8 not Inelwla r,a£Mj.uo chcciJiartSars* 

BOTiivLly XCHU ibaa iXMik ccri^loy^jxrnt. . , ' • : 

^ ZrtCluico Eatendtuis. -••.-•.-•' 

^ Dr>ta !Cro:a IJ-Va throi'-H 19!f7 uors obtninud fr-sa ?Xis>5rt3 gTOj^sxaa by tfaS ■ 
tr.B, p^peurfc-.-iit c^f /LcriculLuiNj. 

• . • 5/ D,'it3 g'ro-j 5.9-»0 thr>:rar ■-» I969 voro cottpU^hI .frcri r.^^-ibilBtraU'va scjp-rtii 
^ t.hS5 l^iKSijK^t-cr? ACXiiixiotratlon, U.S. Dcrpartoinii 0:^ Lfil>cr» 

. . . A - 



-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 13 



4230 



\1]U\T A\iy. '.iiU.: CU.Ki^Ki-:'!' SOU}'.CES OF Dn:OGKAPi!JC ))ATA FOR TWK MIGRATORY 

FARM v;oRia.i;G fokck? specifically, cah v.'l c]/vSsify akd cross- 
classify TIMS GROUP BY AGE, S>;^, M/dilTAL STATUS, FDUCATIOML LEVEL, 
SCHOOL I^ROP-OUT R;\'j.'i; , EIJGLIS)! L/.i.'GUAGE J-nO/'ICIEl'lCY, SKILL LEVEL, 
FAMILY SiZK, CinLl).':'-.:i' S SCilOOL SO'ATUS, OTHER !I0U3E)I0L1) MEI.IBERS 
(BY LTI.'iJiCR, OCCUPAVICV-^, TIIIE J^KVOTED), PAKEi.'TS' OCCUPATION, AKT) 
PLACE OF J-^ESIDEnCE (Pi SIZE, GE&GR^.PHIC LOCATION, II.TUSTRIAL 
COlJCElJTRATIOIf, FREOUEflCY OF PEiiMAtJEu'T CHAKJE PER YE;V]<, AKD 

W'E^;PJ.0Y^:;^■i;T-UA•B>:RE^lPL0YMEOT-su}3i::MFL0Y^si;T level ) ? (this list 

IS KOT TO BE COIiSIDEivED liiCLUSlVE. IF OTHER PERSONAL Cjyj^C- ^ 
TERISTICS AirO DATA CAN BE IDENTII'IED, PLEASE STATE THEi.'i. ) 

a. PI.EASE SUPPLY US V7ITH AS WJCII SUCH Da.'AIIJn) DEt^OGRAPHIC DATA 
AS YOU HAVE FOR THE MOST CURRECT PERIOD AS WELL AS FOR EACH , 
OF THE LAST 10 Y.FAFS , AND IK I93O, 19'tO, 1950, and 1955- 
PLEASE F/.PLAIIJ FULLY THE DEFINITIONS A'lW CHANGES IN DEFINI- 
TIONS DURIi'G THE TBIE P.CRIODS ON V.'JIICH TliE DATA ARE BASED. 
PLEiiSE JXPLAIK /lLSO THE SOURCES FOR SUCH DATA AlvD COI.ri.ffiNT 
RJLLY Olf THEIR STATISTIC/iL RLT.IABILITY ANT) INIIEREN'T SHORT- 
COMINGS, IF A.NY. 

b. IF DATA ON MVi OR ALL OF THE ABO^/E-MEOTIONED DEMOGRAPHIC 
DATA A.1;D PERSONAL CHAR/vCTERISTICS ARE InOT AVAILABLE, PLEASE 
EXPLAIN WHY. 

C. PLEASE SUPPLY US WITH ANY AI^,\LYSES OF CHANGES IN THE DS^'iO- 
GRAPJIIC COMPOSITION OF TILE MIGRATORY FAK-I LABOR FORCE OYER 
THE WwST 10 YEARS, AIH) PRO.IECTIONS FOR FUTUl^vE CIMIGE 
(II.'CLUDII.'G ALL ASSUllPTIONS ON V/HICH THE PROJECTIONS AKE 
BASED) V.'HICH YOU POSSESS. 

d. IF NO AlWLYSES OF C]mi\'GE Al.Ti/OR PROJECTIONS MVE BEEN MADE, 
ELE/\SE E-IPLAIN VfflY. 



(To be answered by USDA. ) 



II. THE SUBCO;«K«TTEE'S IN\'ESTIGATION OF I'JGRANT FAHJ-WORICER fttllPOWER AND 
ECONOMIC PROBLE-'IS BY DEFINITION En'COMPASSES AN MALYSIS OF PRESEin? 
ANT) PROJjX'TI'D EA.RNINGS AND E:.1PL0YM;:;NT DATA. TilE FOLLOV.'IN'G 12 ASPECTS 
OF EARNIt.'GS /u;D EMn.O'ft.lEirr ARE UnTJER CONSIDEP/.TION' (THE LIST IS NOT 
TO BE CONSIDERED AS IN'CLUSIVE, MID MVi ADDITION'S ARE WELCOMED). 

(1) LE\^FJ. OF EARNINGS OF ALL JOBS FOR I!\'DIVIDa\LS AW FAMILIES, BY 
TYPE OF EfiRWINGS ('HOURLY, PIECE RATE, SALARY), MiU BY TYPE OF 
KMH.OYilEN'T (AGRICULTURy^L, AGRICULTUPi-RELATED, N0N-AGR1CULTUR/\L, 
AS WELL AS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF EI^PLOYt.IENT WITHIN AGRICULTURE); 



4231 



(2) GEQCllVJ-illC LOCATlOIv- OF KAiiJ-QKGS SP/X.TFIED IK' (l); 

(3) VP.vj^. pzm A?'.ou;rr of viituiioldikgs associ/vTed with farkikgs 

SPECIFIED IN (l); 

(if) VALUE AND NATimE OF PEP.QUJSITES ASSOCIATED WITJl EARNIEGS 
SPECIFIED IN (l); 

(5) y\DDITIO:;AL II:C0:.:E, AIID sources for such IliCOME, ASSOCIATED WITH^ 
E/iFJ,'INGS SPECIFIEJ; IK (l); 

(6) COMPARABLE DATA ((l) TIS^OUGH (5) ABOVE) FOR KOIMIGFJlTORY WORKERS 
SU"IILA}n.Y EMPLOYED; 

(7) THE KUI'SER OF JOBS IN AGRICULTURE PER YEAR BY NUMBER, TYPE, 
DURATION, LOCATIO;;, SPECIFIC CROP, AliD DATES; 

(8) THE I\'U>!BER OF JOBS OUTSIDE OF AGRICULTURE PERFORl-ED BY MIGRATORY 
WORKERS PER YL.M\ BY irU;-3ER, TYPE, Dmi'iTIO;:, LOCATION, AND DATES; 

(9) JOBS OUTSIDE OF AGRICL^LTURE WJilCH MIGHT T-E PEHFORf-ED BY MIGRA- 
TORY FAPJ.fM'ORiaORS Ai:0 MEV'-BERS OF THEIR HOUSEHOLD BY LOCATION, 
TYPE, V/AGE LEVJ-i, PART-TIl-S/nH.L-TE.E STATUS, REGUL/iR OR 
SE/vSOHAL BASIS, AND DATED AVAILABLE; 

(10) }JOURS OF WOPJC PER DAY PER JOB (AGRiCULlUR/iL AL'D NON-AGiaCUI.TURAI. 
JOBS) PEPJ^Or,MED BY MIGR/'.TORY FA K "■■WORKERS, INCLUDING AlaiU.AL 
AVEP\/.GE A]ID P^MIGE OF HOURS PER JOB (AVEK/\GE HOURS PER DAY, R/UJGE 
OF HOURS PER DAY OVER TilE LIJ^S OF FACH JOB); 

(11) MiNUAL Ui;E!PLO\in:NT A!.T) NOT-IN-THE-LAEOR FORCE STATUS OF MIGPJ'.- 
TORY FAlu^iVJORHiRS AS INDIVIDUALS AND AS F/-J.iILY UillTS BY FRE^DUEN'CY, 
DUPJ^TION', LOCATION', DATES, AMOUN'T AN'D WAGE LE'\'EL OF PART-TL'-iE 
WORIC AVAIL/J3LE, /U;D SOURCES OF ADDITlON/iL IN'COME; AI^JD, 

(12) DEGREE OF EI.^PLOY.'-rEKT (FREOU'jijNCY, DURATION, LOCATION, DATES) OF 
MIGRATORY FA}:i.KORKERS AS INT)IVIDU/aS /-.lU) FAMILIES IN PART-TIJ.'iE 
WORK V.'HEN FULL-TIMi: WORJC IS DESIPJilD, IN FULL-TLME WORK YIELDIN'G 
EARNINGS BELO',; THE POVERTY LETEL, AlO) IN FULL-TLME WORK BELOVJ 
WORKER CAPACITY. 

h. PLEASE SUPPLY TjIE FOLLOWING INTOraiATION: 

- 6 - 



4232 



a DO THERE KXIST DATA SERIES WHICH REFLECT ON MIGRATORY FARKVJORKER 
EARNINGS AND EMH,0YKENT7 IF GO, SPECIFICALLY NAfCE EACH SERIES. 
H.FASE EXPLAIN DATA ACqiHSITlON AND COMPIL/.TJON TECHNIQUES, AMD 
INDICATE THE NAf^ OF THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ACQUISITION, 
COMPILATION, Aim ANALYSIS OF EACH SERIES, AND INDICATE THE 
LENGTH OF TIME-SEKIES DATA NOW AVAILABLE. 

Data for migrant employment and waces for seasonal crop activi- 
ties are prepared on the In-Season Farm Labor Report (ES-223) ^ 
by State employment security agencies for major agricultural 
reporting areas. (See explanation under 2a.) Reports are sent 
to the national office of the Farm Labor and Rural Manpower 
Service where national summaries are made and published in 
Farm Labor Developments. This series, in its present form, 
was started in 1958. 

b. PLEASE SUPPLY US WITH ANNUAL DATA (FROM "a") FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS 
AND FOR 1930, l9'+0, 1950, AND 1955. 

(See answer to 2a.) 

c HAVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES BEEN CONDUCTED WHICH REFLECT ON THE 
ABOVE 12 ASPECTS OF MIGRANT FARMVJORKER EARNINGS AND EMPLOYMEOT? 
IF SO, SPECIFICALLY NAME EACH SERIES. PLEASE EXPLAIN DATA 
ACQUISITION AND COMPILATION TECHNIQUES, AND INDICATE THE NAME OF 
THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ACQUISITION, COMPILATION, AND ANALYSIS 
OF EACH SERIES, AND INDICATE THE LENGTH OF TH-E-SERIES DATA NOW 
AVAILABLE. 

d. PLEASE SUPPLY US WITH ANNUAL DATA (FROM "c") FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, 
AND IN 1930, I9HO, 1950, AND 1955- 

e. If NO DATA ARE AVAILABLE ON ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE PARTICULAR 
ASPECTS OF MIGRATORY FARMWORKERS' EARNINGS AND EMPLOYl-IENT , 
PLEASE INDICATE IF SUCH DATA ARE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER GROUPS 
WITHIN THIS NATION'S LABOR FORCE, AND WHY NO SUCH DATA EXIST 
FOR ICGRATORY FARMWORKERS. 

The BLS publishes monthly data on the employment and unemployment 
of the labor force, based on a household survey conducted by the 
Census Bureau. Another report on the experience of the labor 
force during the course of the preceding year is issued annually. 
These reports include data on agricultural as well as nonfarm 
workers, but "migratory" workers are not distinguished as a 
separate category because of technical and cost problems. BLS 
also publishes a monthly series on hours and earnings of non- 
agricultural production workers based on an establishment survey. 
A similar report for farm labor is issued by the Statistical 
Reporting Service of USDA. 

f . PLEASE SUPPLY ANY PROJECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE REGARDING ANY 
AVAILABLE DATA ON ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE 12 ASPECTS. 

(Questions Uc, Ud, and Uf to be answered by USDA.) 



4233 



SOME POSSIBLE CAUSES OF FARMWORKER ECONOMIC AND MANPOWER PROBLEMS 



THE SUBCOMMITTEE HELD HEARINGS ON MAY 21 AND 22, 1969, ON THE 
BORDER COMflUTER LABOR PROBLEM. THE RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT 
PERSONS REGULARLY CROSS FROM MEXICO INTO THE U. S., EITHER AS 
HOLDERS OF SO-CALLED GREEN CARDS, VISITORS PERMITS, OR BIRTH OR 
BAPl'ISaVL CERTIFJCATES. OTHERS CROSS ILLEGALLY. IN THE OPINION v 
OF YOUR DEPARTMENT, DOES THIS BORDER SITUATION CONTRIBUTE TO THE 
REDUNDANCY OF THE FARM LABOR SUPPLY, AND/OR DEPRESS LIVING AND 
■WORKING CONDITIONS ALONG BORDER AREAS, AND/OR INCREASE THE NEED 
FOR UNITED STATES RESIDENTS ALONG THE BORDER TO MIGRATE NORTH 
IN SE/\RCH OF BETTER PAYING JOBS, AND/OR CAUSE A DEPRESSING IM- * 
PACT ON THE ENTIRE NATION.U FARM LABOR, RURAL, AND/OR URBAN 
ECONOMY? IF SO, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY IN DETAIL, AND PLEASE SUBMIT 
ALL REPORTS, ANALYSES, AND DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF YOUR PO- 
SITION. IF NOT, PLEASE SUBMIT DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OF VfflY THE 
BORDER SITUATION IS NOT A SOURCE OF THE ECONOMIC AND MANPOWER 
PROBLEMS OUTLINED ABOVE. 

The Immigration and Natural izaUion Service had identified as of 
the end of February, 1970, 50,441 Mexican "green card" conunuters 
and 4,823 "green card" seasonal workers. Both of these groups 
of workers are legal immigrants to the United States who live in 
Mexico and work in the United States. The seasonal v7orkers cross 
the border relatively infrequently, v.'hercas the commuter crosses 
into the U.S. at least twice a week. The number of commuters is 
a cumulative, non-duplicated figure which has been developed since 
an INS survey in November and December of 1967, at which time all 
alien registration receipt cards (1-151) were picked up by the INS 
officials at the border crossing points for verification and grom- 
meting and then returned to the commuter. The additions to the 
number of commuters since the November"December 1967 survey have 
been made as additional alien registration receipt cards have been 
issued or noticed by the border guards and grommeted; deletions 
from the count have been made whenever the commuting status has 
changed for any reason. The number of Mexican seasonal workers 
has been kept in the same fashion since August, 1968. 

In addition to border crossers \iho work in the United States be- 
cause of their immigrant status, large numbers of Mexicans v;ork 
in the United States with improper documents. These include non- 
immigrant visitors with border crossing permits which do not 



4234 



permit them to take jobs in the U.S. and other illegal entrants 
who have no documents whatsoever. 

The total number of illegal entrants working in the United States 
is difficult to estimate. In FY 1968, 151,705 Mexican Nationals 
were apprehended for being in the United States illegally. Of ^ 
these, 25,943 acknowledged that they either had remained for a 
longer period of time than permitted or had accepted employment. 
While the number of apprehensions increases every year, so does 
the number of illegal entrants; a large proportion of the 
Illegals are believed to work in agriculture. 

The total number of daily commuters represents only 4 percent or 
so of the total border counties' labor force but a far larger 
percentage of the local labor force they enter. This can be 
seen in Tables 3 and 5. Mexican seasonal workers counted since 
August 1968, are shown as of December 1969, in Table 4. 

Effect on the Farm Labor Supply . Close to AO percent of all 
commuters identified in November -December , 1967, listed their 
occupations as farm workers. Approximately three-fifths of the 
commuter farm workers at that time entered California, and 
approximately one-fifth each entered Texas and Arizona. 

Studies in 1967 show that alien commuters have had relatively 
little adverse impact on the employment or wages of seasonal 
farm workers in Arizona because of a shortage of resident 
workers in the border agricultural areas. The situation in Cali- 
fornia in regard to employment is not as clear. In Imperial County, 
California, the number of farms has decreased and the number of 
farmworkers has been reduced by 50 percent since 1960. Between 1960 
and 1963, the decrease in farm employment was mainly among Mexican 
workers. After the phaseout of the bracero program, the rate of 
decrease in farm employment declined. The use of machine thinning 
and harvesting of the local agricultural crops has reduced labor 
requirements. To some extent, however, the increase in acreage 
over the past eight years has offset the displacement of hand labor 
by machines. Commuting agricultural workers have a significant 
impact in California on trade union organizing efforts, which are 
seriously hampered by their presence. 

- 9 - 



4235 



The border area of Texas is the home base for a very large part 
of the resident migrant agricultural work force, and the presence' 
of the alien commuters adds to an already surplus labor situation 
and contributes to the low wage rates and the high unemployment 
rates prevailing in the border areas of Texas. 

A factor contributing significantly to the farm labor supply in 
the Texas border area in particular but also in the California 
border area is the change which has occurred in both the type of 
agriculture which is practiced in those areas and technological 
progress in agriculture. The Department of Agriculture has esti- 
mated, for example, that changes in agriculture patterns in the 
Lower Ri o Grande Valley of Texas have resulted In an estimated 
AO to 60 percent reduction in farm employment opportunities over 
the past decade. In the Trans-Pecos area of Texas, which is the 
extreme western section of Texas south of New Mexico, the decline 
in employment opportunities is even more dramatic. The changes 
in production practices have replaced labor so effectively in 
cultural and harvesting operations for cash grain and cotton that 
a revival of employment opportunities cannot seriously be expected 
from this direction in any of the border areas of Texas. Even 
further expansion of these crops could not be expected to do much 
more than act as a soft brake on employment decline. Moreover, 
the change to cattle raising has also meant reduced labor require- 
ments. There is indication that future jobs in agriculture, though 
diminishing in number, will require workers skilled in the opera- 
tion and maintain ance of intricate machinery and knowledgeable 
sophisticated farm techniques. By and large, migrant farm workers, 
whether resident or non-resident, do not now have these skills. The 
unemployment rates in the border counties give an indication of 
the surplus labor situation which prevails over large seasons of 
every year. (See Table 5.) 

Living and Working Conditions Along Border Areas . The presence of 
large numbers of Mexican commuters has the effect of keeping average 
wages at or below the minimum wage levels in most border communities. 
This is due both to the labor surplus situation, which has created 
.a condition where workers have little bargaining power to improve 
their wages, and to the prevalence of low-wage employment opportuni- 
ties. Retail and wholesale trade, and the garment industry are 
major employers outside of agriculture, except in San Diego, where 
commuters generally have a smaller impact than elsewhere. 

- 10 - 



4236 



The border communities have very large concentrations of Mexican- 
Americans whose deficiencies in the English language limit their 
ability to take any but low-skill and low-paying jobs, while the 
children of Mexican and Mexican-American parents have very high 
school dropout rates for the same reason. 

Outmi.p.ration . The population of the border cities has been in- * 
creasing at a rate faster than that of the rest of the country, 
but because such large numbers of the people have migrated else- 
where in search of better economic and social opportunities, 
several border counties actually showed a population decline at 
the time of the 1960 census. (See Table 6.) The 1960 census pro- 
vides the most recent statistics available on outmigration . These 
data show that there was net outmigration in all but 7 of the 24 
border counties between 1950 and 1960, but because of high natural 
population increase, only 9 counties actually experienced a total 
population decline. Unofficial estimates for 1968 or later for 10 
of the most populated border counties confirm that outmigration 
is still a significant factor in all of them. Two Texas border 
counties, Hidalgo and Cameron, show estimated net population de- 
clines since 1960. Population increases in the two largest 
counties, San Diego and El Paso, are significantly lower than from 
1950-1960, indicating high rates of outmigration. Those who move 
out are generally young, have more education and less family de- 
pendency than those who stay behind. As a consequence, the border 
cities have a very large number of needy persons. 

Effect on National Economy . The effect of the outmigration of 
U. S. nationals from border counties on the economies of the 
cities of other parts of the Nation is harder to gauge. To the 
extent that the migrants do not have Job skills, have lower 
educational achievement than the residents of the areas to which 
they have moved, and have language problems, the migrants may 
very well add to the unemployment or underemployment problems of 
the receiving cities. 

In addition, the presence of commuting Mexican seasonal workers 
has the effect of depriving resident workers of farm labor Jobs 
in a farm labor market which has increasingly fewer Jobs to 
offer. 

- 11 - 



4237 



Tabic 3. 

XvOT-^f^rr.tJon r.rid Ktiturnli/.ntlpn Service 
Ccrunt of Green Cord COKnuters from Mexico nnd Kor.bo.* Uner;ployed 





D3ceril 


er 


1 Hovembt 


-T-Lcccnber 


Port of Fntry by State 
and County 


195s 


) 


1 


1967 


CoKriutcrBi/ 


Uncnploycd 


Computer s 


Unemployed 


Total Border Ports of Entry 


U9,770 




UO,176 




Texaa 


23,339 ' 




19,71"+ 




Brownsville (Cameron) 


2,U30 


2,770 


1,917 


2,000 


Del Rio (Val Verde) 


2O0 


n^ 


317 


500 


Eagle Pass (Maverick) 


2,089 


1,2.15 


1,635 


1,200 


El Paso (El Poco) 
Fabens (El Paso) 


13,'i93 
321 


■3,325 


11,760 
279 


U,200 


Fort ]lBncock (Hudspeth) 


5U 


r^ 


53 


. ^ 


Hidalgo 


l.OSl 


3,9^0 


937 


U,200 


Laredo (V.'cbb) 


3, '+56 


3.325 


2,669 


3,300 


Preoidio (Presidio) 


1+7 


H 


2h 


^ 


Procresso (Starr) 


.82 


H 


50 


M 


Roma (Starr) 


106 


3/ 


73 


3/ 


.New Mexico 


2i 


. 2/ 


" 12 


2/ 


Columbus (Luna) 


31 




30 




Arizona 


?,6U7 




5,l'+8 




Douglas (Cochise) 


j;22 


557 


380 


2/ 

U,100l/ 


L'Acville (Plia) 


1 


3,100 


— 


Naco (Cochise) 


113 


175lt/ 


9h 


^ 


Kogolcs (Santa Cruz) 


1,383 


1,118 


H 


Son Luis (Yuraa) 


3.616 


6695/ 


3,553 


w, 


Sasabe (Pima) 


7 


6/ 


3 


§J 


California 


£0,753 




15,28!t 




Andrade (irnporial) 


Ik 


(3,398 


3 


1;,900 


Calexico (li.:perial) 


8,979 


7,690 


Snn Ysidro (San Diego) 
Teccte (San Diego) 


11,697 
63 


jl6,300 


7,535 
56 


j 17, 300 



—' These figures are n curaulative non-dupliccted count oince KoveTnber-Decercber I967 
Of Mexican conmutera \^.o cross into the United Stateo at least twice v.-eek. 

^ Hot Availabla. ^ October I969. 



3/ 



-J Conblned vlth Lukcvllls. 
7/ 1967 annual average 



Combined v;ith Hidalgo. 
-' Combined vith DDuglas. 

EOUnCE: Iniraigration and IJnturalizntion Service, U.S. Department of Justice, and 
Manpower Adaini.'jtration, U.S. Department of Labor. 



12 



4238 



Tabic /( , 



Mexicp.n rjcp.r.o'.vil V'orV.orn 
Total an of m-cc;r,bor 31, 1969V 



Port of Entrj' by State Total Scf^eonal 

anci Co\ inty ^ VJorhors 

Total Border X^^rta of Entry k,6?Ii 



Texaa 1,638 

Brownsville (Caireron) - 60 

3>2l Kio (Vnl Verde) 26 

EaglG Pass (Kaverick) kQ^ 

El Paso (El Peso) 233 

liidalKO (Hidalgo) 19$ 

l^redo (Vebb) ' k2 

Presidio (Presidio) 5J1 

Piocreaco (Starr) 1 

Roma (Starr) _ . . 5I13 

New Mexico 2 

Coliimbus (Luiia) • ■ 2 

Arizona 83 

Douglas (cochlea) 5 

Kof/alea (Santa Cruz) 83 

California ' g^oQO 

Cnlcxico (Inperial) • ■ • 69U 

Livorviore I57 

San Ysidro (San Die£o) 5»0U9 



•-' An non-duplicated, cumulative count since Aucuot, I968, of hiexican 
' BCatsonal workers ■tJho ^.-ork on n coasonal basin in U.S. agriculture 
and reside in Mexico at the end of the season. 

SOURCE; Imnigratlon nnd I?aturalization Service, U.S. Dspartment of Justice, 

- J 3 - 



4239 






t— O (^ O m C\c:D rn O CJ i- 



CO t- CJ ( 



^ CTs OJ <^ Cv; CO m o ^ 0> ^/^ C CD CJ CNCO 

J r^.si c^ >- o c^ r4 :- cv -i.- o 'O rj vo to 



VD OJ u^co O 






t— CO VD CVJ ON 

CO 0\ rOMD ir\ 



o] VD <-T ^" rn t-^ CVJ 



OnVT) CO L^ CO 



• t-^ C^ r'i I-i vo 



v-^ ^o o L— vo CA CO CO CN o >- CO ^- CO -^ t— t— 

V fO .-.* ^ vo O-IVO E— M CO L^ CN^ CO VO O ^^ CN 



a) 0] oj 



o -^ c^.-^ o o r- -i*- i---) ^ cr\ CO u^ 
CJ o »o CO ca ^- o cov^ u-\ c\^ o 



\ C\ >- C\ rH I 



OT en OJ r^ O O f— - 

CJ \o \o c\ •-< ^- o ' 



-:? ---.* O oj vd 



V n :— -i- ,~i ^ o CO 



ir\ Q\:nen 



^.;^ c^ c vo vo t-^ OJ t-'- -- 



a\ ^-co o .-1 t 



'JD r^ — - OMr\ r-l CO OJ ro 



\ ,^ c\ CJ ^^ . 'j-N o ---" .•-- CJ CO o 'j-svo 






CO C\CO CO '-< O O CO i/N-.*- t— 
L'^cO O VO G^^ CN VN H ^0 O 



P P 



000 -'V CJ o C^ O 00 r-' o O E— -r ^-'^ CI a) O p Q 
O CJ O VD O O "-O _- O M l-^ CJ CNV3 .7\ OJ CO CJ :- CJ C^ 

.H t-^ t-^ 'JA o' ^0 L-\ ir\ a M co" m u-\ o\ t^ rn o v5-^^ <-■ 



c> <7N c\ CN <7\ c\ o (rN 



O VO VO ^O \£) 00 'O ^O "O VO VC O O V;J 'O VO \0 VO VO VO 



Ov CN CN 'rx CN CN 'JN a\r:\ ■T\C\ 



a a CJ a' oi 



rH rH r-t f-J .-^ r-J r-J 



:j CJ CJ CJ ■:■: c>; cu w oj 



o o :{ d ,•=; 



;-i '-J .p 



.: o w jj o 



4240 



Table 6 



Total PcrcentfiGG Chance in Populntion nnd Net Migrotion 
Border Counties, 1950 - I96O 



County, by State 



Total Change 



Net Wr.Totion 



Arizona 

Cochise 
Pima 

Santa Cruz 
Yuma 

California 

Imperial 
San Diego 

New Mexico 

Dona Ana 

Hidalgo 

Luna 

Texas 

Brewster 
Cameron 
Dimmit 
El Paso 
Hidalgo 
Hudspeth 
Jeff Davis 
Kinney 
Maverick 
• ' Presidio 
Starr 
Terrell 
' Val Verde 
Webb 
Zapata 



73.7 

7U.8 
88.1 
15.7 
65.1 

U8.^ 

lit. 5 
85.5 

39-6 

51.5 

- 2.6 
12. U 

2U.2 

-12.0 
20.7 

- 5.2 
61.1 
12.8 

-22.2 
-2U.3 

- 8.1 
18.0 

-25.8 
■22.9 
-18.5 
U7.O 
15. U 

- 0.3 



UU.O 

U9.0 

57.0 

-10.2 

32.0 

29.7 

-11.8 
53.5 

•■ 7.7 

13.8 
-25.6 
-10.0 

1.5 

-31.3 
-18.6 
-27.7 

15.7 
-23.7 
-U9.3 
-»v6.5 
-25. U 
-25. U 
-U5.3 
-11.0 
-31^.8 
9.8- 
-19.5 

2U.8 



SOURCE: County and City Data Book, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department 
of Commerce . " 

- 15 - 



4241 



WITH REGARD TO FARM LABOR MARKET INFORMATION: 



6, PLEASE EXPLAIN FULLY THE PROCESS BY WHICH DATA ON THE DEMAND 
FOR MIGRATORY FARMWORKERS IS COLLECTED, COMPILED, ANALYZED, AND 
DISSEMINATED TO THE MIGRATORY FARM LABOR FORCE. 

Data related to demand are collected, compiled,, and analyzed by 
local employment office personnel before and during the active 
farm season. There are 2,537 local offices of the Federal- 
State employment system covering all States ,, Guam , Puerto Rico, 
, and the Virgin Islands including seasonal offices. When labor 
shortages exist the interstate clearance procedure Is used to 
recruit migrant workers. In other words, job orders from demand 
States such as Michigan and New Jersey are circulated in supply 
States such as Texas and Florida. The interstate clearance 
orders specify the number of workers needed, ' ocation of work,, 
period of employment and other information. In the supply area, 
this information is disseminated to the migratory farm labor 
force by the local employment office, usually by means of Farm 
Labor Bulletins, as well as by radio, television and newspaper 
publicity. 

An important means of disseminating information on job orders 
and coordinating the movement of migratory workers to areas of 
demand is the Annual Worker Plan. For those assisted under the 
plan, both family groups and crews, comprehensive itineraries 
are planned weeks ahead of the work season. After job orders 
are forwarded by demand States, interviews are conducted with 
crew leaders and migrant family heads. They are provided with 
specific information about employment opportunities, housing, 
wage rates, and other job conHitions in demand States. From 
the interviews emerges the Agricultural Worker Schedule which 
• shows the name of the crew or family leader, composition of the 
crew, transportation and housing requirements. The Schedule 
also shows the names and addresses of all farm employers whom 
the crew will be working for during the active season. The plan 
helps to decrease time lost between jobs for migrant workers while 
assuring employers a dependable worrk force. In 1968, over 106,000 
interstate migrant workers were assisted under the Annual Worker 
Plan (Table 7). _ 

- 16 - - 



4242 



J.'uvbor of Cv-'W',?, Jr'ii.\}:\\.:'u- , I'n' \o'•\cy|^ Civn; ;\c1;'.'-0 tt'.'.Ocr 
tbc y.i;;iU'a.1. l.'v'l-l'.r.r Hon, l.y ;.l:ii>'. or i;ci;icc7U'.e, li,6y 



•X^jlnl CiX-.jc 



l;ir,'!.>--'r of I.n " p o." 






^,!3:^:; 


Jf'^CS 


;?,J;00 


l';0,.i.il 


3/ icS:-?;; 


-■!0 


35 


h'^ 


2,57'!-. 


?,5-o 


<■ 


31. 


p 


i.'PP 


307 


1, 


51 


15 


h(£ 


359 


2 


37 


1 


552 


337 





3^1- 





373 


361 


Drn 


PIT 


0i 


33/(70 


27,lv3 


3':> 


3 


55 


l,8iu 


l,Gf:i 


?. 


3 





92 


rA 





11 





65 


^k 'i2 


153 


97 


12 


19 


10 





1 





2 


p 





3 





5.1- 


)jO 





it 


p 


^);!j 


3'.^ 


'15 


30 


IJ;-! 


, 1, oSX) 


1,79!^ 


6 


50 





56;t 


Ii03 





5 





19 


17 


■^^ 


21 


568 


5,3?3 


5,?97 


va 


11 


201 


fjlO 


398 


.> 


T 





I't'j 


105 





3 





175 


8t 








1 


S5 


25 


3 


9 





130 


100 


Di- 








3t.''5 


301 


6 





ki) 


381 


376 


3 


e5 


1 


163 


84 


3 


£3 


5 


338 


203 


r? 


g 





53 


36 


}; 








3S 


3? 


£X 


8 


?>0U 


990 


966 


15 


IJ^ 


£07 


1,^23 


1,200 


1,117 


!t,)i<\0 


557 


85,393 


59,737 





2 





273 


IS5 


11 


2 


1 


95? 


909 


k 


39 





5.v; ■ 


375 








8 


iiC9 


W39 





■ 1 





5 


5 



ricy.u:r,-~— 1,1X3 

fv.;;,v;jr;_. 91 

.vi>;-.> — - — 5 

IU;!.a-:.i: — .— — 11 

Iiic'a.Mia— •—•'•- — 30'|' 

Icvti"- — — = 1 

Knrirf^.?-— .»«.— 3 

Lc.'Ui:;.;.fna ■ -"- 2l6 

■:iC':ii;:ci> •-"— 56 

iiiuuvrota— --••-■»— ='— 5 

!:iri;!rc5.i^pl - 6;?a 

i;luroiu-i— — — « 2^0 

j;auvfr::;a — — - 10 

i.-wOii — — 3 

Ifew 2rf':nr.3hlrc— 1 

liOrt'i Carolir;n — — >;G 

Chic- -— . 36 

0!J.aiiDn!a— — — 36 

OrerrOiT?— ~- — — . .'|. 

Tcriar.yl\-^p-iii.a ~— h 

Coutii Corollnn— — — P:-3 

lonncL'ccc— ~"-"—- 2yS 

l-c-vs. —— 6, 172 

Utih— 2 

VHcinifi o .U 

V?r:t:hinc:Uon-— ---- — - h^ 

V.'c.ut V.U-Lil))in- - 8 

V^a^iina- 1 

1/ InclU'.^cn nil riifyaat rccWcnt!:; of tlio rojooj'cin^": Ctr.vko .for \;han intei-vlcvcc \.-erG 
rocoiOod by tJio rcportii:^ .'ItetG p.ni otVicr GtatCiS 011 l-oiw K?;-369, A.'p.'icultiiral \;oi-i:cr 
ec-5ic\\ulo. 

2/ IncladCD cJl A)oi-!-.ern v'no \;oro rcclOcrrta or' tho rCi-ortln;: Ctntc, Wiace finurca 
DKJ not ccTV'iT.ivible Mltli tiKica r.uljllr-licd for yoo.r." teforo 196.? cince vorl-cra ijIio A;aro 
not lutor\'lcMOd by tho rej:orttu-3 Ct!;t^-'3 vore foixiorly circluCcd i'ro.';i the cDunt. 

jI/ Tnlo fu'.;urc Oooc not rcprfiacnt a ccaplcto count of ull iwrnona \;'no clid inl^.i^itory 
i'oix;v?orit bocfiuoj : 

a. C;i.ly l:■lt'".•^^t^to var;:c'iT iv/a 3.r.;;li),0o;i. 

1. j;;jt fU iat-Tr.-t-ur \;o-.-.:,t i:vo !r:.^;.i. :.;:.! l>l!.;<'i- ino /.;i:wr.il \h>r:i::V linn. 

Va~.CZ: Ii;.'';:r.-/aiO!i J.r; t)iir; t'-'l'; In linJtcu 1.0 ('r.L;^ (!;H:i',uni U;;! i'i-.^a r.inn i;>-:;^:!, 
/''■.ri.oiLl-amO. \:;,r;.(;r r.L;ic:i';riM, l.y j.,i.ii;,.j i.ii.^i'}.-v/\:.HA rociu'ii.y £'-(;i.a.;.ij:; in oij;:'JOutJ:n 
^ i'.'i ti'iC /•.r....'.-.!l Varl.cr Ji; >. 



4243 



7. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PROCESS BY WHICH INFOiyvtATION IS DISSEMINATED TO 
FARMERS AND OTHERS OUTSIDE THE CHANNELS OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES. 

As indicated above, State Employment Service agencies use the 
various media (newspapers, radio, and TV) to disseminate current 
Job information to farmers, workers, and to the general public. 
However, the main reliance is on distribution of farm labor 
bulletins prepared by the State Employment Service agencies. 
F arm Labor Developments , a publication of the Farm Labor and Rural 
Manpower Service, summarizes information nationally for use in 
following general trends and outlook with regard to seasonal farm 
employment. State agencies also have annual reports which review 
developments in labor demand and supply, program statistics, and 
outlook for the coming year. 

8. HOW ARE Q-IPLOYERS CONTACTED, AND BY VJHAT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND 
WITH WHAT (number) STAFF, AND WITH WHAT I969 BUDGET, TO SOLICIT 
REQUESTS FOR MIGRATORY FARM AND FARM-RELATED LABOR? 

Local office farm labor personnel, employees of State Employment 
Service agencies, maintain contact with employers in their area who 
customarily use migrant labor due to local shortages. Since farm 
labor representatives in local offices have multiple functions, we 
do not have statistics on staff and budget devoted solely to solicit- 
ing requests for migrant labor. In fiscal year 1970 we have budgeted 
approximately 2,000 positions for all farm labor functions in State 
agencies, (including some services to the rural nonfarm population), 
at a cost of $21,000,000. It is estimated that the equivalent of 3OO 
of these positions are allocated for job development and employer 
relations functions, but we do not have a breakdown that shows how 
many of these positions are assigned to areas which use migratory 
farm labor. 

9. WITH REGARD TO THE GEOGRAPHIC, CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS 
BETV/EEN THOSE COLLECTING LABOR MARKET INFORJ^TION, FARMERS AND 
GROWERS, AND FAR^MORKERS: 

a. ■ PLEASE SUBMIT EITHER A MAP, OR APPROPRIATE DOCUMENT SHOWING THE 
NUf-lBER OF FEDERAL, STATE AlfD LOCAL GOVERNMEOT EMPLOYEES, BY STATE 
Airo COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECT- 
ING, COMPILING, AIULYZING, AND DISSEMINATING FARM LABOR MARKET 
INFORMATION. . 

Farm labor information is usually compiled, collected, analyzed, 
and disseminated by local office personnel who also perform 
other duties related either to farm programs or to reporting. In 

- 18 - 



4244 



larger offices, farm labor releases and statistics may be handled 
by a research and analysis person as one of a number of Job market 
reports and bulletins. We do not have a time distribution system 
that would enable us to break out staff specifically assigned to 
this function. 

b. WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN YOUR DEPARTMENT WHOSE 

WORK IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO COLLECTING, COMPILING, ANALYZING, AND 
DISSEMINATING FARM LABOR MARKET INFORMATION? HOW MANY OF THESE 
ARE MEXICAN-AMERICAN? WOMEN? NEGRO? BI-LINGUAL IN SPANISH AND 
ENGLISH? HOW MANY OF THE TOTAL ARE PRESENTLY, OR FORMERLY, 
MIGRANT FARMWORKERS? HOW MANY OF THE TOTAL ARE PRESENTLY, OR 
FORMERLY, FARMERS OR GROWERS? 

The Farm Labor and Rural Manpower Service (national office) has 
a total of 19 staff members engaged in summarization and analysis 
of farm labor market information and related activities. Of 
these, 7 are Negro (including 3 women), and one is a Mexican- 
American. We do not have comparable information for field 
offices or for State agencies. Pilot efforts on an experimental 
and demonstration basis are being made in 10 State Employment 
Service agencies to train and employ bi-lingual Mexican-Americans 
(many of them former migrants) as rural outreach interviewers to 
work with and assist migrant workers. 

10. WHAT SPECIFIC JOB INFORMATION IS SOUGHT AND COLLECTED? PLEASE EXPLAIN 
IN DETAIL. 

Job information sought from employers on Job orders include thp number 
of workers required. Job specifications, wages, crop conditions, dura- 
tion, timing, housing and perquisites, and transportation advances. 
The form being introduced for inter-area clearance is shown on the 
next page. 

- 19 - 



4245 



ci ( AnAi\;c:! fiiini n ion ac;iiicl)luii;'«l i.ahor 




20 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 14 



4246 



Ll,.:.,„.n,v,s,. n'."'-M .o.n. [J...... Q "^ ^-i-v^--^ 



""■ 


f;}w^^""'TJ:^."H-r ''■■■' Y ,?::^^^^ 


\ j:'^'^:r''^'["-::i 


<~l .FV..l,.ViRV.IIl 








••JiSII j r. NOT f OHNISF 




o 


C- '.r.\Tt livl.V AlA'AI.ri .'.lU IIF l^ '■■. Ii 10 .■! 'Ll'^IK •>': Ml 


1 


1 1 




< 


■""■'■■'■"' '■■■'•" '"'•■■'•"■'" 




< 






...1. 0>lo lUCiuiATio.J:. /irrlcllHG li.-l ni v.v'^K' K'. iiuK >■■■• 01 HV^lf 




-:i7.-Tii'[ OF i.vtmiv 


JL, ^nt^S«,t.UIH■■.1. l;li,>l HCRJlA-aSFirouLAIION ^ 








a..v,s n'""-.^ 


fii ifsum 






rnufi 








«7. FUBNISMIKf.S Ar:D AirilANCFS 




NO 


TVft 


NO. 
HOdVS- 


CA.Arnv 


cllJ\<\cn 


. IF ANV 


ITCM 


Fl.lPl. TORN. 




KlNl 


OTHIR 


VIS 


NO 


2 

o 

< 

< 




• 
















O 

< 




















2 




















o 

I 










































it. C.OK-.-EWlS IDi-ccnt.ns lo ftout.'.j. ,«>,■ .,.,co r-,,iu.,w(., ■,;....<. i-ic; 




J9 GROnn IfAClCn OATA 




NO. ™<5 


NAVE Of l.rADtn 


sociAi s( rt;nir> no. 


PCFIMANFNT OH HOwr ADDRLSS 


PHONE NO. 


3 
O 
cc 








■ ' 




O 












1' 





!_: 


— 


. 





= 


!.0. ACTIC 


N SUSIVARV AND DlSTR.'nuIlON lll-l,- 


.„.j „•<■.. .-/ ^c•,o„,.,u^l■ 


= 


Cl CLCiSING SU\'MAHY 


rDatc 


,.. 


Q 

o 








a 








K 








m 




























^ 


A'O 


in"" 


RM LIIRtD 


Applicant 1,'ome 


OCT.. 


AG( 


.r. 


VF, 


;■;;;/, 


Arc. 


."'„ 


IF PlACtwrNT DID NOI fits 
r.lvF RFASON 


HT. 






' ■'"■''■'^•*'' 


















































o 


1 


























< 




























-J 


3 


— - 

























CC 

























in 






— 




— 




-- 






"" 





















21 - 



4247 



3,1, v.'iiAT r/rcpo, IF A::y, ark taken to vkjufi the ACcioiACY of this iiiFOffi-'^i- 

TION? H.FA2E EXPL.MN Hi DiTIAIL. 

Job ordcTG and other job inforr:;itinn are verified by local and State 
offices. Job orders involvinr^ ii-jtc-rstate recraitn-icnt are verified 
by Manpov7er Adminj r.traticn );c;;ional Offices, v.'ith p.dditional review 
of some orders at the national level for compliance with standards 
and regulations. 

a. DO PKE3FNT RUT.ES AKD REGUj^ATIOIIS PHOVIDE FOR I1,T0R]-<ATI01.' AKD COM- 
PLIANCE PKOCEDUHL'S IF IHACCUPmT.^ VJMXT IKFORMATIOiJ IS COIJVEYED? 
IF THERE IS KO VERJFICATIOxN OF ACCURACY, PLEASE EXPL/yIN V.'KY KOT. 

Yes, a vjorker or crewleadcr may contact a local emplojinent office 
for additional information, to confirm inforrr;ation, or to file a 
con'ii;laint . Procedi-jres are provided for investication and handl- 
ing of coniplaints related to discriminatory orders, labor dis- 
putes, failure to comply uith prevailing wages, or substandard 
housing. In the event of a complaint of substandard housing, 
for example, the local office Rir.y gatlier facts and determine 
whether an on-site inspection is necessary, and discuss the pro- 
blciii V7ith the erriployer and seek cooperation in correcting the 
alleged inadequacy. If t!;e employer does not cooperate and 
if the charges are substantiated, the local office can stop 
referring workers to that employer and assist v/orkers with 
grievances to find employment elsevuiere. The Farm Labor Service 
has had an intensive program of housing compliance in the last 
several years v;hich has been very time consulting. Complaints 
of abuses under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration A.ct are 
also investigated. 

b. HOW, IF AT ALL, IS THE ACCUFTi.CY OF L',T01?J1ATI0N DISSEIvIIKATED 
CROSS-CHECKED WITH THE IKITI/vL REQUESTS FOR liABOR? 

If there is doubt about the accuracy of inforniation, a cross- 
check can be made v;ith the originating local office. In 
urgent situations, this check can be made by telephone or 
teletype. 

- 22 - 



4248 



12. HOW IS INFORMATION ABOUT JOB DEMAND TRANSMITTICD TO THE LAliOR 
SUPPLY, BY WHAT AGENCIES, WITH WHAT (NUMBER) STAFF, AND WITH 
WHAT 1969 BUDGET? WHAT IS THE TIME RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RE- 
QUESTS AND FINAL INFORMATION DISSEMINATION? AS TIME MAY BE OF 
THE ESSENCE IN DISSEMINATIING DEMAND INFORMATION , WHAT STEPS 
ARE IMPLEMENTED TO OBTAIN THE FASTEST POSSIBLE DISSEMINATION? 

As indicated in the reply to question 6, information about job ^ 
demand is transmitted to the farm workers and crew leaders by 
farm labor personnel in local emp]o^1nent offices. Information 
is disseminated by personal visits, telephone, local radio and 
television, newspapers and periodic bulletins or newsletters. 
The Annual Worker Plan. used for scheduling of crews, is re- 
vised during a crcwt. itinerary when necessary to reflect changes 
in crop activity dates. The time relationship between requests 
and final dissemination of information may vary from a few hours 
to a few days, depending on the urgency. 

Within the nationwide employment system, speedy communication 
is conducted by telephone or teletype. Some of the larger 
States have their own special teletype systems for rapid in- 
trastate dissemination of information. 



13. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT- 
SPONSORED INFORMATION DISSEMINATION PROGRAM (I.E., WHAT PARTS 
OF THE PROGRAM ARE CARRIED OUT BY NON -GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES)? 
PLEASE EXPLAIN THESE RELATIONSHIPS. 

Volunteer farm placement representatives are sometimes used to 
assist local employment offices during the active farm season. 
The VFPR is a person in the local office operating area who, 
without renumcration , performs limited informational activities 
and limited placement services so as to better serve employers 
and workers in an area remote from lihe local office. Also, some 
volunteer church groups disseminate labor information. 



14. AT WHAT GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL (LOCAL, STATE, REGIONAL, NATIONAL) 
IS THE DISSEMINATION OF LABOR MARKET INFORMATION CONTROLLED? 
IN THE FACE OF LOCAL, STATE, AND REGIONAL COMPETITION FOR 
MIGRATORY FARM LABOR, EXPLAIN FULLY THE CRITERIA AND DECISION- 
MAKING PRACTICES FOLLOWED IN THE ALLOCATION OF LABOR BETWEEN 
COMPETING AREAS. ALSO, PLEASE SUBMIT ALL GOVERNMENT RULES AND 
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THIS MATTER. 

- 23 - 



4249 



Dissemination of intoi-mation is primarily conUrolled at the 
State level. Prcsc'ason planning meetings aiiiong State farm 
lahor perscnnel and ccxiimuni cat i ons help to coordinate tlic 
movement of migratoi-y crcv.'s and individual v.'orkers. The 
Annual Worker Plan is another means of coordinating movement 
of crews. 

The Secretary of Lal^or has established certain rules and reg- 
ulations governing the interstate recruitment of farmworkers. 
(See copy on the next page.) If the job order complies with 
all regulations and a shortage of local v.'orkers exist, the 
State employniient agency will recruit statev;ide or place the 
order into interstate clearance. 

- 24 - 



4250 



IKKKSTATE nr.C}:\)yi!;-.i'u'y O'/ fakm lai>oh ■ 



Ko order for rnrrui.tiHent of dOMC-;r;l ic rf^riculturr'l \.-ori;crfi nhnll be placed 
into .interr.t'il.'.^ clerirauce unices there nro ixt-^curvDCcs fro::i the State 
E»iip]oyinent Service cgency that: 

1. The State agency has cstablishc^d tliat do;r:e;-.tic eericultural v.'orkers 
are not available locally or within tlie State, 

2. The State agency har; compiled ana exomincd data on the estimated crop 
acrea[',e, yield, and other production factorr. to assure the validity 
of need and the miniraum nuuiber of agricultural v.'orkcrs required. 

3. The State agency liar, ascertained that vages offered ore not less tlion 
the vager, prevailj.ng in the area of employment among similarly employed 
doinestic agricultural \.'orkerc recruited ^.'ithin the Ktate and not less 
than those prevailing in tlie area of eiiijjloyinent among similarly 
employed doniestic agricultural v;orkers recruited outside the State. 

h. The State agency has ascertained that housing and facilities (l) are 
available; (2) are hygienic and adequate to the climcjtic conditions 
of the area of einployn:ient; (3) are reasonably calculated to acco-uiodate 
available domestic agricultural v.'orkcrs; and (4) confor;a to the 
requirements of the applicable State, coujnty or local housing and 
sanitary codes or, in the absence of such applicable codes, have been 
determined by the State agency to be such as will not endanger the 
lives, health or safety of the v;orkers. In making such determina- 
tions the State agency shall give full consideration to the applica.ble 
recommendations of the Presiderjt's Committee on Migratory Labor with 
respect to housing and related facilities. 

5. The State agency has ascertained that the employer has offered to pro- 
vide or pay for transportation for domestic agrj.cultural workers 

(l) at terras not less favorable to the workers than those prevailing 
among the domestic agricultural workers in the area of employment 
recruited from the area of supply; or (2) in the absence of sucli pre- 
vailing practice in the area of employment , at terms not less favorable 
to the workers than those v.-hich prevail among the domestic agricultu- 
ral workers recruited by out-of-State employers who recruit domestic 
agricultural workers froi". the area of supply, as determined by the 
State agency in the State requested to supply the v.'orkers. 

6. The State agency lias ascertained that other terns and conditions of 
employment offered are not less favorable than those prevailing in 
the area of emplOiTmcnt for domestic agricultural v;orkcrs for similar 
work . 

_ 2!? - 



4251 



15. V;iIAT IS 'DIE ANKUAl. COST OF TlIK COVF.RNriFNT ' S RFGULATION OF, 
AND rARTlCJPATJON IK, INFORMATION DISSEMINATION? WHAT IS 
THE COST TO THE STATES? 

See r^ply to c|Uc.sLions 8 and 9a. We do not have cost accounting 
for these functions as a separate item. 

.6. WJAT IS THE EXTENT OF INFORMATION DISSEMINATION OCCURRING OUT- v 
SIDE THE PROVINCE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION? PLEASE SUBMIT ESTI- 
MATES OF SUCH ACTIVITY, AND TliE BASIS FOR SUCH ESTIM,\TES. ARE 
THERE ANY CRITERIA ESTABLISHED (FINANCIAL OR OTHERWISE) TO REG- 
ULATE INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS? CAN ^ 
REGUI.ATION OF INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BE JUSTIFIED IN A FREE 
ENTERPRISE ECONOMY? PLEi\SE COMMENT. 

There is a significant amount of dissemination of information 
occurring outside the province of government regulation. While 
there is no basis for measuring the volume accurately, it is 
kno\m tl^at grov.'ers associations, crew leaders, and other pri- 
vate recruiters are engaged in disseminating information. 

There arc no Federal criteria for regulating dissemination 
of information by private individuals, other than the Farm 
Labor Contractor Registration Act. Ur.der that Act, the crew 
leader's registration may be v;ithheld if he knowingly gives 
false or misleading information concerning the terms, conditions, 
or existence of farm employment. 

Regulation of information dissemination could be justified in a 
free enterprise economy only to the extent that regulation was 
designed to prohibit fraud, deception, or misrepresentation. 
Obviously, information v.'hich would result in improving job oppor- 
tunities, or otherwise improving the vjelfare of migrants, should 
not be controlled or restricted. The best policy is to assure 
that adequate and reliable public job information is available 
so that workers v;ill not rely solely on private sources. 

- 26 - 



4252 



17. 1I'\S T)iE IMPAfVP OK A POSKTri.K GOV]-:H:,":r;;-:T WI'DID'^AV.'Ai, PKOM T'-^'^ JOT.'IT avjOW 

Alio rARTiciPAVio:^ OF y/.RKi-T ikfo-matjo;,' or- th;-j kjgkatory f/.'m i,awr ' 

FORCE BfCJCK E:;TI!aTl'D? IF KG, FLEASE SUPPLY ALL MTA RELEVANT TO THIS 
EST.TKATIOrj. IF i.'OT, V.'LT JJAf' TII-^RE KJ^A'EK BEEN AK ANALYSTS 0^^ TliE 
GOVERin.il'.NT'S )X)Lli; IK T))IS AREA? 

No. It has never been part of our procrani to estimate the impact of 
poGSible Governjaent vithdrav;al frcwi the regulation and carta cipation 
of market information on migratory labor, because such witlidruval has 
never been contemplated. 

i 

WITH REGARD TO MRRIERS TO JOB I.IOBILITY 

18. PLEASE SUPPLY TJIE SUBCOMMITTEE WITH ALL EXISTII<G DATA REFLECTING THE 
DEGREE, EXTE;;T, IJATUI^', AM) CHAEACTERISTICS OF ItJTRA- M'D INTER v 
RMiKET .MOBILITY OF lilGRATORY FAJ^.ris'OJ^JCERS . 

Mi6;ratory farm workers customarily v;ork in southern areas in the winter 
fruit and vegetable harvesting and cultivating activities. They begin 
their annual trek northward in the early spring to work mainly in 
fruits and vegetables. In California, the leading employer of migrants 
they cultivate cotton and vegetables and harvest a variety of spring ' 
fruits and vegetables. Other western and some north central States 
employ migrants in sugar-beet cultivation and the strawberry harvest 
They work in .spring fruit and vegetables harvesting in Atlantic Coast 
States. Suimncr and fall are the most active periods for migrants- 
they are engaged chiefly in harvesting tOLnatoes, grapes, peaches, 'pears, 
melons, cherries, blueberries, pickles, apples, and tobacco. 

In order of magnitude, the leading States in cmploj^nent of migratory 
farm workers continue to be California, Florida, Michigan, and Texas. 
Other States with significant emploinr.ent of migratory farm workers 
are: Washington, Oregon, New York, and Ohio. (See Tables 8 and 9.) 

The peak employment of migratory agricultural workers in areas reporting 
to the U. S. Training and E-nployment Service usually occurs in August 
with 217,300 einployed in that month in 1969. Most of these were inter- 
State migratory workers. A distribution of intrastate and interstate 
migratory workers as well as local and Puerto Rican seasonal farm 
workers for that month is shown' on Table 11. 

Data on the cliaracteristics of migratory workers are published by the 
• UbDA in Its annual bulletin, The Hi red Farm Workinr Force. (See USDA 
reply to Question 3.) '. = 

- 27 - 



4253 



To"blo 8. J'^D-miti"! or rMsr-t-^i-y lr\:zi-, trr C'.ntc, Uiiitccl 
r,tatcn, 1^.:9, rr.'l C :-.r.rjC frc- D.^GG 



2'Inn-::cni;i3 of Tilcz-otory Inbor 



Ctft-c 



i---^ 1963 



Uiiiicd rr.ntco-— =-- l;r::;3.Y - ToA 

CAiifoniic--—-"— —-"•—-'— 357-6 - 10.5 

Floridc-— -'- »--^»— • L':0.2 - I'^.l 

■adiirr-n _„ — „——. 11^.3 - T.l 

Tc:cnr:— — » •• ^ l^'-.h <■ 3.^ 

V(n.'/olr.;7to;i —• GO.O + 2.2 

Orccon-—^.-^- --•• ' h>i.^ - .6 

rcnf Yor::— ——-"-" ''^>'J - ■'■•'> 

Kov Jcr:;cy"-"- «».— «-^ — . ' J.J.I - 10.5 

Chio-— -•- ■ ^•'-■'..1 - 0-S 

Other Contor ~ —..-.— =. JiOT.5 - 9-7 



J;Or.: 

i:c:';: L\ic to roun.-3inc, f-lfra-cs roy wt r.:"a. to iotrlo. 

CCirCD: i;v-r:cr!::on Fo'ita J,a"bor Tc;. r-rts cr -Uic i:cTi.T^.,'cr Ad-inist-ntior 

• ■ ■ ■ - 28 - ■• ■ " ■ ■ 



4254 



Tabic 9. 

roolt i;piplo.vroc>nt nu3 ?or.1oi1 of Txio.Toyr-nnt. (if D.^noutlc IMfrntory V'arkcro l/ 
in y>.c':ricviltuxnT, Stnteo vhlcli Uactl nic^ctory Worlxra. 1?(')9 



Peak no. i.';'r-ranta 
c):iployccl 



PcrloOn in \.'hlch ruic;i*pJit.i 
vorc c'.roloyci 



CcO.lfornJa-— 61,000 

i:it:hir!--« 3<J,70O 

noriCd 22,500 

Texas 21,100 

Ohio 15,100 

Oregon I'k.CCO 

Kcv York IP, Coo 

Hfishir.rton 10,CC0 

lieu JoiMoy 10, ■('CO 

Oiaohcma — 9,^^00 

Colorado O.'L'OO 

i;or:;h Cnrolina B.TGO 

InOlMia y,3;00 

IcrJio 7,5-00 

J-.ontcjia 6,700 

Eouth Cr.rolina 6,200 

PcniisylvaniQ — 5)9^0 

l.il!Uicuota - 5,5C0 

llorU) D:i3<ota 5,0C0 

Arizona '+,700 

iam;;c3 — l+.'^CO 

Virclnia ^>300 

Connecticut Jv,200 

Uyonln'r l4-,lC-0 

Illinois U,0C0 

Kubmn:-^^ 3,^^00 

HiissnchuGctts 2,2C0 

UiGcon;3in 2,100 

Dclr.vCi-e 2,100 

liarylund 1,CC0 

lova 1,COO 

Alaljarsi 1,500 

Arkansas 1,500 

Utah — 1,4C0 

l(cw lioxico 1,200. 

Kentucljy T'OO 

Louioinna CCO 

Kevcea TOO 

toino Coo 

V.'eat Virginia 500 

Missouri — — — 300 

Kcw lIiULinshirc COO 

Tcanescoc 200 

Vcrsont 100 

Gooiriti 100 

Rliodc liilKid JtO 



.Ven.-I>;'C. 
Api'il-.i'ov. 
Jen.-I>ec. 
en . -!Doo . 
Itoy-Oct. 
Jan. -Dec. 
I'uiy-I.'ov. 
Jen. -Dec. 
April -.'.'ov. 
Jfji.-I)ec. 
April -liov. 
Jim . -lioc . 
April -Oct. 

j:cr.-;;ov. 

Jrai . -D-'.'O . 

tey-Oct. 

i:ay-];ov. 

junc-;;ov. 

April-Oct. 

Jan.-r/ac. 

Apini-i'ov. 

May-Kov. 

Jan. -Dec. 

I 'ay -Sept. 

toy -Oct. 

Juno -A u^. 

May-Dec. 

!!fiy-Oct. 

Itoy-Oct. 

Aprll-"ov. 

toy -Oct. 

ricy-::ov. 

liOy-Cc-pt. 
May -Oct. 
l-iar.-Dec. 
l-iay-Mov. 
April-Kov. 
. July-oppt. 
Avi.'r.-Oct. 
A\ic,. -IIov. 
Jur.c-Oct. ■ 
Jup.e-Oct. 
i:ay-Oct. 
Sept. -Oct; 
June 
October 



Sept . 

Aug. 

Feb. 

July 

Sept. 

June 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Aui;. 

June 

Jujie 

July 

Sept. 

June 

Auj. 

July 

Sept. 

June 

Au^. 

April 

July 

July 

Av^. 

June 

Sept . 

June 

Au,r. 

Aug. 

Av!C« 

AuB. 

July 

Jirie 

llay 

July 

July 

June 

r-toy 

Au3. 

Oct. 

Oct. 

Sept. 

I'xiy 

Oct. 

June 

Oct. 



1/ lUcrcnta Include intrastate and interstnte vorhers. 
SOlTi'.CF.: In-Ooaoou I'unr Labor n<jporUa of the l'„'?j'.pjvcr AOcilnir.trtitloik. 

. 29 - 



4255 



r- .-i yj 






O ^- O r-l O O <Vj Ci Q O O O O O O CJ O ^' o o o o 

o '.A f-^ c-1 c\; -.'■ <■'"> 



r-i o.) c\^-^- .-i 



i-l (.J Cj-. irv O ^r> <*^. -i 'D i- 

r"i O ■■'-• cv c'v ^\i c; I'") ■-' 



o 



l;\ Cj r-l ViO ,-IVJ H r-i 

r-^ * * * ' A r] ° O ' 



• CJ 

■!■' • 
P. 

Q O) 



':: CJ <-! O r-! •-! > ") ',"A O ^"^ ■■'"■ -■••• .'j' f^^ '-) ;— C'.J rS CJ 



<o :-/ 'r^.Kfi -^-i' '•■■'<^'3 -J t- CO m 



O l-V^-^' CJ t5 ' .O ;..T -1 O »-4 CJVi C 



f1 


r-l 


.:? 


r-l 


t) 


o 




^^ 






. '-3 


f^ 


?^ 






(> 


"o 












C'V 


<1H 




CJ 


« 


(> 


t5 


r 


r-H 


'q 


s 




^^ 


'O 


tj 






(1 


?7l 






ij 




t-» 


OJ 


<) 




Cj 


(.'J 


£4 




'"* 


1-1 






[■-', 


• 






•^f, 


L-N 



c\ u\ r-! c.^ :- 1-^ .:.'- ■;.% f -1 ■: ■.-.o '.'; . v v.) -n rH c^ ^^ l~. cj 

r-i o '.(\^:- .-1 r-i o i.-N .\ \:i <-:-!;■ o »-l H ^'J cj o 

('-, CJ 

r! (■ 1 O !— IX) r-i .-J V.y t— r"! r-H .'•) '-->-0 C.i U\ O 

>J - . 

c^ cv i,-. CN-v irsv:~) .-■> vo !,AicN,-.- .-■>;— CO o £- O 

° f* r* ir* f*. H 1*1 O O t>T C^ rH r-^ * O '-i i'"> O O O 



t-- c:o !,-\ .^'- .A (1 'o vo {•- 

c;-J* O"o * r-* o £■*• o c u o Or-^ o CJ o o 

r-l r-l ^^ 



<:y js c. o-\ r-l 

o f'*> CJ c^ o * c r* o * c:; CJ o o o o o O o o cj.o o 



(-■J c-) •:> o CJ C' o o o 



CI o o o o 



Cj .'') O <•■; CJ 



o CV c:> c> o 



I ! I < 



I I I I 



I I I I 



I I e I 



30 



4256 



O r-l O O O 



l;^ »■■! .'■■) 
' c' C) 



>1 



-I <.'. o <y ...- C' '::> 



cj r-i v;:i vo .-I -^ i.'N '-I C,i u~.,-r i-J i-i r-l c- rH ■;-- to t<^ CO 

+j CJ O O * ~° ° >.V - * -V L-X r-' A-l -t ^-- K^ W O O 



T-i r-l o 



o ^^ 0\ 



-•i^r i-l O .'O i.r< 



^ 



I— <:\, I- >H ^- !.- o ---- o 



o t-c--. '■'7 '•;"'» 



■5 ^ ai .--h .;f r-i CO C-I-- ;- i-AVj l■'^ c. c:; ,-, ,^r■l.-^ (o-f 



■ (•;> v;] r-^ c. \;>---.- 



« r-i o o o >r. r-i ,-i oj »-< - .- o c; o 



CJ CI CJ t- -•-'--•;; '•o <o 

A C5 00 r''~.0 O HO O O O rl O O O ■."'■. O 



t] 00 O O -""^ O c.> O O 00 C' O CJ O .-I o 



. rn t-t rH (-1 oj 

'p * o <:> o 000 * o o ' a c> o o o o >■:> <;• o 



I I i ) I 



.' I! 



- 31 



4257 



Table 11. 



Eniployiiiciif and Oric'ii of Scnuoiial Hired AcricultiirnI Vi'orkcrs, 
by State, August I'j, 19G3 



state 

U.;-. Totnin 

Al'ili'rmn 

Al I • IIIlM »-- 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorndo 

Connecticut 

Dclownrc 

Florida - '- 

Ceorgio 

Idaho- 

Illinois - 

IndSnna 

lova 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louloit'nii-- ..--. 

Maine 

Mfirylnnd 

MaEGOchucetts 

Michlp.nn 

Minnesota ' 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

S<-i- riKilnolCK nt l-riil of.tnlil 



Totol 1/ 



Locnl 



Intrti- 
ototc 



Intcr- 
ctntc 



Cont-r.ict 
ivicrlo 
Rlcan:; p/ 



' '','"?^ 

in, I,,', 

3,700 

159,530 

10,285 

13,200 

'',235 

27,391 

22,255 

9,965 

6,758 

5,717 

10,765 

10,385 

13,53'' 

2,1.50 

1(,809 

6, 305 

12,1.78 

58,782 

3,255 

2,120 

2,9''5 

11,872 



7TO,83V 
3, '.30 

•ir.M', 
3,700 

iii.eiio 
'',970 
8,960 
2,165 

26, 896 

22,255 
6,120 
3,765 
1,21)1. 

10,011 
8,1; 1*5 

13,13'. 
2,1.50 
1*,1.99 
'*,'*71 

10, 302 

22,035 
3,097 

2,120 
2, 622 
5,170 



6i.,5i.i4 


III'. 



26,070 
976 




235 



725 
27 


UB6 

990 
380 



60 




1,725 
11 





2,200 



152, ra 

795 



21,620 
>*. 339 
Ii,2l.O 
2,070 
260 

3,120 

2,961 

'•,1.73 
268 
950 

20 



250 

1,831* 

2,176 

35,022 

11*7 



323 

It, 502 



9,11.1* 






1,730 
317 












79 

1,137 









-32- 



4258 



Tublt' II. (Continued) 



employment by Stntc, Aiinnst 15, 13C9 - (coiilliiuoc!) 



Ncbrnska 

Ncvoda 

K.w li'^n.i.nia.c 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

K.-w York ■ 

North Corolinn 

Noj-th Dakota 

Ohio - • 

Ok lahoma 

Orcr.on 

H^nnoylvania 

South Carolina 

Tennessee- 

TexoB 

Utah 

VirelnlQ • 

Woch 1 nRton 

Wesv Virginia - 

Wlcconcln 

Vyoming 

y K\\ il..m.-.si,r ,%,„!,..,.,. 
2/ Til- tiuml..r ..f rr.nlrnci 

S0UHC:K. ln-S..,.-,.n I'l.rm 



Total ]/ 



l/)COl 



T, 301. 

1 , r"jO 
17, 100 

17,603 

179,600 

9,870 

23,513 

12,510 

66,6i.5 

lU,6a5 

23,1*25 

23,085 

113, ''70 

2,095 

8,160 

36,797 

1,020 
7,665 
1,910 



7,21't 

100 

i,a79 
6,355 

1,200 

8,650 

'17?,'ii»5 

Ji,889 

114,652 

11,125 

53,965 

9,960 

19,'*50 

23,01(5 

98, 725 

l,2to 

5,'t30 

29,920 

638 

5,565 

1,684 



Intrn- 
ct F>te. 



Inter- 
im tatc 



50 

100 

O 



1,375 

3,030 

1,892 

26U 

9I45 

2,850 

1(1(5 

2,625 



l't,520 

55 



2,037 





11 



_-l 

120 

550 

Ti 

10,7't5 

700 

7,580 

'(,325 

3,089 

8,597 

1*1(0 

9,830 

l*,20o 

1,350 

1(0 

225 

800 

2,738 

i(,8i(0 
390 

2,121 
215 



Contract 
rvcrto 
HlcnnG 2I 






s? 

l»,78o 


1(7!( 






575 












■s iK n Bul.loml nf inl.r.-.l 
■ Miinpnwcr Admin islrnllo 



-33- 



4259 



yon j".ACn OF ti;k For.Lo;;.Tr;G faclh's o? kobiij.ty v.'itiiiij the faiim jabor 
yAWiiLi: Ai:!) l^'^■^,■^;h;^; 7;:.'; far;- /.inj koki'mRM j/;);oh iiA'Jkkts, plfask 
luuidv.-:::: am, y:;ii /.v.'>:m ''-T;};; pava (XiicjAinxi'G com,v'ctioh T!fC};i'iou}'C 
Airo f.;TATi;-:T.i:cAi.. i^!v!„:(ahility), akd ]'J.!:a;;.>j ,":;'jPi\i.Y ;;uck data, if ko 

SUCH PATA is AVAIIABLE, H,KASE EXPI/>IIJ KliY. 

n. 0CCU}^^'.•TO^:'\L MOJUl.JTY OF llJGKATOHy F/\F::JO:{Kr;KS - Ai;i;i!AI, EXV'^rJT 

M VA)vi:oj^ D?;>:o::;;^i-:ic c:]■^\l^c^::l■la"'no3 or Yoirr^'hRS (ir;c:i.u].)i;;G, 
BiTj' i;ov jji.'itj;d '/o, /.gFj sry., r.AiJXVAL status, fducatiofal LJ.:\fa., 

SKILL LLV5L, FAITLJA laZiC, ClvlLDH;^:; 'S SOiOOL STATUS, 0T;;ER 

iiousriioLD v;oKKi;;^s, iAi;;:j;i'S' occurxtio;;, ri^Act: o? Rj:aL)Kt;cE). 

PLR^SK ALSO SUPFJA' CC;:FARA}?.].E DATA F01\ KOrj-l.'JGRATORY FAFuM 

LALOU Alj) FOrSAiW WORiaCRS. ^ 

b. IMTEFiGEFFIu'.TIO.'i^'vL 0CCUPATI0:L''.L I-:OBILI'i'Y - EXTFJ:T BY DFiMC/GlUPHIC 
CM/vr{ACJ'EF.ISTJCS V.'ITH CCiy.PAKABLE LABOR MAIU^ET DATA FOR OTilEU 
WOmu^nS (SFE "a" ABOVE). ^ 

c. JOB MOBILITY - EX'IZin! BY DE.^OGP.^PKIC C}LAPu\CTEEISTICG VJITH COM- 
PAPv/vBLE LABOR mRKET DATA FOR CTllER V.'ORILE'iS (SEE "a" ABOVE), 

AtJD cka];ge in extii;;t akd jlature of job i'OBiLn'Y over precedikg 

10 YEL'^RS. 

d. GEOGRAPiilC K0BI3.ITY - EX.TFT:T BY DF^lOGMPliJC CllAPACTEKIETICS UIT;! 

cg;.:pakabi,e j.abok m.\rket d>vj'a for OTJia^ v:ofjcehs, for cilaj-,ges in 

PEfil'A;;'i:;T RESIDEIXE AJfD TJ :';F011M{Y CB.'-IiG-ES 111 RE3ID?Ji;C3, ALL CROSS- 
SECTIOi-L'vLLY AS V.'ELL AS OVE,.;; TI;;E (SEE "a" ABOTO). IICCLUDE DATA ON 

ii;ter- aed ii.tra-state !:or>iLiTY. 

e. FUTURE y.OBILITY PKO.T]JCTIOi;S - LXTEMT BY DF.MOGRAPIIIC CHAPJvCTERISTICS 
VJITif C0MPAM3LE lABOH J-'ivR}a:;T DATA FOR OIFiER V.'ORKLRS (SEE "a" ABOVE). 

The last major study of occupatior.al mobility in the Dep'jrtraent of Labor 
v.-as made in January I966 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics based on 
Bupplemontary questions to the monthly survey of the labor force con- 
ducted by the Bureau of the Census through its Cui-rent Population 
Survey (Special Labor Force Report Ko. Qk). Data in the report relate 
to a national sample of persons lO years of age in the civilian non- 
institutional population at that tine. Respondents \7ho vere employed 
in the survey week v.'ere asked if they were doing the same kind of work 
a year ago. If not, they v;ere ashed for the industry and occupation 
of their previous employment. .This study shoved that 7^43,000 ir.ale 
farm laborers and forcir.en were employed in January I966, of vjhcm 7.8 
percent reported a different occupation in January 196b for an occupa- 
tional mobility rate of 8.6 percent, about in line vith the rate of 
9.9 percent for all occupations. The occupational mobility rate was 
expressed as the proportion of persons employed in both January 1965 
and January I9S6 \;ho had a differciit occupation in January I965. For 
vfomen, the farm laborer occupational mobility rate v.'as lov;er--'+.5 

- 3'i - 



4260 



percent, compared with 6.9 percent for women in all occupations. It 
should be noted that these fip.urcs do not apply to "migratory" form 
workers, but to all farm workers. Moreover, they do not measure 
occupational mobility out of farm work to other occupations which 
would yield perhaps a higher rate than that shown above. 

Some insights into occupational mobilit y of migratory form workers 
are found in a research study undertalicn for the Mai\power Administra- 
tion by the Department of Rural Sociology, Rural Manpower Center, of 
Kichican State University (M(^xican-A moricans jn Trnnnition, Migration 
and ]'>,iplo;\TTicnt in Michip:''n Citie s, llurvey 'A. Choldin and (Jrafton D. 
Trout, Jr., in process). The study was based on a randonily-selected 
sample of 695 Mexican-American households in Miciiigan outside of thfe 
Detroit Metropolitan Area. About one-fourth of the household heads 
were born in Mexico and 60 percent were born in Texas. More than 80 
percent of the respondents who oricinatcd in Texas came from the 
Lower Rio Grande Valley, while most of the remainder lived around 
Sam Antonio, where a large proportion were migratory farm workers. 
The process of settlement in Michigan appears to be one in which the 
farm worker works in one or more agricultural areas in the State, 
then moves to a city to v;ork, and settles there. A large proportion 
of the former migratory farm vrarkers shift into nonfarm occupations 
classified as drivers or operatives, and many gravitated toward the 
metal industries. 

This study also makes some comparisons between Mexican-Americans who 
resettled and those v/ho remained in the migratory stream. Generally, 
age, education, icolation, farriily structure, size of hometovm, and 
exposure to nonfarm jobs were among factors related to a desire to 
shift to nonfarm employment. 

Another study concerned v^Lth farm-employed persons who change to 
nonfarm occupations is Occu n ntional Mob il ity and Mi ' . ration from 
Agriculture , by Dale C. Hathc;v;ay and Brian K. Perkins (publiPl)od 
in Rural Poverty in the United States , a report by tlie President's 
National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, May I968). The 
data for this study came from the one-percent sample of continuous 
work history maintained by the Social Security Administration. 
Thus, the coverage vras limited to agricultua-al workers whose employ- 
ment is covered under OASI. The study covers both occupational 
mobility and geographic migration. Some of the main conclusions 
are: 

- - Occupational mobility is most common among the young, 

farm wage vjorkers,' whites, and individuals from high 
income counties located close to SMSA's. 

- - Occupational stability after changing jobs was greatest 

for the young, persons with higher incomes in farming, 
wno were farm wage workers in agriculture, and came from 
high income counties. 

- 35 - 



4261 



- - In general, the mobility process works lose well for those 

who need it mont. 

An interostinp; firdinr; of the Hath:iv:ny-PcrKin.'; study is that there 
is a certain fjiiount of b:ick-irovcnient tovmrd frrm v.'ork on t)ie part of 
perjions vrbo evidpntJy h'^.d tried to v)ove into nonfarm employment but 
found their carninrjs were lo\;e.r. 

The Choldin-Trout stucly referred to above has some information on the 
inberr.enerat.-j ons.l i: obi.l itv of tho.':-c migratory vorhers v.'ho settled in 
2'lichitan cities. Accoruing to this study only one of six of this group 
had the san-,e occupation as his father, while another one of six 
presently vorks in an occupation that may be considered "lower" th;ih 
that of his father. I'c'>.rly two-t)iirds had ccr.e upwai'd n.obility, 
mainly frorn the farm labor category to nonfana factory work. This 
group, having resettled, is, of course, not tj^ical of all miijratory 
farm v/orkers. ^ 

One of the best studies of the fiEi£f'£2?^''^J]12.^^i^''iZ °^ mieratory fann 
workers is William H. Motaler's and I'rederic 6. Sargent's Mip:rat ory 
Farmwork ers in the Mid co)itine nt S trer-m, (u. S. Department of Aericulture, 
Agricultui-al Research yei'Vice, in cooperation with Texas Agricultural 
E^:periment Station), which shovfs the major migratory routes followed 
by Texas-Mexican farm migrants, /j-i earlier study by Mstzler traced 
patterns of i/.igration of Atltintic Coast migrants living in the Belle 
Glade area (rli^'.ratory Farm Vforkcr,': in the Atl r. ntic Coast Stream, 
U.S.DoA. Cir. '■^oby l'^')[f). 'iheso studies are iiow out of date because 
of recent shifts in production methods as vrell as the discontinuance 
of foreign workers which has changed requirements for U. S. migratory 
workers. 

A comprehensive discussion of Africu.ltuxa l L?.b or Mobili ty by Paul D. 
Miller, is foujid in Fru j.t and ycr .c?;:.\hlG YkiTys st l .eclvaniV'^^oion , 
Manpower I mpHeations , J3. r. Cargi.il cinci G. JJ. Kossmilier, editors, 
Pvural Manpov.er Center, Michigan State University, 1969j sponsored 
by the I-Ianpower Administration. A copy of this volume is enclosed. 
Miller's article contains recent statistics en the geographic 
dictribution of Texas migratory workers. (Enclosure l). 

Another study of occupational and geographic mobility of migratory 
agricultural workers v.-ho have relocated in VJisconsin stresses cultural 
factors as major doterjainants in ir.ohility (Mark Edward Erenburg, 
A Studyof the Potenti al R elocatio n of Texas-l-lichig an Mifrr atory Fa rm 
Worl:ers to i.': .';ccnr.j.n, a p;i.d. thesis, Univercit:/~of vJiscTonsin, 196y, 
prepared uiiuer grant from the Manpower Administration). Findings of 
this study indicate that relocation decisions are related to the 
degree of assimilation of dominant culture values. The more 
"Americanized" migratory farm wor);ers are, the more likely they arc 
to respond to wage differentials and other economic incentives. 

- 36 - 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 15 



4262 



This finding is also borne out by mobility assistance projects 
sponsored by the Department of Labor under the Manpower Develop- 
ment and Training Act which suggest that a considerable amount 
of supportive service and orientation is necessary for successful 
reloGfttion «wiong miSJ'nnto with utreng loenllBbd tjultm-al tloo. 

A mobility assistairo project sponsored by the Manpower Administration 
demonstrated the feasibility of government programs to facilitate the 
readjustment of Mexican-Ajuerican workers, including migratory farm 
■workers. Approximately 750 residents of the Lower Rio Grande Valley 
were retrained and placed in industrial jobs with the Ling-Tcmpjo- 
Vou^ht Company in Fort Worth. The project demonstrated the need for 
a coordinated approach involving education, housing, health agencies, 
as well QS the employment service and private industry. This projefct 
is described in the context of the entire problem of economic opportu- 
nity for low-income Mexican-Americans in the enclosed article by 
Niles M. Hansen, entitled " Improving Economic Opportunity for the 
Mexican Americans . The article is based on a section of Dr. Hansen's 
recent study, Urban and Regional Dimensions of Manpower Policy , 
prepared under contract to the Manpower Administration. (Enclosure 2). 

A broader discussion of the literature related to the adjustment of 
rural workers, including migratory farm workers, to an urban setting 
has just been released. See Varden Fuller, Rural Worker Adjustment 
to Urban Life, An Assessment of Research , Institute of Labor and 
Industrial Relations, University of Michigan-Wayne State University 
and the National Manpower Policy Task Force, February 1970, copy 
eneloeed (Enelesufe 3 )• 

- 37 - 



4263 



HAVE STUPIKS TKKN COm^'JCTJ^D TO ])Ki':?K!:ii!S 'r-lOV.^. FACTORS V']!1C1I INFLUEliCE 
OCCUPATin-JM., JO?., Ai;i) GEOGK/vPIIICAL KOBTLITY PATTERNS, AIJD R/>TE OF 
h5IGll^T0:;Y FA;-^^ VOI^HKi-o? IF SO, PLF^SE SUPIT.Y THFSE STUnTi:S ACT THE 
DATA O;-; V;)r'CH results are based. if no studies AKE AVAIT.ABLE, rLF'\SE 
PJXPLA.IN V.'i'y i;OT. 

See reply to Question 19- 

FJvVE studies been C0I:DUCTED TO DETERiairE THE SO0IO-ECOKO:«C STATUS OF 
MIGRATORY J'AR'-V.'ORKERS REL/.TIVE TO OTHER LABOR tl.AR}CET GROUPS, CiiAKGEo 
IN SOCIO-J'COIiGMIC STATUS OVER TImE, AND FACTORS INIXUENCIKG SOCIO- 
ECONOMIC S^~.\TU5 OF MIGRATORY FAl,;'. WORKERS? IF SO, PLE-'\SE SUPPLY 
STUDIES AND DATA ON \v'niCH KECUJyrS ARE BASED. IF NO STUDIES ARE 
AVAILABLE, PLE/'.SE EXPIAIH V.'HY NOT. ^ 

See USDA reply. A study was recently completed by the Advisory Committee 
on Farm Labor Research, California Legislature, Assembly Coinmittee on 
Agriculture, with the assistance of the California Department of Employ-, 
ment and the financial support of the U. S. Department of Labor (The 
Calif ornUi reirrr^LnhorJ^ '■'"hi-^ study has a 

section on ;nicrants in the California labor force vhich deals priinarily 
vith earnings, but also with the extent of uncmplojonent , attaclimcnt to 
the work force, and other social and economic characteristics. A copy 
is enclosed. (Enclosure h.) 

)i/vVE STUDIES BEEN CONDUCTED TO DETERf-'JNE THE SPECIFIC ROLES OF EDUCATION, 
L/UIGUAGE, CULTURE, KAC:L/vL DISCRL'IIJATION, AND U\BOR MARhJJl' INFORMATION IN 
INFLUENCJliG J'.OBILITY (OF AJ.L TYPES) OF MIGRATORY FAR.M V.'ORICERS. IF SO, 
PIJiASE SUT'P],Y STUDIJ':S AND DATA Oil V.'HICH RESULTS ARE P^\SED. IF NOT, 
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NO SUCH STUDIES HAVE BEEN liADE. 

The studies referred to in reply to Question 19 cover nany of these 
points. 

SINCE THERE EXIST I-UGlVaJT RELOCATION AND RETRAINING PROGRAMS, DO 
C0:4PREHEi;SIVE EVALUATIONS OF TIIL3K PROGRAl'iS EXIST? IF NO SUCH 
EV/vLUATIO:;S H/vVE BEEN M^DE, PLEA.SE EXPLAIN WHY NOT. 

The Texas Migrant ESD Project has been in operation for over a year. 
This is a pilot effort designed to develop a capability within the 
emploiaoent services to provide or arrange for a broad range of _ 
services to migrants and their families. An evaluation of the first 
year project experience has been made by ABT Associates. This report 
was designed to focus on proble.a areas to help restructure the pro- 
ject for the second year. The second year's program will stress 
training for year-round employment and assistance in settling out of 
the migrant stream. A copy has been provided to the Subcommittee 
Staff. 

- 38 - 



4264 



2A. HAVE EVALUATIONS OF DIFFERENT STATE AND FEDERAL, AGENCY AND DEPARTMENT, 
PROGRAMS AND PROGRAM COMrONE>JTS BEEN COMBINED AND ANALYZED AS A WiOLE? 
IF SO, PLEASE SUPPLY ALL SUCH OVERALL EVALUATIONS. IF NO SUCH OVERALL 
EVALUATIONS HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN, PLF-ASE EXPLAIN WHY NOT. 

The Manpower Administration has had independent evaluations of manpower 
programs as a whole. One of these, entitled Federal Manpower Program s, 
An Evaluation by the National Manpower Advisory Committee , was issued 
in March 1968. Another, entitled Federal Training and Work ProRrams 
in the Sixties > by Sar A. Levitan and Garth L. Mangum , Institute of 
Labor and Industrial Relations, the University of Michigan-Wayne State 
University, 1969, was supported in part by a grant from the Ford Foun- 
dation. These evaluations do not relate specifically to migratory 
workers, but copies are enclosed for the information of the Subcommittee 
(Enclosures 5 and 6). 

In January 1968 a Rural Manpower Services Task Force consisting of 
Varden Fuller, Thomas H. Bride, and Daniel Sturt issued its report. 
The report examined programs of the Department of Labor's Bureau of 
Employment Security in relation to rural manpower, including migratory 
workers. A number of recommendations were made for reorganizing and 
reorienting rural manpower services. (Enclosure 7). 

Also enclosed is Farm Labor in the United States , C. E. Bishop, editorj 
Columbia University Press, 1967. This volume contains critical papers 
on farm manpower problems and policies, presented at a conference 
sponsored by the Manpower Administration. (Enclosure 8). 



Generally, programs for migratory farm workers are reviewed continuously 
by the Farm Labor and Rural Manpower Service in the course of operations 

WITH REGARD TO WORKER AND EMPLOYER ATTITUDES: 

25. HAVE DATA BEEN GATHERED AND STUDIES MADE WHICH WOULD INDICATE THE NATURI 
OF THE WORK ATTITUDES OF MIGRATORY FARM\TORKERS RELATIVE TO OTHER WORKERS 
IN THE ECONOMY? DO LONGITUDINAL DATA EXIST SHOWING CHANGES IN THESE 
ATTITUDES? HAVE THE CAUSES OF THESE ATTITUDES BEEN EXPLORED? PLEASE 
SUPPLY US WITH ALL SUCH STUDIES AND DATA IF THEY EXIST. IF NO SUCH 
STUDIES HAVE BEEN MADE, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NOT. 

Studies referred to in reply to Question 19 have sections on attitudes 
of migrant workers toward farm and nonfarm employment and aspirations 
for children, which indirectly reflect such attitudes. 

- 39 - 



4265 



56. HAV)^ ji-;vKSTiG/,?jo:;j pkit: y'U)K of E'.'ii.oyER ini-:ii;G Aiin r.;?i,07;'-;;;t pot.icjes 

FOR r'ilGlVvTOHY FAKl-'-WOi^rCHRS AS COyi^AlIi'D V/lTii )';o:i';l(;i-;A 1.^.1' KGl-:Kv: -iS SiVXIFI- 

CAT.LY v.'it:i Eh':T.-;cT to DTr:c;n-Mi!:AT;K':; o^: the p-'\sjs of racf, iakguagk, age, 

P1.ACE OF R)%Sli-.;:;;CF, SKX, A-^D MIGRA:;cy STATUS? IF 1(0 SUCH STUDIFS liAYr; 
BEEU I'LADJ:;, PLEASii L>lPLAIi; \.'}'Y liOT. 

Job ordorE for intorarca recruitment of workers .-.re revicwec5 at State, 
regional, and n:;.tional levels to j.nsLU-o that no discriminatory provi- 
sions are included, i 

WITH REGARD TO THF KATURE OF DK-'jUJD: 

27. V.'HAT EFFORTS HAVE BEER J'„ADF, TO DESCRIBE THE F-XACT FUTURE OF THE DE|.;AI!D 
FOR MIGRATORY FARMWORKERS (FOR FJUiVd'hE, Hi TERMS OF RR.-iUlF.J.TE SKiLLS 
AND ABILITIES, JOB C0;-n'0NE:^T3, ETC.)? 

a. PLF.ASE SUPPLY DATA WHICH REFLECT AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE THE 
CURRERT Iv'vTJl^E OF TKIC DKMAKD FOR KICF^.TORY FAywr.'.'ORiCERS AtiD THE 
BEHiWIOR OF THAT DKMM.'D OVER THE FRECEDIRG 10 YJiARS, AirD IK 1930, 
I9I+O, 1950, A!JD 1955, AS WELL AS DEi.'AMD PROJECTED II.'TO 'xiiS FUTURE. 

b PLEASE IRCLUDE DATA TO DESCRIE:-'; Tim SOURCE OF THE DE.'iAl'D (I.E., 
IKCLUDIFG BUT LIMITED TO E.IPI.OYERS BY SIZE, CROPS IliVOLVED, 
GEOGimPHIC LOCATION, DEGREE OF RORAGRIC'UI/rUFJ'.L INTERESTS, ETC.). 

C. IF SUCH I;;F0R'.1ATI01J is not AVAIIJ'.BLE, specifically EXPLAIN WHY 
THIS IS SO. 

Refer to replies to Questions 6 and 10 for discussion of how dcnand 
data are obtained on a current basis. The Manpower Adi:inistration 
has several research projects underway which are desicned to study 
trends in demand for farm workers and outlook for the future, 
taking into consideration mcchanir.ation of fruit and vecctable 
harvestinc and other crop activities. One of these is Fruit and 
Vegetablc_]::iryc£t^'£Cb_ani5^i^ B. F. CarciH and G. E. Rossini J.lcr, 
editors. (l';nclosure 9. See also Enclosure 1.) Another study 
' entitled Ap: ricu].tural Labor in fne Northear.t_Statc£, by James S. 
Holt, Reuben W. Hecht, and Keil B. Gingrich, Department of 
Agricultural Econo:r,ics and Rural Sociology, the Pennsylvania 
State University, relating to ch:,nGes in the agricultural industry 
and in the farm labor market. in the Hortheustca-n States, is expected 
to be co.r.plctcd within the next few months. A third study entitled 
The Impact of Mechanj cal_Harycr.t :^ np on Dcr .a nd for Labor in the 
Floridr civrus Jnciu:;try, by Kan.ai Dow, is ali;o undcr^.•ay. 

- ItO - 



4266 



26. V.'IIAT Hi'.S BL'KN T!IE JiKHAVJOR OF LAP.Oli ^!^0!•)liCTIVITy (M.SPi'CI/.LLY i;';LATJ"':i) TO 
THE IKTRODUCTION OF Th:C}iL'07,0GICAL ADVANCES) IK At;iaCUL'rJi:K (AiiiD SPKCIFI- 
CALLY TN THOS].^ AnPICUI/.rUP.AL SKCTOKS U5:iIiC; K1G?J\T0RY FARl-RvOHKHi^P. ) OVEP^ 
TliK PAST 10 YiZAPS, AriP I'd lSr>0, IS-'-O, WjO, AI;D 19'J:-j7 V.'KAT KJ LL J^E 
FUTUPxt; BKliAVIO;?? V;;1*T MAC PKKf), Ali'J V.'iIAT V,';i LL B)', TJIE B/;]-7iVI0H 0>' 

MiGKA'j'ORY fari.;i>.'03ni;sk );AKiJiK(;s ovKi^ Tiii:s:-; tjmk pj^riods? please supply 

ALL DATA PELEVAliT TO THESE D.ETEI-LMIKATIOl.'S. IF NO SUCH DATA AKE 
available, PLEASE EXPLAIE V.'JiY KOT. 

(To bo anrA:ered by USDA.) ^ 

29. IVliAT }JAS BEEN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PJ'vODUCTlVITY OF MIGR/iTORY 
FAIMv'OPKERS AND THEIR LEVEL OF EARwIJfGS IH AGRICULTURE COMPARED WITH 
PRODUCTIVm' AKD EARl'JIiJGS OF NOIvl.lIGJ-IATORY AGRICULTURTiL AND KON- 
AGRICULTURAL KOi^iERS OVER THE PEDCEDIHG 10 YEARS, /dTO IN I93O, I9I1O,' 
19^0, AKD 1955. WHAT WILL BE TJJB REI.,ATI0NS}nF3 Jj; TF^ FliTURE? PLEASE 
SUPPLY f\LL DATA BliA]^Ii;G OK THESE Q.UECTIOIJS. IF liO DATA ARE AVAIL/iBLE, 
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY L'OT. 

(To be answered by USDA.) 

30. PLEASE IRDICATE THE AMCUI^T OF MO:iET (DIRECT MID I^IRECT - SOURCES AND 
RECIPIEIiTS) ECPERDED AlflOJALLY TO LMPROVE AGKICLri^TUR.fvL TEC}n;OLOGY - 
CURRENTLY ArrD OVER THE PRECEDIHG 10 YEARS. WK.AT ARE PROJECTED 
EXPERDITURES FOR FUTURE YE.AES? 

(To be ansv.'ered by USDA.) j 

31. H.EASE IMDICATE AJ-IO'JTvT OF I'lOIffiY SPEIJT (DIRECT AKD irjDIRECT - SOURCES 
MID RECIPIEHTS) TO REDUCE OUTPUT OF AGRICULTURE, AR'D/OR SUPPORT AGRI- 
CULTUR.AL PP.ICES - CURRER'TLY AliD Al,miALLY OVm THE PRSCEDilJa 10 YEARS. 
NHtAT \;iLL BE TL'E ]':>;TEhT AKD NATURE OF FUTURE EXPrJIDlTUIlES? 

(To be ans\?ered by USDA.) 

32. H.EASE INDICATE SIW SPENT (DIRECT A];D INDIRECT - SOURCES MID RECIPIENTS) 
CURRENTLY, AF!i\TJALLY OVER TJiE PRECEDING 10 YEARS, Alfl) PP>OJECTED FUTURE 
EXPEiroiTUKES, TO REDUCE LABOR SUPPLY IN AGRICULTUJiE, A1;D ESPECLULY IN 
f-UGRAN'T AGRICL1.TUKE, JJECESSITATEJ:) BY EFFORTS TO P.E.LATIVELY DECREASE TJIE 
DEI.IAR'D FOR AGRlCULTURi'iL LABOR. PLEA.SE SUPPLY ALL ])ATA ON WHICH FIGURES 
ARE RASED. 

The Depart.T.cnt of Labor does not have procrams specifically desifjned to 
reduce labor supply in ac.riculture, except for the terndnation of the 
foreicn worker program since I965. U. S. \>orkers who are forced by 
technological chance and shortening of agricultural work seasons to seek 

- hi - 



4267 



nonfain ciTiplt^yrK'n v , or v;ho voluntarily v.'jrh to ch'o.if-,e from fariu to 
nonfar.'Vi n-ay be f^.^rirsted tljiouc'.h rop.ulcr pro^^.rar.iG of Job market 
ii"iforr!.'i.tJon, rci\:yr:^2 oncl pl.•^cc■^:lc^Jt, and in co'-o ca.sec throu^-t: ^2)T^ 
trajnw:;' to acavxrc zY.illr, for nonfanr. occupations, 

33. H.EASE i::dicat>: ;:i:\ku;;e3 of jjcia^iys F:^FrcTiV";:':L:3s oy monies sfkj^t to 

CliAKCE YtlE ]U\TU.iK OF Tn!J DlMAiiD FOR ACRJCULIU-iAL (AKD MICRATOilY AGRI- 

cuI.Tu;^^L) i.AJ:OK comiviKed v;;LTii v.orai-s liFEWT to ciiai;ge labor sui'F].Y. 

PLKASE r.UPFLY ALL DATA ON V.'IilC;! TilESi; F.-JASUliES AF.E E^S^). IF liO DAT/\ 
am: available, il.LASE EKHAIK V/Jfi' liOT. 

The DOjiarti;;ent of Labor does not have programs to chpiige the nature 
of demcnd for agricultural (r.nd micratory agrjcultural) labor, or 
pro£';rciyn.'; to change the labor supply except as indicated in reply 
to Question 32. 

- h?. - 



4268 



UNITED STATES 
EEPARTI'lENT OP AGR'^CUITURE 
RESPONSE TO 
INTERROGATORIES OE 
""TCrRATORY LABOR SraCOMMITTEE 



I. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 



Question 



1. Do we know how many migratory farmworkers, and working and non- 
working dependents and relatives, there are in this country? 



Answer 



The 1969 Hired farm working force survey shows that 257,000 
persons did some migratory farmwork for cash wages during the year. 
This was 22,000 less than in 1968 and a continuation of the decline 
in the number of persons doing such work, which has been in process 
since 1965 (table 1), 



Table 1. — Number of domestic farm wageworkers , domestic migratory farm 
wageworkers, and foreign nationals, 1949-69 







Domestic farm wageworkers 






Year 


i Total 


', Migrants 


Migrants who 
FWW only 


did : 
1/ : 


Foreign nationals 




: Thou. 


Thou. 


Thou. 




Thou. 


1969 


: 2,571 


257 


146 




16 


1968 


2,919 


279 


158 




13 


1967 


3,078 


276 


170 




24 


1966 


2,763 


351 


184 




24 


1965 


3,128 


466 


252 




36 


1964 


3,370 


286 


218 




200 


1963 


3,59 7 


386 


256 




209 


1962 


3,622 


380 







217 


1961 


3,488 


295 







310 


1960 


3,693 


409 







335 


1959 


3,577 


477 







455 


1957 


3,962 


427 


• 




452 


1956 


3,575 


427 







460 


1954 


3,009 


365 







321 


1952 • 


2,980 


352 







210 


1949 


4,140 


422 







113 


1/ Date 


1- not available where dashes are shown. 






Source: 


Domestics, 
Labor Deve 


Hired Fargi Working 


Force. USDA; 


Foreign 


Nationals, Farm 




lopnients, USDL. 







4269 



The basis upon which these estimates are made is data collected 
during the December Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted by 
the Bureau of the Census and sponsored by the Economic Research 
Service (ERS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The number of 
migratory, regular, year-round, and other categories of the hired 
farm working force is a regular and continuing part of the data 
obtained and published annually in the Hired Farm Working Force 
and thus a part of the ERS series. 

The number of relatives, non-working dependents, and other 
aspects of sub-groups are not regularly obtained. They represent 
a much smaller segment of the population than the CPS was 
designed to measure, thus often the data obtained from questions 
pertaining to these sub-groups generates problems of sampling 
efficiency. Such was the case with special questions added to the 
1967 survey to collect data' on the number of working and non-working 
dependents of migratory workers traveling the migratory route. There- 
fore, other approaches are needed to assure more reliable 
answers to aspects of these questions. 

Question 

la. What is the current standard for determining whether a worker is to 
be considered a migrant farmworker? 

Answer 

Farm wageworkers are classified as migratory, if during the survey 
year they left their homes temporarily (at least overnight) to do 
farmwork for cash wages in another county within the same State or 
in another State with the expectation of returning home at the 



4270 



conclusion of their period of farm wagework. Persons who had no 
usual place of residence and did farm wagework during the year in 
two or more counties, either in the same or in different States, 
were classified as migratory farm wageworkers . This and other 
definitions pertaining to hired farmworkers is contained in the 
annual Hired Farm Working Force publication. 

Question 

lb. Are all data relating to migratory farmworkers, and working and non- 
working dependents and relatives, based on these definitions? If 
so, what are the reasons for choosing these particular definitions? 
If not, what other definitions are used? What are the reasons for 
using each such definition? 

Answer 

The Hired Farm Working Force (HFWF) is Agriculture's only 
series providing demographic data on migratory workers. These 
data are obtained through the CPS household survey and are based 
on the preceding (question la) definition of migrant. 

This definition was chosen to distinguish between the farmworker 
who stays in one location and one who moves from area to area, 
whether inter-or intra-state, and because it is within the operational 
limitation of the survey interview situation. Also this definition 
differentiates between persons migrating permanently from one place 
to another and those who leave home temporarily to do farm^^;ork. 

Data relating to migrants published by the U.S. Department of 
Labor — which are collected through the State employment service 



4271 



agencies and those collected through the farm establishment surveys 
of USDA's Statistical Reporting Service — are based on a definition 
which differs little -from that used in the HFWF (see statement by 
USDL) . 

Question 

2. For each of the last 10 years, and in 1930, 1940, 1950, and 1955, 
and for future years where projections have been made, please 
answer the following: (For each figure given, please specify 
the definition of migrancy used, the source of the data, and 
indicate measures of statistical reliability. If no data are 
available, please explain why.) 

2a. How many migratory farmworkers have there been (will there be) in 
this country? Please indicate foreign nationals separately. 

Answer 

The Department's Hired Farm Working Force series was begun 
in 1945, when questions were added to the Current Population Survey 
of the Census Bureau (which was started in 1943 to measure national 
employment and unemployment) to obtain information on domestic persons 
doing farm wagework. In 1949, questions were added to obtain the 
number of persons doing migratory farmwork. These numbers are 
shown in table 1 except for five intervening years between 1949 
and 1959 when no data on migrants was obtained. 

These data are based on the definition of migrancy given in 
answer to question la and standard errors for indicating their statistical 
reliability are published in each issue of the annual HFWF. The 
standard error for the 257,000 migrants shown in table 1 for 1969, 
for example, is approximately 29,000. This means that the chances 
are 68 out of 100 that the estimate (257,000) would differ from a 



4272 



complete census by less than 29,000. This and other illustrations, 
as well as a discussion of the reliability of the estimates are 
contained in Appendix A of the 1969 HFI'/F. A copy of this report 
along with copies of Volume 2 and 7 of Agriculture Handbook No. 365 
which discuss in detail the construction and use of USDA's farm 
labor series, is being forwarded under separate cover. 1/ 

The number of foreign nationals, shown in table 1, are from 
Farm Labor Developments, U.S. Department of Labor (USDL) and require 
no measure of statistical reliability since they are an actual 
count rather than a sample survey. 

We have not made estimates of the numbers of migrants in future 
years. 

Question 

2b. How many have done (will do) only migratory farm^'jork? 

Answer 

The HTOF survey obtains numbers of migrants doing farm wagework 
only during the survey year and has done so since 1963. These numbers 
are shown in table 1. However, they do. not preclude the possibility 
that farm wagework performed by some of these workers consisted of 
both migratory and nonmigratory work. Prior to 1963, no separation 
was made in the series between those migrants doing farm wagework 
only and those doing both farm and nonfarm work. 



1^1 In addition to these publications, copies of all other USDA studies referi 
to in this paper will- be included in the separate material package. 



4273 



Question 

2c. How many, and to what degree, have (will) migrant workers been (be) 
employed outside of agriculture? What other kind of jobs have been 
(will be) performed by these workers? 



Answer 



The numbers of migrants doing nonfarm work and days of such 



work are shown in table 2. 

Table 2. —Number of migratory farm wageworkers doing nonfarm work and 
days of such work, U.S. 







Migratory Farmworkers 








Total 


Nonfarm Job 


Year : 


Number of : 
migrants who : 


Average 
number of 








worked at nonfarm work : 


days worked 






Thou. 


Thou. 


No. 




1969 


257 


Ill 


116 




1968 


279 


121 


100 




1967 


276 


106 


94 




1966 


351 


168 


92 




1965 


466 


213 


100 




1964 


386 


168 


99 




1963 


: 386 


130 


78 





These data indicate that the number of migratory farmworkers per- 
forming nonfarm work have declined since 1965 as has the total number of 
migrants. The proportion of total migrants performing nonfarm work 
shows a slight increase, however, as does the average number of days 
employed at nonfarm work. 

Special questions added to the 1965 HFWF survey yielded data of 
sufficient statistical quality to enable the analysis and publication 
of some limited information on the type of nonfarm work performed by 
migrants . 



4274 



The occupational groups used in obtaining these data, which 
are published in Domestic M igratory Farmworkers , AER No 121, ERS-USDA, 
September 1967, were traditional labor force classification and are 
defined as in. the 1960 Census of Population. 

Almost half of the 466,000 migratory farmworkers in 1965 did 
some nonfarm work. The majority of these workers (65 percent) did 
blue-collar work, primarily at the semi-skilled or unskilled level 
(table 3). Skilled craftsmen were relatively rare among the migrants. 
Fifteen percent held service jobs in restaurants, hotels, laundries, 
and other such firms. Only one-tenth did white-collar work, which 
reflects their low level of formal education. 



Table 3. — Distribution of migratory farm wageworkers, by type of nonfarm 
work they performed in 1965 





Migratory Farmt-zorkers 


Occupation 1/ 


Number of ': Percentage 




workers : distribution 




Thou. Pet. 


Total migrants 


213 100 


White-collar workers 


23 • 11 


Blue-collar workers 


139 65 


Craftsmen 


21 10 


Operatives 


63 29 


Laborers 


55 26 


Service workers 


51 24 


Private household 


20 9 


Other service 


31 15 



_!/ Occupation refers to type of work done for longest period in 1965. 



4275 



Question 

3. What are the current sources of demographic data for the migratory 

farm working force? Specifically, can we classify and cross-classify 
this group by age, sex, marital status, educational level, school 
drop-out rate, English language proficiency, skill level, family 
size, children's school status, other household members (by number, 
occupation, time devoted), parents' occupation, and place of residence 
(by size, geographic location, industrial concentration, frequency 
of permanent change per year, and unemployment-undereraployment- 
subemployment level)? (This list is not to be considered inclusive. 
If other personal characteristics and data can be identified, please 
state them.) 



General Answer 

As previously indicated, the source of demographic data 
published by USDA is an ERS sponsored questionnaire enumerated by 
. the Census Bureau in their December Current Population Survey and 
published in the annual Hired Farm Working Force . 

While the data which follow in response to the alphabetized 
parts of this and other questions show that considerable classifi- 
cation of data are made, there are both statistical and research 
limitations on the data. These limitations result from financially 
imposed space limitations on the CPS schedule, budget restrictions 
on the funds available to secure detailed cross-classification of 
data, a shortage of trained rural manpower analysts, and the small 
size of the sample. The sample does not permit, for example, 
geographical breaks lower than four regions — Northeast, North 
Central, South, and West, for the total HFWF and only two (South 
and West) in the case of the smaller number of migrants. 



4276 



Question 

3a. Please supply us with as much such detailed demographic data as you 
have for the most current period as well as for each of the last 
10 years, and in 19 30, 19 AO, 1950, and 1955. Please explain fully 
the definitions and changes in definitions during the time periods 
on which the data are based. Please explain also the sources for 
such data and comment fully on their statistical reliability and 
inherent shortcomings, if any. 

Answer 

Tables 4-16 which follow (end of part II) contain the requested 

demographic characteristics on migtatory fanmijorkers as published 

in the Hired Farm Working Force for those years they were collected. 

The source of this data and its statistical reliability are discussed 

in answer to questions 2 and 3 and the definition of migrant remained 

throughout the period as set forth in the answer to question la. 

Question 

3b. If data on any or all of the above-mentioned demographic data and 
personal characteristics are not available, please explain why. 

Answer 

See answer to question 2a for a discussion of the duration of 

the series and the general answer to question 3 for limitations on 

obtaining such data through this source. 

Question 

3c. Please supply us with analyses of changes in the demographic 
composition of the migratory farm labor force over the last 10 
years, and projections for future change (including all assump- 
tions on which the projections are based) which you possess. 

Answer 

The only demographic data on migratory farmworkers that is 

collected on a continuing basis by USDA are those published annually 



4277 



in the Hired Farm Working Force . Data from this series on sex, age, 
color, and geographic residence are shown by several cross-classifi- 
cations in the tables contained in this paper (see especially tables 4 
through 9). They indicate that the sex ratio has remained about the 
same from 1962 through 1969 but the workers have become increasingly 
younger. In 1962, 40 percent of migrants were under 25 years of age, 
and by 1969 this proportion had increased to 63 percent. This 
trend toward younger migratory farmworkers has been among males 
rather than females with the percentage of males under 25 increasing 
from 37 percent to 68 percent, while the proportion of females under 
25 years of age remained about the same. As the migrant labor force 
has become younger, it has also undergone a change in racial composition. 
During the 1961-1969 period, there was a precipitous decline, from 
46 percent to about 8 percent, of Negro and other nonwhite races 
relative to white migratory workers. During the same period, there 
was also a shift from the major concentration of migrants residing 
in the South, declining from 57 percent of the total in 1961 to only 
27 percent in 1969. 

An ERS analysis of demographic and 'related facets stemming from 
special questions added to the HFWF in 1964 and 1965 is contained in 
the publication Domestic Migratory Farmi<rorkers , AER No. 121, USDA. 
A copy of the report is enclosed with publications being forwarded 
under separate cover. 
Question 

3d. If no analysis of. change and/or projections have been made, please 
explain why. 

Answer 

See answers to questions 3 through 3c. 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 16 



4278 



II. The Subcommittee's investigation of migrant farnj^^orker manpower and 
economic problems by definition encompasses analysis of present and 
projected earnings and employment data. The following 12 aspects of 
earnings and employment are under consideration (the list is not to be 
considered as inclusive, and any additions are welcomed) . 



Question 

4. Please supply the following information: 

4a. Do there exist data series which reflect on the above 12 aspects (as 
enumerated in part II by the Subcommittee) of migratory farmworker 
earnings and employment? If so, specifically name each series. 
Please explain data acquisition and compilation techniques, and 
indicate the name of the person responsible for acquisition, compi- 
lation, and analysis of each series, and indicate the length of 
time-series data now available. 

Answer 

One of USDA's three farm labor series, the Hired Farm Working 
Force (HFWF) , contains information on the 12 aspects discussed. 
The construction and use of the HFWF series, the ERS man-hours (of 
farm labor) and the Statistical Reporting Service's Farm Employment 
and Wage Rate series is contained in Volumes 2 and 7 of Agriculture 
Handbook No. 365, which is being forwarded your office along with 
other reference materials. 

The data which follow in answer to the alphabetized parts of 
question 4 are from the HFWF series and are obtained (as discussed 
earlier) by an Economic Research Service (ERS) sponsored questionnaire 
which is enumerated in the Census Bureau's December Current Population 
Survey. 



4279 



The data pertaining essentially to the following topics are contained 
in the indicated tables. 



1. Level of earnings of migratory farm wageworkers from farm 
and nonfarm jobs (table 9) . 

2. Earnings by two geographic locations. South and West 
(table 9). 

3. Comparable employment and earnings data for nonmigratory 
farm wageworkers (table 16). 



In addition to the information being provided here and by 
USDL, the Social Security Administration may be able to provide 
information on withholdings (Subcommittee point No. II 3); the 
Office of Economic Opportunity and the Department of Health, Education 
and Welfare — especially through the activities of the migrant 
health service — may have useful information on part II and other 
aspects of your request. 

As Director of Agricultural Economics, Dr. Don Paarlberg 

Is the person in USDA with overall responsibility for the HFWF 

series and other matters pertaining to agricultural economics. 

Question 

4b. Please supply us with annual data (from "a") for the last 10 
years and for 19 30, 1940, 1950, and 1955. 

Answer 

As explained in response to question 2a, the HFWF series was 

not begun until 1945 and the small segment thereof pertaining to 

migrants was not begun until 1949 and became a permanent part of 



4280 



the series in 1959. Within those restraints, those data which are 
available are presented in the tables (1-16) of this report. 

Question 

4c. Have cross-sectional studies been conducted which reflect on the 
above 12 aspects of migrant farmworker earnings and employment? 
If so, specifically name each series. Please explain data 
acquisition and compilation techniques, and indicate the name of 
the person responsible for acquisition, compilation, and analysis 
of each series, and indicate the length of time-series data now 
available. 

Answer 

Again, our only series containing information of this nature 
is the HFWF and the length of the series and limitations upon 
cross-classification of the data are discussed in answer to questions 
2 and 3. The extent to which such classification is done on a 
continuing basis is indicated in the aforementioned tables. However, 
a copy of our 1969 HFWF is contained in the separate package of 
supporting material being provided your office. As that publication, 
and similar ones of recent years will indicate, the USDA person 
responsible for professional and technical aspects of this series 
is Robert C. McElroy of the Economic Research Service. 

As explained in answer to Aa, Dr. Don Paarlberg has overall 
responsibility for the Department's work in Agricultural Economics. 
Others in direct line responsibility between Messrs. Paarlberg 
and McElroy are Dr. Melvin L. Upchurch, Administrator, ERS ; 
Dr. William C. Motes, Director, Economic Development Division (EDD) , ERS; 
and Dr. James H. Copp, Chief Human Resources Branch, EDD-ERS . 



4281 



Special questions added to the 1964 and 1965 HFWF resulted in 
a more detailed cross-classification and discussion of migratory 
farmworkers and their earnings and employment. This analysis is 
contained in Domestic Migratory Farmworkers , AER No. 121, USDA, 
a copy of which is contained in the package of supporting materials. 
Another such study which contains detailed information on the HFWF 
as a whole is contained in A Socio-Economic Profile of the 1965 
Farm Wage Force , AER No. 157, USDA, a copy of which is also contained 
in the supporting materials package. 

Question 

4d. Please supply us with annual data (from "c") for the last 10 
years, and in 19 30, 1940, 1950, and 1955. 

Answer 

The exttr.t of our series information on this question is 

contained in the tables already discussed in answer to earlier 

questions . 

Question 

4e. If no data are available on any one or .more of the particular aspects 
of migratory farmt,rorkers ' earnings and employment, please indicate 
if such data are available for other groups within this Nation's 
labor force, and why no such data exists for migratory farmworkers. 

Answer 

There are data referred to in this question which are not available 
on migrants but are for some other groups within the Nation's labor 
force. For example, data on average hours worked per week and hourly 



4282 



earnings, of manufacturing workers as published by USDL, or wage 
rates of all hired farrmvorkers by specified methods of payment and 
average hours worked per week as published by USDA. 

The "whys" of the difference in availability of data between 
migrants and other groups stems primarily from the same reasons that 
there is a lack of information on other aspects of migrancy and are 
essentially twofold: 

1. The very nature of migratory farmwork requires that 
information be obtained from the highly mobile workers 
themselves, as most often no one else is possessed of 
that information. This requires specialized survey 
techniques which present more numerous, as well as more 
costly, technical and operational difficulties than is 

the case, for example, with the business and farm establish- 
ment surveys from which information on the more stable 
work groups are obtained. 

2. Funds have not been available to pursue the development 
and continued collection of statistical data, beyond that 
currently being collected and published in the HFWF, nor 
have specific funds been appropriated for further study 
of the HFWF or other segments of rural manpower. This 

is to a considerable degree, no doubt, a consequence of 
the very "powerlessness" outlined in the Subcommittee's 
statement accompanying its request for an answer to the 
33 questions. 

Question 

4f . Please supply any projections for the future regarding any 
available data on any one or more of the 12 aspects. 

Answer 

We have made no projections for the future on these aspects 

of migrancy. 



4283 



Table 4 .—Distribution of migratory farm wageworkers^ by sc-a and age, 1962-69 





Number 


of workers 




Percent 


ap,e distribu 


tlon 




Age 


; 


: 




: 


. 








Total : 


Male : 


Female 


Total : 


Male : 


Female 






Thou. . 


Thou. 


Thou. 


Pet. 


Pet. 


Pet. 




1969 
















Total 


257 


201 


55 


100 


100 


100 




14-17 yrs. 


99 


78 


21 


38 


39 


37 




18-24 


65 


58 


7 


25 


29 


12 




25-34 


33 


22 


10 


13 


11 


19 




35-44 


28 


17 


10 


11 


9 


18 




45-54 


18 


11 


8 


7 


5 


14 




55-64 


8 


8 


— 


3 


4 


-- 




65+ 


7 


7 


— 


3 


-3 






1968 
Total 


279 


205 


74 


100 


100 


100 




14-17 yrs. 


88 


68 


20 


32 


33 


27 




18-24 


67 


51 


16 


24 


25 


22 




25-44 


40 


27 


14 


14 


13 


18 




35^44 


36 


22 


14 


13 


11 


19 




45-54 


23 


19 


4 


8 


9 


5 




55-64 


9 


8 


1 


3 


4 


2 




65+ 


16 


10 


5 


6. 


5 


7 




1967 
















Total 


276 


204 


71 


100 


100 


100 - 




14-17 yrs. 


69 


52 


17 


25 - 


25 


24 




18-24 


74 


59 


14 


27 


29 


20 




25-34 


34 


24 


11 


12 


12 


15 




35-44 


32 


21 


12 


12 


10 


17 




45-54 


28 


18 


10 


10 


9 


14 




55-64 


31 


26 


5 


11 


13 


7 




65+ 


7 


4 


2 


3 


2 , 


3 




1966 
















Total 


351 


249 


104 


100 


100 


100 




14-17 yrs. 


91 


66 


25 


26 


27 


24 




18-24 


97 • 


66 


31 


28 


27 


30 




25-34 


44 


29 


15 


12 


11 


14 




35-44 


38 


27 


12 


11 


11 


12 




45-54 


38 


25 


13 


11 


10 


12 




55-64 


28 


23 


6 


8 


9 


6 




65+ 


15 


13 


2 


4 


5 


2 





See footnote at end of table. 



4284 



Table 4 . — Distribution of migratory farm wageworkers^by sex and age., 

(Continued) 



1962-69 





Age 1 


Number 


of workers 




Percentaf 


e distribution 






• 


: 




; 


: 










Total : 


Male : 


Female 


Total : 


Male : 


Female 








Thou. 


Thou. 


Thou. 


Pet. 


Pet . 


Pet. 




1965 


















Total 


466 


334 


132 


100 


100 


100 




14- 


17 yrs. 


119 


94 


25 


26 


28 


19 




18- 


24 


125 


92 


33 


27 


28 


25 




25- 


34 


54 


43 


11 


12 


13 


8 




35- 


44 


71 


38 


34 


15 


. 11 


26 




45- 


54 


47 


30 


17 


10 


9 


13 




55- 


-64 


30 


27 


3 


6 


8 


2 




65+ 


19 


10 


9 


4 


3 


7 




1964 


















Total 


386 


280 


107 


100 


100 


100 




14- 


■17 yrs. 


114 


71 


44 


30 


25 


41 




18- 


-24 


74 


55 


19 


19 


20 


18 




25- 


-44 


46 


37 


9 


12 


13 


8 




35- 


-44 


76 


51 


25 


20 


18 


23 




45- 


-54 


: 38 


33 


5 


10 


12 


5 




55- 


-64 


29 


• 27 


2 


7 


10 


2 




65+ 


: 9 


6 


- 3 


2 


2 


3 




1963 


















Total 


: 386 


318 


69 


100 


100 


100 




14- 


-17 yrs. 


: 70 


51 


19 


18 


16 


28 - 




18- 


-24 


: 104 


90 


14 


27 . 


28 


20 




25- 


-34 


: 94 


84 


10 


24 


26 


15 




35- 


-44 


: 55 


43 


12 


14 


14 


17 




45- 


-54 


: 44 


35 


9 


11 


11 


13 




55- 


-64 


: 18 


13 


5 


5 


4 


7 




65+ 


: 2 


2 




1 


1 

— , - - ^' 






"1962 






Total 


': 380 


286 


94 


100 


100 


100 




14 


-17 yrs 


: 61 


47 


14 


16 


16 


15 




18 


-24 


: 91 


60 


30 


24 


21 


32 




25 


-34 


: 80 . 


62 


17 


21 


22 


18 




35 


-44 


: 54 


41 


13 


14 


14 


14 ■ 




45 


-54 


: 42 


34 


8 


11 


12 


9 




55 


-64 


: 39 


34 


5 


10 


12 


5 




65+ 


: 14 


8 


6 


4 


3 


7 





Numbers of workers are rounded to" the nearest thousand without being adjusted to 
group totals. 



Source: Hired Farm Working Force. 



4285 



Table 5 .--Distribution of migratory farm wage.workers, for persons who did 
less than 25 days of^ farm wagework, by sex and age, 1962-69 





' Number 


of vorkers 




Percent 


age JlstrlbiiUnn 


Age 


.* Total : 


Male : 


Female 


Total : 


Male : 


Female 


1969 


: Thou. 


Thou. 


Thou. 


Pet. 


Pet. 


Pet. 


Total 


: 85 


59 


26 


100 


100 


1/ 


14-17 yrs. 


: 42 


30 


12 


50 


51 




18-24 
25-34 


: 18 
: 10 


16 
6 


2 
4 


22 
12 


28 
10 





35-44 


: 4 


1 


3 


5 


■ 2 




45-54 


: 8 


3 


5 


9 


5 




55-64 
65+ 


: 1 
: 1 


1 

1 




1 

1 


2 
2 


—^ 


1968 














Total 


: 103 


73 


29 - 


iOO 


100 


. 1/ 


14-17 yrs. 


: 41 


35 


7 


40 


48 


18-24 


: 25 


21 


4 


24 


29 




25-34 
35-44 


: 15 

7 


6 
5 


9 
3 


15 
7 


8 
7 





45-54 
55-64 


6 
4 


4 
2 


2 
1 


6 
4 


5 

3 


-•-- 


65+ 


4 




4 


4 


, 


1967 








_ 






Total 


81 


61 


20 


100 


100 


1/ 


14-17 yrs. 
18-24 : 
25-34 : 


33 
21 

5 


23 

21 

3 


10 
"2 


41 

26 

6 


38 

34 

4 


Jt/ 


35-44 .: 
45-54 : 


9 

3 


7 
1 


2 

1 


11 
3 


12 
2 


, 


55-64 : 


6 


5 


1 ' 


8 


8 




$5+ : 


4 


1 


2 


5 


2 





1966 ': 










. ^ 




Total : 


76 


50 


25 


100 


100 


1/ 


14-17 yrs.: 
18-24 : 
25-34 : 


31 
18 
13 


22 
14 

5 


9 
4 
7 


40 
23 
17 


44 
28 
10 


^=.' 


35-44 : 


6 


2 


4 


8 


4 
4 
4 




45-54 : 
55-64 : 


4 
2 


2 
2 


1 


5 
2 





65+ • : 


4 


3 





5 


6 






4286 



Table 5 . — Distribution of migratory farm wageworVprs, foJ^ persons who did 
less than 25 days of farm wagework,' by sex and age, 1962-69 
(Continued) 





Number 


of workers 




Percent 


age distrlbi. 


tion 




Age ;" 


: 


: 




: 


: 








Total : 


Hale : 


Female 


Total : 


Male : 


Female 






Thou. . 


Thou. 


Thou. 


Pet. 


Pet. 


Pet. 




1965 
















Total 


165 


Ill 


53 


100 


100 


100 




lA-17 yrs. 


48 


38 


10 


29 


34 


19 




18-2A 


41 


35 


6 


25 


31 


11 




25-34 


18 


14 


4 


11 


13 


8 




35-44 


23 


9 


15 


14 


8 


28 




45-54 


14 


4 


10 


8 


4 


19 




55-64 


10 


8 


1 


6 


7 


2 . 




65+ 


11 


3 


7 


7 


3 


13 




1964 
















Total 


! 114 


77 


38 


100 


100 


1/ 




14-17 yrs. 


: 58 


37 


22 


51 


48 







18-24 


: 22 


13 


9 


19 


11 







25-34 


: 9 


7 


2 


8 


9 







35-44 


: 12 


9 


2 


10 


12 







45-54 


: 8 


5 


3 


7 


6 







i 55-64 


: 4 


4 





3 


5 







■ 65+ 


: 2 


2 





2 


3 







1963 
















Total 


: 108 


79 


30 


100 


100 


1/. 




14-17 yrs. 


: 32 


22 


10 


3p 


28 







18-24 


: 26 


21 


5 


24 


27 


— - 




25-34 


: 24 


22 


2 


22 


28 


. 




35-44 


: 7 


2 . 


5 


6 


2 


■ — ' 




. 45-54 


: 14 


8 


6 


13 


10 







55-64 


: 6 


4 


2 


5 


5 







65+ 


: 











~' — ^. 


— 




1962 
















Total 


i 92 


56 


36 


100 


100 


1/ 




14-17 yrs. 


: 31 


24 


7 


34 


42 







18-24 


: 22 


n 


11 


24 


20 







25-34 


: 8 


5 


3 


9 


9 







35-44 


: 7 


3 


3 


7 


6 







45-54 


: 13 


7 


7 


14 


12 







55-64 


: 3 


3 


- 


4 


6 







65+ 


: 8 


3 


5 


8 


5 









Numbers of workers are "rounded to the nearest thousand without being adjusted 
to group totals. 
' 1/ Distribution not shown where base is less' than 50,000 persons. 

Source: Hired Farm Working Force. 



4287 



Table 6 



-Distribution of migratory farm wageworkers, for persons who did 
25 days or more of farm wagework, by sex and age, 1962-69 ' 





Number 


of workers 




Percent 


a^e dist 


ribution 




Age 


: 


: 




: 






- 




: Total : 


Male : 


Female 


Total : 


Male 


: Female 




1969 


: Thou. 


Thou. 


Thou. 


Pet. 


Pet. 


Pet. 




Total 


: 172 


143 


29 


100 


100 


1/ 




14-17 yrs. 


56 


48 


9 


33 


33 






18-24 


46 


42 


4 


27 


29 






25-34 


23 


17 


6 


13 


12 






35-44 


24 


16 


8 


14 


11 






45-54 


10 


8 


2 


6 


6 






55-64 


7 


7 





4 


5 






65+ 


6 


6 





3 


4 






1968 
















Total 


176 


132 


44 


100 


100 


y 




14-17 yrs. 


46 


33 


13 


26 


25 






18-24 : 


42 


30 


12 


24 


23 






25-34 : 


25 


20 


5 


14 


15 






35-44 : 


29 


17 


12 


17 


13 






45-54 : 


17 


16 


1 


10 


12 






55-64 : 


6 


6 




3 


4 






65+ : 


11 


10 


1 


6 


8 


— 




1967 : 








■ 








Total : 


194 


143 


52 


100 


100 


100 




14-17 yrs.: 


35 


29 


7 


18 


20 


13 " 




18-24 : 


53 


38 


14 


27 * 


26 


28 




25-34 : 


29 


21 


9 


15 


15 


17 




35-44 


23 


14 


9 


12 


10 


18 




45-54 : 


26 


17 


9 


13 


12 


17 




55-64 : 


25 


22 


4 


13 


15 


7 




65+ : 


3 


3 





. 2 


2 






1966 ': 
















Total : 


275 


199 


79 


100 


100 


100 




14-17 yrs. : 


60 


44 


16 


22 


22 


20 




18-24 : 


79 


52 


27 


29 


26 


34 




25-34 : 


31 • 


24 


8 


11 


12 


10 




35-44 I 


32 


25 


8 


12 


13 


10 




45-54 : 


34 


23 


12 


12 


12 


15 




55-64 : 


26 


21 


6 


10 


10 


8 




65+ : 


11 


10 


2 


4 


5 


3 





See footnote at end of table. 



4288 



Table 6 . — Distribution of migratory farm wageworkers, for persons who. did 
25 days or more of farm wagework, ^by-sex and age, 1962-69 ' 
(Continued) 





' Number 


of workers 




Percent 


age distribution 


Age 


; : 


: 




: 


: 




- 


! Total : 


Male : 


Female 


Total : 


Male : 


Female 




Thftu. 


Thou. 


Thou. 


Pet. 


Pet. 


Pet. 


1965' 

Tojtal 


300 


222 


78 


100 


100 


100 


14-17 yrs. 


71 


56 


15 


23 


25 


18 


18-24 


84 


57 


27 


28 


26 


34 


25-34 


36 


29 


7 


12 


13 


9 


35-44 


48 


29 


19 


16 


■13 


24 


•~^ 45-54 


-33 


26 


7 


11 


12 


9 


55-64 


20 


19 


2 


7 


8 


3 


65+ 


8 


7 


2 


3 


3 


3 


1964, 














Total 


272 


203 


69 


100 


100 


100 


14-17 yrs.' 


56 


34 


22 


21 


16 


32 


18-24 


52 


42 


10 


19 


21 


15 


25-34 


37 


30 


7 


14 


15 


10 


35-44 


64 


42 


23 


23 


21 


33 


45-54 : 


30 


28 


2 


11 


14 


3 


55-64 : 


25 


23 


2 


9 


11 


3 


65+ 


7 


4 


3 


3 


2 


4 


1963 














Total : 


278 


239 


39 


100 


100 


1/ 


14-17 yrs.: 


38 


29 


9 


14 


12 




18-24 : 


78 


69 


9 


28 


29 





25-34 : 


70 


62 


8 


25 


26 





35-44 : 


48 


41 


7 


17 


17 





45-54 : 


30 


27 


3 


11 


11 





55-64 : 


12 


9 


3 


4 


4 





65+ : 


2 


2 





1 


1. 





1962 : 










. ■" 




Total : 


288 


2'30 


59 


100 


100 


100 


14-17 yrs.: 


30 


23 


7 


10 


10 


12 


18-24 : 


68 


49 


19 


24 


21 


33 


25-34 : 


72 


58 


14 


25 


25 


25 


35-44 : 


47 


38 


. 10 


17 


17 


16 


45-54 : 


29 


27 


2 


10 


12 


3 


55-64 : 


35 


30 


5 


12 


13 


8 


65+ • : 


7 


5 


2 


2 


2 


3 



Numbers of workers are rounded to the nearest thousand without being adjusted 
to group totals. 

■ l/ Distribution not shovm vhere base is less than 50,000' persons. 
Source: Hired Farm Working Force. 



4289 



Table 7. — Number of migratory farm wageworkers and man-days of farm 
wagework, by sex, 1963-69 





Number 


of workers 


: Man-days 


of farm 


wagework 


1/ 


Year 


Total 


Male ! 


Female 


.' Total 


Male '. 


Female 






Thou. 


Thou. 


Thou. 


Mil. 


Mil. 


Mil. 




1969 


257 


201 


55 


20 


18 


2 




1968 


279 


205 


74 


22 


19 


4 




1967 


276 


204 


71 


24 


19 


5 




1966 


351 


249 


104 


34 


28 


6 




1965 


A66 


334 


132 


38 


30 


8 




196A 


386 


280 


107 


34 


26 


7 




1963 


386 


318 


69 


32 


28 


3 





Numbers of workers are rounded to the nearest thousand, and numbers of 
man-days are rounded to the nearest million without being adjusted to group totals. 

1/ Man-day is any day in which a person receives pay for one or more 
hours of farmwork. 

Source : Hired Fam Working Force . 



4290 



« (U 
irl >.r 





-^1 


1. 


U^ U1 


o 


1 


iTi m to 1 


in m m 


1 


m -.n o m 


m m o <n 


01 


.-( 


O t"^ 


CO 


1 


M rS -C 1 


(Tv o m 


1 


CM »3- CM -<r 


o r-- tn o 


a M 


o 












I 


• • • • 


• • • • 


rt t>, C 


c 


<r> c> 


o 




CO rH CM 


" r^ o o 




CO O rH CO 


r>- CO cr\ r^ 


•H 1-1 -H 






I-l 




l-J rH 


rH rH 




f-K rH 




13 -H c; 

0) CU J-1 




</> 






•co- 


v> 




V>- 


•c> 


S -a « 




















0) 






















o 

• C C 






















iJ 


CO L-\ 


.-1 


1 


in o o 1 


m rH r- 


1 


CM CD «.? CM 


r^ r^ CM r^ 




n o > 


o 


cs n 


-;r 


1 


H r-l -^r 1 


rH CM CM 


1 


rH CM CO rH 


rH CM 




rH O 


p^ 








1 




1 








</>• 




















o 


O 0\ 


. 


















p 


o o 


ij 


CM CO 


CO 


1 


o m r~ 1 


O -3- o 


1 


O CO f^ CTl 


CO r-H CM vO 


o 




o 


rH 




1 


rH H t-H 1 


rH rH rH 


1 


r-i r-i T-\ w-i 


rH rH 




.-< CM 


Ph 






I 


1 




1 






'u 


r-l I-l 




















o 


</>■ 




















s 






















o 






















5 


1 

o o\ 




















iJ 


m CM 


CO 


1 


o m »3- 1 


CO CM O 


1 


c\ r~. CO ^ff 


m o rH r» 






o 


rH r-l 


r^ 


1 


CM rH i-H 1 


i-H CO CO 


1 


r-k r-{ ,-i ,-^ 


rH CM CM H 


E 


O o 


a. 








1 




1 






;_; 


<J> r-i 




















r3 






















c 


I 

o o 


u 


CN o 


^ 


1 


CM -* CM 1 


-a' CO m 


1 


<■ <■ CO r^ 


O rH r-t rH 


u 


r~ CO 


o 


CM 


^ 


1 


rH rH H 1. 


r^ rH rH 


1 


CM rH rH rH 


CM CM CM CM 


n 






















M 






















c 


1 
o o^ 


^ 


















c 


o o 


u 


rH in 


r^ 


I 


r^ CM m 1 


r^ rH o\ 


1 


CO r~ CM o 


CO in CO o 


1-1 




u 


CM r^ 


rH 


1 


H rH 1 


rH rH 


1 


rH rH rH CO 


r^ ,H r-i C^ 


c 


m vo 


Ph 






1 


1 




1 






a) 


<o- 




















i-i 


1 






















O en 

o cr. 

CO <• 


y 

Ph 


CO ih 


m 


1 
I 


o m CO i 

rH 1 
1 


O CO Cvl 
rH 


1 
1 


r~ CM CM m 


O CM CTi 00 
CM rH i-H 


o 


</> 




















t; 






















« 






















Vj 

























CO C O 


• 








„ 










> 


CI C o 


t) 


(<- m 


CM 


1 


O c^ CO 1 


O rH rH 


I 


O <• -3' CO 


r~ >3- CM rH 


< 


o ^ • 
.-1 








1 


1 


r-i 


1 
1 


rH 


rH rH 







u 


o o 


o 


i 


O O O 1 


O O O 


I 


o o o o 


o o o o 




iJ 


u 


o o 


o 


1- 


O O O 1 


o o o 


1 


o o o o 


o o o o 




o 


c^ 


r-{ rH 


T-i 


1. 


iH r\ M 1 


rH rH rH 


1 


•-i i-{ •-{ rH 


rH rH rH rH 




H 




















to 




















>-i Vi 


• 


















41 a 


3 


.-- o 


C!\ 


1^ 


cb O rH CO 


6 vo r-^ 


CO 


o r-^ o m 


r~ c?i vo CO 


.Q <i-l ^ 


o 


CM CO 


<J\ 


n 


CM m rH <■ 


O r-» CM 


<T 


CO CM m \o 


C> vO CO CO 


E O ^1 




iH ,H 






H rH H 


t-i r-{ r-{ 




rH C< rH 


rH CM rH 


3 O 


H 


















J5 S 




• }j 






• !-i • • 


• U • 




* M * I 


. U ' ' 






• o 






. u • • 


. a • 




. CJ . . 


. a • ' 


'0 




• > 






. > . . 


• > • 




• > • • 


' > • • 


- a 




• o 






. o • • 


. o . 




. o . • 


. o . • 


d IJ 




















o 




• '0 






' TJ I I 


! tj I 




. n3 ♦ • 


• •all 


o o 




CI r: 




^v. 


o r: •-^, 


M • 


*-» 


W C • . 


n C • " . 


M 




>-■ r: 




CM] 


U ri .CM 


U d • 


r-jl 


P • ; 


)-• (3 • . 


«?; 




P3 






rt . ' 


C3 




c3 


c3 






W 






c; to • o 


CJ OJ • 


CJ. 


o CI • a 


o tn • o 






>» v^ 




.H 


>. H • M 


>, ;-> • 


r-< 


>» V< . rH 


>» )-l • rH 






n 


O 


rj 


rt O c3 


tj o 


rj 


f3 O rt 


c! CJ nj 






C^ O 


rH 


e 


O y r-l s 


O O rH 


e 


C7^ a rH E 


CN CJ rH G 






^ -^ >^ 


O 


CI 


ri >, rj CJ 


rH >-> C3 


CJ ■ 


rH >, rj o 


rH >» Cj CJ 






?i-° 


*.J 


fi. 


-0 1 s: f^ 


,^ 1 >: 


t=. 


r^ 1 >:: ^ 


,^M >: p.^ 










■^^i -i- o 


>Xa ^- o 




^P' vT O 


X"* o 








•-> iH CnI 






^^ rH CM 


UN M CM . 




)^< rH CM 


^>rH CM . 



4291 



^ 


T3 


u 




f) 


D 


r* 


C 


ni 




K, 




01 


CJ 


> 


r 1 



lO o o in 

• *^ *C O v£> 

thI • • • 

o vO CO CO r^ 



1 

o o\ 






o o\ 


u 


o m >£> 




o 


C>4 CM tN 


r-. CO 


p^ 




■o 







LO o m 1 
en C7> o 1 


m in o to 
f-H n o m 


in in o m 

00 rH -3- C-J 




<■ ir> vo 


ir> vo f^ <f 


~* O vO li^ 




<> 


to- 


<l> 




I 


co lO vS 1 

1 


fo CO c?« m 




• • — _ 


1 






\""\ 


r-( CO en 1 

i 


CO CO CO 1 

1 




<r o fH 1 


ir» CM CO m 


■< o\ a\ CO 


CD 

.H 

O 


a> i-l CM 


m CM r^ (O 

•-• CM CM 


CO vO o^ CO 

f-l iH r^ 


a 

D 


M 








- 






O 



4_j CM 0> C^ CC 



iJ 03 CM O O 



W « O 4-J 



O r-l I O 



p-1 1 r-( iH 1-1 



o o o o 
o o o o 

iH rH iH rH 



O O O O 
O O O O 

I-l I-t rS r-i 



3 CO CO m r» 
o m CO f ■> iT, 

^■\<-i CM r\ 



*T »-l CM o^ 
rH r^ CO CO 
iH <M CM 



rs <■ r~. r* 
t-i CO CM m 

>-i CM CM 



r~ CM CO o^ 

CO r^ t-i ii-i 

i-( CM CM 



U rj 

CO 
O CI 

« (u d 
i-l >^ cB a) 



^, u 



csll 



?-; f^ 



rt a) rt 

rO<- o 
^H CM 



^1 



CtJ 
O CO 

>-. u 

rt O (3 
C7> a rs E 



fi. 



(Uc: 




x: 










■u 
















(U^ 




Cfl 






uin 




CO 

01 






djj-i 




.H 






x:o 










^C 


, 


cn 

tH 




. 


ucn 


en 






(ij 


■U)-! 


u 


(1) 




o 


m 


C 






u 


T3 QJ 


(1) 


(fl 




u 


ai>> 


o 


n 




Uh 












■Con 


in 


n) 




bf 


yrH 




M 




fJ 


O 1. 


■M 


<ii 




•H 


>-K-f 


(fi 


r; 




-T^ 


iH 


01 


■^ 






0) 


n 




• 




uu 


w 


c 


QJ 


^ 


^ o 


a) 




iH 




in 


C 


o 


.n 


Ej 


m 




,r: 


cfl 


H 


l-'m 


m 


rn 


fH 


Cfl 


0) v: 


.rl 




•H 


►i| 


^01 


■u 


4-> 


<n 




V<fl) 




O 


> 


T) 


OM 


o 


r. 


w 


ri 


lin 


u 






h 






M 


4-1 




li-.^ 


T) 


at 


o 


W 


O GJ 


tl) 


or 


c 




C/2 


'n 


(fl 






cn 


fi 


M 


m 






d 


0) 


ij 


0) 


0) .. 


f) 


> 


tfl 


tj 


Do 


6^ 


< 


« 





-^ 


-^ 


^ 


:z;?'. 


^ 


cm! 




CM 



4292 



o o 
00 r^ 



<r o 
CO as 


1 ~3- 
1 <N 
1 ^ 


CM 


1 O -3- 
1 VO \D 




1 o 

1 


~3- 


1 CN 0^ 
1 sr fO 


o o 


1 LO 
1 CSI 


O 

CTN 


1 m u-1 

1 vD O 



O r~. 
<r CM 

(-^ CO 



flvo 
T3 cr\ 



■H ^ 


1 St n 


1 LO LO 


o> in 


1 <J> r^ 


1 a\ o^ 


00 CO 


1 00 r~ 


1 O O 



I n cs 
I cr\ ON 



eo -d 



1 CO rH 

1 


1 -* <r 

1 ON 00 

1 


1 o o 

1 CO VD 


1 LO m 
1 00 m 



6C >> 



CM ~3- I 00 CSJ 
CO u-i I iH O 

r-< r^ I in m 



<r o 
o -J 



^ <d 



CM 1-4 I CO rH 



r^ vD iH O O 

LO CO CM r-^ vo 

CM CM 



cjN r^ CM m <)■ 
r^ CO <r iH CO 

CM Csl iH 



iH CM CO O 
CO ON 00 iH 



^1 



CMl 



•~^ 



C «M| 



CMl 



<M| 



•rH 60 ^ -H OQ to 



car;(l)4-lx:<l)(-l4JJ2<U!-l 

•uszygg; toga 



U i-l 4-1 )-l U 

iH -H M j: -H M ca 



4293 











in o 


1 m in 




1 in m 


1 


m o o m u-i 




1 m in 




1 




XI 


-Hi 




a> cN 


1 0> CO 




1 T-i o 


1 


CN VO e» CM CM 




1 iH ON 




1 




(1) 


U 


rH 




1 ■ ■ 




1 • • 


1 


• • • • • 




1 > • 




1 




C 


01 >. 


o 


CO <r 


CM <• 




00 r-~ 




CM CM O O O 




rH O 








^j 


Pli ni 


Q 


tH fH 


.H .H 




.-H .H 




t-l iH iH r-H I-l 




iH I-H 






a 


nj 

4) 


-a 
























CD 

14-1 


tn 



























c 


0) 


u 


• 






















O 


60 


u to 


tH 


CS <3- 


1 r^ .H 




1 m CO 


1 


<■ M <r <■ o 




1 CM CM 




1 


Z 


nj 


0) a) 


o 


o m 


1 Csl CO 




1 <■ CT\ 


1 


CO CO r~ r~ t3\ 




1 vD in 




1 




S 


Pi >. 


Q 


m u-i 


1 -^ in 




1 m m 




m tn CO -3- m 




1 <■ VJ- 










'•o 






(fl 01 




























J^^ 


O 


vD 0^ 


1 CO r^ 




1 O CO 


1 


<■ vo in r^ r^ 




1 I-H I-H 




1 






(0 ^J 


2: 


en n 


1 CO CO 




1 CO CO 


1 


<■ <■ CO <r in 




1 si- sr 




1 






a o 






1 




1 


1 










1 






..*.. 




iri o 


1 o o 




1 o m 


1 


o in o in in 




! o o 




1 




" 


^ 




T3 


--•1 




00 U-l 


1 CO vo 




1 O CO 


1 


CO I-l m CO o 




1 03 00 




1 




<U 


u 


■H 


• • 


1 • • 




1 • • 


1 






1 • • 




I 




6 


<u >> 


O 


o o 


O C7^ 




CN ■-< 




O --1 CJ^ 00 t3\ 




CO CO 








Pu ta- 


Q 


.H iH 


.H 




iH iH 




iH i-{ 




iH rH 








to 


T3 


























(U 


























g 


(0 

(U 


Vj 




CM r^ 


1 00 r- 




1 a> 00 


1 


VD ^ I-H CN CO 




1 00 r~ 




, 


« 


M 


M cd 


^ 


CNI o 


1 LO \o 




1 O CO 


1 


~3- O <" CM iH 




1 m r^ 




1 


fc 


« 


(1) <u 





eJ^ 00 


1 <3N r~. 




1 O 00 


1 


O iH CO 00 (3^ 




1 -a- m 




1 




3 


(U >. 


O 








iH 




1-1 I-l 




iH iH 










-o 






CD (1) 




























>.^ 


O 


LO r^ 


1 CO O 




1 -* m 


1 


vO O CO 00 I-l 




1 vD <f 




1 






CO M 


z 


00 r~. 


1 CTv CO 




1 00 r-- 


1 


ON t7^ CO C7^ O 




I O rH 




1 






Q O 






1 




1 


1 


1-1 




1 rH iH 




1 






3 




in m 


1 o o 




1 o o 


1 


m o m in o 




1 m in 




1 






"~^" 




•o 


-Hi 




r~ r^ 


1 o o 




1 m r-~ 


1 


CM vo 00 cT> in 




1 o o 




1 




0) 


H 


-H 


• • 


1 • • 




1 • • 


1 






1- . . 




1 


B 


c 


<U >, 


O 


<-t tH 


rH M 




CO CO 




I-l I-H ejN 00 CTv 




CO CO 






c 


l-l 


Pm CO 


a 


i-l iH 


iH iH 




-H ,H 




I-H iH 




rH .-i 






in 


(0 
0) 


•o 
























C 




























o 


to 






-3- CM 


1 in 00 




1 m rH 


1 


O r^ m vD CO 




1 O <3N 




1 


c 


0) 


u 


iH 


CN vD 


1 00 C7N 




1 in 00 


1 


00 00 iH <3N O 




1 CM CN 




1 




w 


u to 


O 


-* e-0 


1 CO CM 




1 m <■ 


1 


in vo CM CM in 




1 ON O 




1 


T3 


rt 


<D 01 


Q 


•S 0^ 


*s r. 




M VS 




•^ (v <N •« «^ 










C 


S 


Pi >% 




.-1 iH 


1 vO 00 




iH i-H 

1 m 00 


1 


I-l iH iH iH I-l 

o in CO in 00 




r-< CN 

1 r~ m 




1 


g 




T3 

tn 0) 


CO 




>^ Ai 





CNI iH 


1 CN tH 




1 -H O 


1 


^ -* CM <■ in 




1 <■ in 




1 


&< 




CO (-1 


2 


iH i-H 


1 i-l iH 




1 iH r-1 


1 


iH iH iH I-H iH 




1 rH '-i 




1 






Q O 




























..^.. 


























en 




■4 t-J 


• 
























U 01 


D 


vO 00 


r- o^ m 




-;r CM CO 


a> 


iH I-H O CO CO 




m rH r- 




-3- 


,1 


3 IH ^ 


o 


r^ CN 


<r o 1^ 




CO .H O 




m r^ 00 iH i~~ 




~3- m rH 




CO 




g O 1^ 

3 o 


^ 


CM CM 


>H 




.-( tH 




CO CM iH 




H i-i 






^ 


3 3 
































^r* 








tn 


















m 








" <u 


















(U 








o 


















u 








CO 


















CO 








u 


















n 


u 




u 


M 


U 




u 






3 






u 


<u 




0) 


01 


01 




OJ 






:^ 






Oi 


^ 




^ 


x: 


J= 




J2 






TJ 






^ 


■u 




4-1 


4-1 


4-1 




4-1 






u 






tJ 


o 




o 


o 


O 




o 






3 O 






o 




















.-H 






-o 


T) 


^ — , 


T3 ~-,, 


•o 


T3 


--^ 


T3 


— 




^ o 
so o 






s 


^1 


S"-! 


c 

CO 


§ 


CM| 


% 


<M| 




u 










m 


to 






to 




to 


e 


li 




0) 


4) 


o 


01 OJ 


O 01 


0) O OJ 


O 


01 0) 


o 


01 








u 


M tJ 


(-1 


ej J-) 


U O 


4-1 M u 


Jj 


O 4-1 


u 


o 








r-i -H 


60^ -H 


W) 


CO • -H 


M CO 


• rH -H DO ^ -H 


M 


to -H 


M 


CO 








CO JS 


Q) 4-J ^ 

z; 3 S 


0) 

z: 


to 5 


tu U 
7Z 


to x: 01 4-) j; 

4-> 5 23 3 S 


OJ 
£5 


)-i 4J r; 
to 3 


<U 

•z, 


u 








l-~ o 


o 




01 




vD O O 




■01 












\£> H 


in 




S 




\D H C/3 




:s 












cr\ 










ON 


















.-1 










rH 











4294 



60 "d 

> 2 



CO 



S M 



t^ 


>> 




^ 


•n 




(U 


^ 


J<! 


tn 


K 




o 


<u 


^•^ 


0) 


o 


>> 3 




(U 


•O 


00 











in Lo m lo in 




in m in 


1 


o m o m m 


o m m 










(1) >i' 


o 


r-l .H CO 00 00 




CO .H iH 


1 


m o NO m o 


c:n CO 00 




1 

1 




cv) fo vD r-^ 00 




vo <■ -a- 




O i-H 00 ON o 


NO m NO 








Pa CO 


Q 


iH T-^ 




iH iH 




i-H iH iH 


iH iH 






s 


to 


-a 




















R 


0) 














































CO 
0) 


M 


M 


o m m <r -H 




Csl ON O 


1 


00 vo -3- m ON 


00 rH-CO 




1 


o 


M 


U CO 


o 


vo m c^ o c^ 




^D ON NO 


1 


m CO o 1— 1 ON 


CM Ov ON 




1 


z 


CO 


<U (U 
PM >, 


o 


in vD CN ro f^ 




CM m vD 


1 


-3 -* CO CO CO. 


iH <■ <■ 






^•2 




o| 


v£> o <^ 00 r-~ 




I-l CM r^ 


1 


-3- -a- CM CO o 


ON CO O 




1 




zl 


<j- in 00 ro CO 




<■ •* >3- 


1 


<■ ~a- ~3- CO <)■ 


iH CO CO 




1 




o o 










1 








1 




s 




o o in o o 




o o o 


1 


m o m m m 


o o o 




1 




•a 
a) 


u -' 




r-H 


r^ o^ o r^ c^ 




m CM ON 


1 


On 00 r-^ r^ r-~ 


CnI 00 CTn 




1 




CO 


0) >^ 
P-1 CO 


o 

o 


o> o^ o^ r^ r*^ 




r-^ CO CM 

I-l iH 




00 ON NO r^ CO 


NO iH iH 
iH H 








0) 






















p 


CO 
























(U 
M) 
CO 
3 


l-i 

U cfl 


fH 


CNI VD m oo 




rH ON O 


1 


CM m O vD <■ 


CM CJN CO 




1 


O 


o --H m o in 




cNi oo in 


1 


00 ON ^ r^ vo 


O CM -3- 




1 


Q 


00 00 (~- r^ r~- 




vO O O 


1 


r^ r^ r^ r^ r-~ 


00 CD CD 




' 














<-t i-H 






rH iH 






„ 




CO 0) 






















.. "^ i - 


ol 


CM CN rO CNI 00 




CM CO M 


1 


r^ i-H On O r^ 


On r-~ r-~ 




1 




2:1 


00 CO 00 ON CTi 




00 00 00 


1 


00 00 O O 00 


CM 00 CO 




1 






m o o in o 




mom 


1 
1 


rH iH 

m m o m m 


iH 

o o m 




1 
1 


" 


0) 


u ^' 




t-H 


m iH <r r^ o 




■H m CO 


1 


<• CM CO i-H 1-1 


CO r^- iH 




1 


e 

CO 


cfl 


0) >-. 

CL, CO 

■a 


o 


O -H 00 r-- 00 




r-~ CO CO 




ON O 1^ t» ON 


NO CM CO 






Q 


rH M 




.-H .-t 




1-1 


iH r-i 






U-l 


0) 






















C 
























o 


CO 






CN M O I^ ON 




CO 00 NO 


1 


O i-H -a- .H CO 


O O rH 




1 


c 


a) 


u 


■-tl 


vc r^ 00 o 00 




00 00 iH 


1 


^ 00 O ON NO 


CO CM <r 




1 




60 


U CO 





m vi- ON o o 




00 NO c^ 




CM CM i-H O iH 


ON m m 




1 


■o 


CO 


0) <u 


o[ 


















c 


D£ 


P-. >s 




00 CN VD o m 




1-1 1-1 
CO m 00 


1 


iH iH i-H iH iH 
iH m 1-1 CO r^ 


rH rH 

00 o I^ 






en <u 


« 


b-7^ 


ol 


cs CO tH n ro 




CM CM CM 


1 


CO CM m CO CM 


^ <M rH 




1 


fn 


CO M 

O O 

3 


E5| 


iH iH 1-) tH iH 




1-1 H H 




iH rH iH iH rH 


H r-< rH 




1 


OJ 


M n 




















(U 0) 


3 


vo CO CO 00 m 




m sf <r 


O 


vO r^ ON 00 CO 


m CM CJN 




CO 


JO IW ^ 


O 


VO O O 00< iH 




r^ -3- CM 


CM 


00 CT^ 00 r^ CM 


m o 00 




rH 


i o V" 
3 o 


S 


-3- CO iH iH ^ 




rH ,-1 




CO CM i-H f-H 


rH 






a ?. 
























CO 








to 












41 








0) 












a 








U 












CO 








CO 












u 








u 












u 


U 




U 


u 


I-l 


M 




TS 




0) 


<u 




0) 


a) 


0) 


01 




c 




jd 


Xi 




^ 


,c 


s: 


^ 




tfl 




4-1 


*-l 




4J 


4J 


4-1 


4-1 




1-1 




O 


o 




o 


o 


o 


O 




c o 




















O rH 




TS 


-d 




t3 ■~^, 


13 


XI 


■V 


^>^ 


•H O 
M O 




§ 


^ 




S"*! 


§ 


§ 


§ 


INl 


(U 








CO 


to 




CO 




to 


Pi 




(DO 0) 


o 


0) H) 


O 0) 


0) O 01 


O Q) 01 


o 


OJ 






■4-1 I-l *J 


(-1 


O 4-1 


u o 


4-1 M 4-1 


U O 4-1 


Vj 


a 






. iH -H 00 ^ -H 


• oc 


CO -H 


00 CO 


rH -H 00 J3 -H 


00 to -H 


00 


to 






CO Jd 0) -I-l rd 
u 5 2 3 3- 


cu 


to 3 


OJ M 


CO j: OJ 4-1 J=l 
4-1 g SS 3 5 


ai >-> u Ji 
Z to 5 


0) 


u 






mo o 




tl). 




<!• O O 


0) 










VD H CO 




13 




NO H CO 


3 










CTN 








ON 
















T-{ 








iH 









4295 











o o m iri o 




o o m 


1 


in o in o in 




o o m 






T3 


•Hi 




vo <^ t^ <• 00 




r~- M CM 


1 


CM O -3- C3^ <■ 




o <■ m 


1 




aj 


Vj 


iH 








1 








1 




c 


oj >>■ 


o 


CM on 00 cJ^ o 




-3- <■ ~3- 




O 'H vO r^ ON 




-s- m m 






^ 


Pj CO 


Q 


iH M iH 




M .H 




.H iH 




■H rH 




G 


(0 


-o 




















H 


0) 






















rt 
























C 


0) 


l-l 


rH 


<]■ CM CO vo ^O 




00 .H rH 


1 


CT. in r-- CM CO 




CM o r-~ 


1 


o 


00 


U CO 


O 


rO <T O VD O 




CO \0 CM 


1 


<y, CO in o <r 




o CM m 


1 


2 




(1) 0) 


Q 


fO <■ n^ ,H CO 




CM CM 


1 


CM CO .H CM CM 




.H <r <■ 


1 




„ 
en (U 




o| 


vD CO CM 00 CO 




00 ON VD 


1 


ON O ^ vO vO 




in r-~ c:n 


1 




cats 


2:1 


CM CO .H rH CM 




.H M 


1 


CM CO Csl CM CM 




CnI CM CM 


' 




o o 










1 








1 




?. 




o tn m m m 




o in O 


1 


O O in o m 




o o m' 


1 




T3 


■Hi 




01 


I-i ' 


■H 


cr. iH CM iH <r 




r>. m CO 


1 


m CO tH o in 




NO CM CO 


1 




C 


OJ >^ 

PLi CO 




a 


lO VO lO UO UO 




<■ V£) VO 


1 


r^ r^ vo \0 \o 




~3- 00 00 


1 




CO 


•o 






















<U 






















E 


CD 


u 




















n3 


00 


U CO 


M 


\0 0> C7\ O 0^ 




.-i<r CO 


1 


ON vo <r ^ -4- 




CM 00 00 


I 


b 


c3 




o 


00 uo CM O O 




O ^ CO 


1 


r-. ,-1 CO in o 




CM rH NO 


1 




13 


Q 


>3- in CO' <■ in 




CO \D VD 


' 


vo r^ in ^ in 




CO O o 


1 






















rH rH 






■" ^ 




CO 0) 






















CO i-1 
Q O 





CM ^ CM 00 ro 




^ -vT O 


1 


iH CM r^ m r^ 




o <r 00 


1 




z; 


00 CT^ ^ r^ C^ 




v£> en o 


1 


ON ON 00 r^ r-^ 




r-^ CM CnI 


1 






m in uo in o 




I-i 

O O O 


1 


m o in o in 




rH rH 

moo 


1 




g 

CO 


P-i CO 


B 
u 


■-) 


m o i^^ a^ r^ 
r^ 00 in in v£) 




r^ 00 <- 
<• r^ r^ 


1 


■H vD CM in CM 

00 00 vo \o r^ 




<• m r^ 

■<r ON On 


1 
1 


M-l 


(U 






















C 
























O 
C 


CO 

(1) 

00 
CO 


^j CO 




.H iH CM r^ vO 




ON ^ -* 


1 


00 i-H rH CO r-. 




<• 00 m 




.H 


CM O CO vo ^ 




CO r-~ in 


1 


i~~ m ON m <■ 




CM CO CM 


1 


13 


O 
Q 


00 o -a- in 00 




CO 00 00 


1 


ON o NO NO r^ 




-3- <• m 


1 

1 


C 


s 


CL, >, 




nH 








i-l 




•-H rH 




E 


•o 


« 


CD a) 




oo <• in in t-i 




CM CM in 


1 


O CM rH M CO 




m rH r^ 


1 


(0 M 
Q O 


O 


O CM r~- cy> CM 




r-^ M iH 


1 


CM CM rH O O 




ON m m 


1 


^ 


2 


.H .H >-i 




iH iH 


1 


rH M iH iH rH 




rH rH 


1 






















m 


)J u 




















<u <u 


3 


\D <J- CM iH vD 




mo-* 


\D 


o CO r^ o m 




m CO NO 


(>^ 


: of 
:work 


O 


CO O CM O <3N 




O CO iH 


rH 


oo o r-^ On CO 




m CNi o 


rH 


e 


CO CM .-1 Csl 




rH iH fH 




CO CO rH rH 




rH rH 
























• CO 








CO 












0) 








0) 












CJ 




^ 




o 












CO 








cd 












u 








u 












u 


1-1 




u 


u 


U 




u 


T3 

(-1 

C O 




4) 


(U 




OJ 


<u 


<u 




OJ 




x; 


-C 




x; 


A 


x: 




X. 




Aj 


JJ 




4-) 


4-1 


4-1 




4-1 




o 


o 




O 


O 


O 




o 


O .H 
•H O 
00 o 




T3 
C 
CO 


•X3 
C 
CO 




I'" 


T3 

C 

to 


CO 




I''' 










CD 


CD 






CD 


CD 




OJ O OJ 


O 


OJ 01 


O 0) 


OJ O 0) 


o 


01 01 


O 0) 






4-1 M 4-1 


u 


CJ . iJ 


U O 


4J M 4-1 


1-1 


CJ 4-1 


u o 






"-1 -H 00 x; -H 


00 


CO -H 


00 CO 


r-H T^ 00 X -H 


00 


CO -H 


00 CO 






CO -C OJ iJ r 
4-> g Z D 5 


OJ 

2 


(J 4-1 J2 
CD 3 


z 


CO js 0) 4-1 x: 

4-1 5- 2 D S 


2 


Vj 4-1 r 

tn 5 


OJ u 
2 






CO O o 




0) 




CM O O 




0) 








VD H CO 




S 




vO H CO 




s 








cr. 








CTn 












1 




iH 








iH 









4296 



ON CN vO vO 00 



<!■ r^ O ON O 
O vC ro "H v£> 
m ro CM CN iH 



vo 00 n 

<r U-1 rH 

cvj rn <• 






So 



vO vD lO u~l ^O 



ON v£) vO ON O 
CM iH CM CM r^ 



r^ 00 in i/N o 



in 00 00 

LTl CO 00 



CO CO ^ 00 o 

n 00 m -* t^ 
CO cr* o o vo 



r^ u-i On 

in r~ CO 
vo o i-l 



r-» On <■ CO 00 
>— I ^ 1— I "H ON 
iH rH .H rH 






in ^ f-H \o cjN 

On >H CO CM vO 
CO CM iH CM 



•H 60 ^ -H CO to 



CCM| 



4-1 


4-1 


0) 


C) 




c 


tn 


u 


■o 


ni 


n) 


<) 


(1) 


u 


X> 


t^ 


c 


in 


a) 


hO 


3 




u 


C 


o 


4-1 


01 




1^ 


01 


^ 


^ 




ai 


r? 


Jh 


0) 


M 




o 


u 


<tf 


c 


r« 


(0 


a) 






Ul 


c 


J2 


fe 


Vi 


<u 


(fl 


Ql 


OJ 


^ 




[IK 


y. 


4-1 


4J 




u 




C) 


Tf 


o 


y 


C 


0) 


P! 


4-1 




^1 






Ul 


•H 


IJ-I 


TS 


Ql 


m 


o 


0) 


W) 






-o 


rt 




en 


c 


>J 




M 


3 


(U 


0) 


01 


o 


> 


c> 




Pi 


<: 


^ 


3 


■^v-^ 


■-^ 


o 


fi 


^ 


CM 


w 



4297 





Ti 


r-l 














OJ 


• 


O O 


O 


LTN O LTN ITN O 


O LTN ITMTN O 




p fn >: 

S 4) OJ 


.-1 
o 


LTNCO 1 1 

" * 1 1 


1 1 ON 

1 1 * 


O l/N 1 -d- ITN 1 t— 
" • 1 • • 1 • 


COJ- , J-CO ,-:H- 


^ 


Ctf CL. 'J 


n 


^ t- , , 


-^ 


CVJ CVJ 1 O O 1 ro 


O O 1 OnOn !j^ 




(LI 




rH i-l 


H 


>-{ r^. rH H rH 


rH H ' ' rH 


M 












C 


^1 












O 


M ^ tS 












&; 


ca dj dj 


H 


-^ to 1 1 


1 1 H 


MD CVJ 1 CVJ UN 1 rH 


CO-d- , VDVD , CVJ 




P Ph >: 


o 


-* ON , , 


1 1 OJ 


CVJ VD 1 t-- ON 1 o 


CO CVJ I J- M3 i O 






a 


VD\D ,1 


1 1 LTN 


ro ro 1 CVJ CVJ I CO 


CJ OT ; CVJ CVJ 1 CO 








. 


C3NON 1 1 


1 1 L/^ 


t~- ON 1 VD CO 1 CO 


00 H 1 VD t- ! rH 




i^ ^ 


o 


OO no 1 1 


1 1 ro 


CVJ CVJ 1 CVJ OJ 1 CVJ 


CVJ CO CVJ OJ OJ 




cU O 






1 1 


1 1 


1 1 




o :^ 




LTN LTN 


O 


li^O O O LTN 






'd 


H 


O O ir\ LTN ITN 






5h >. 
OJ CO 




J-VD , , 


1 1 ON 


CTN rH 1 ^ C!N 1 ^ 


CO U\ , CVJ ITN , ON 




o 


:jd ! 1 


1 Ih 


rH rH ! rH O 1 CO 


O cJ 1 CD ON ' rH 




cd 

0) 


P-. -ci 


n 


rH c-H 


rH 


rH H rH H rH 


rH rH ■ rH ' rH 




CO 






rooo , , 


1 1 f^ 


LTN CVJ t-- CO J- 


VUD ITN rH CO CO 




t: 


U fn 


H 


CTn LTN , , 


1 1 ON 


CX) CM 1 t-- CVJ 1 00 


VD CVJ 1 ^ t^ , CO 




CO 


(1) Cd 


o 


CVJ OJ 1 , 


1 1 u^ 


f^ OJ 1 (^ O 1 V£) 


OJ rH 1 rHCO \^ 






P-i 0) 


Q 






•s - , ^ ^ 1 ^ 




g 




>: 




.-) r-H 


H 


<-\ ,-{ ^ ^ ' ^ 


ri h" ' rT ' r? 


__ 

tJ 




cd 


en (D 


• 


rocx) 1 1 


1 1 J- 


O O 1 rH J- 1 LTN 


t^ t- , rH CVJ , O 


flK 


>5^ 





H O , 1 


1 1 f^ 


CVJ rH 1 OJ CT\ 1 OJ 


rH O , H ON I OJ 




CO U 

a o 
> 


^ 


rH H , 1 


1 I H 


H rH I rH ,' rH 


r-\ r^ \ <-\ [ H 






Lr\ O 


l/N 


1/N O LP\ O O 






" -^ 


O O O ir\ O 




'd 


H 




t- ro 1 1 


1 1 -* 


CCN-^ 1 rH t^ 1 ir\ 


t— ir\ , rH ir\ , CO 




i) 


^ 




* * 1 1 


1 1 * 








a 


^^ >■ 


rH 


CM <^ 1 1 


Ol 


rH rH I H O 1 PO 


CD CD 1 CD ON ! OJ 




M 


PL, Oi 


o 


rW r^ 


i-H 


H rH rH rH rH 


rH rH rH ' rH 


cd 


•d 


Q 










cd 


OJ 














tH 
















c 


to 


^1 




N- J- 


-* 


rHiQ' C3N CJn VD 


CTN O t^ -^ LTN 


o 
c 

c 


0) 

bC 
cd 


H 

8 


ON ON 1 1 

•> -. I 1 

H rH 

CVJ f- , , 


1 1 T-\ 

1 1 rH 
1 1 •> 

CVJ 


rHCO 1 J- H 1 CO 
t— "^ 1 NO CV-) 1 ON 

H ■-< rH rH rH 
CO ON 1 CO CO 1 t^ 


IXN LTN 1 CO J- 1 CO 
LTN-d- 1 CO rH 1 t— 

- - 1 •» •\ 1 -N 




ITNCO , t- O I H 


n"5 


^•^ 


o 


"^-^ 1 1 


1 1 f- 


-^ CO 1 J- CVJ \ ^ 


J- CO OT CVI J- 


f=^. 




•,=5 


nH M ; ; 


1 ! H 


rH rH 1 rH H | rH 


r-\ <-\ 1 rH H ^ <-A 


03 












^ ^ 


• 










O (U 


p 


OJ LTNC^-CO 


ONOD ON 


VO ^ CO J- CJN LTN O 


-^ CO N- O J- VD LTN 


-S 'S V 


o 


t^ u-N H _-J- 


ro MD 


t^-^ COCO ir\ CVJ l/N 


ON LTN c^-) ONVD OJ t-- 


g O fn 

P o 


EH 


H H 




H rH 


T-\ rH 














^" 


■■•^■' 


evil cvj] 


oH ojI 






CO. 


tn 


CO CO 


to to 






Q) 


0) 


<U (U 


0) a) 






O 


o 


O O 


o t> 






^ 


? 


Cd Cd 


ta cd 






U 


Vi 


U U 


u u 






u 


Jh 


u u 


u u 






<u 


<U 


0) (U 


4) (U 


"S 




a 


^ 


-c ,c; 


,a ^ 


§ 




% 


^O 


-p +> 

O \> 


o o 


o o 

■H rH 




'd~"-^'^-^'d 


s 1 




fcD O 












(U O 




o p 


o o 


cj o (u o 


<y o (u o 


K 




■p ^. 


•P M 


P Jh +3 5h 


^ U A^ U 






r-l v| tD ;r! 


•rH tj 


rH -H tD;c; -rJ tO 


H -rl bO^ -H bO 






4^ fe: S g 


3 K'; CO 


p S ^ rs ^ E5 CO 


CO X! O 4^ tC 1) -|3 

■p ^5 t^-, P ^: :=; tn 






c\ o o 


CJ 


CO O "^ O 4) t- 


O O d) 






VD Eh W 




CH CO :s 










CT\ 




On cTn 





4298 



o n 

cd-p 

M O 
-HO 



1-1 "3 



Tl 


o 


C 

m 


to 




(!) 


e 


?■( 


*.' 


>> 


<« 


^1 



Jh 


tn 


(Tl 


(^ 


(U 


^ 


CO 

(1) 


g 


(■■] 


ri 


n 


<)H 


> 






<« 


■d 


O 



P. s 



03 


t>. 


>> td 


(d 


Tl 


Ti 






m 


<w 


ai 


O 






Tl 


>H 


•H 


0) 


Tl 


^ 




g 


o 


p 


,c 


c 


> 


fl) 


n 


tn 


!-.- 


« 


<1) 


Is 




(> 


!h 


> 


O 


< 


^ 



a u > 

U V cl 
d P4 fo' 



CO U 
cJ 0) <L1 
S PL. >: 



'"<5^^ 






r. 1 




■ri 


^•-t 






JhVD 




(fl ,i^ 


92) 




>> fH 


>H 




CO O 


« 




Q > 


bf ."^ 






S ^1 





CD (0 

Pu -d 



0) CO 
P^ 1) 






(U >; 



•d 

W (U 

>1^ 



•H r-l 

to O 



rH H (>J O O 
.-I iH rH iH r-l 



(^J C3N roVD O I CM 
t^ O (^ iH OO I t-l 

_d- u-\ cvo ir\\0 I J- 



O O u^ i/N Lr\ 
CO 1-1 UA ro O 


O 

1 CO 


O rH OnCO on 


'IT? 


t- ro iTN MD t- 
cn ro r-: Cr\ On 


1 o\ 
|CO 



rH rH iH iH iH 



O ITN (^ rH LTN iCO 
U) M3 -d- VD VD it- 
rH rH rH rH rH 1 rH 



ltnVD On O CO OJ ltn 
t^ r-: U-N O VO ro rH 
(M OJ rH rH 



O O ONCO (X) 



CVJ (X) O rH CO 
(X) OJ (\J rH VO 
OJ rOrH OJ OJ 



ON ON ON t-- t^ 



&l 



V£) COrH o ro 
rH rH CO rH , CO 



rH OJ rH ON O 



r-< OJ LrN_-t CO 
OJ OJ rH rH O 
rH .-1 rH .-1 i-l 


1^ 
,(0 
irH 


OJ too t— rH 

(Nj OJ cvj OJ (o 

i-i iH rH H r-l 


LTN O O O O 

O m O r-{ t— 


l/N 


l/N O 

CO o 


ITN l/N LTN 
OJCO CO 


rH rH O ON On 
r-A ,-f r-t 


'::? 


ON O 


(UN t— t— 


(JN CVJ 00 CVJ t— 

f- t— on t^ O 

t— CO -rj- _t VO 


ro 
1 o 
,ro 


-d- -* (^ (M ro 
f- -d- roON t— 
J- irN(M rH OJ 



r^ r-i r-< r-l i-A 



On -:t ro rH OI 

_:i- LTN CO L/NVO 
r-t i-i f-{ r-t r-i 



ON ON VO t^CO 



CO O f— rovD 
CO LTN CJnVD rH 
O rH CO- O i-l 



O LTN (M MD VO 
OJ H CO CO OJ 

rH rH .-I rH rH 



O rH t-CO O 



CO (M VD t^VD 

LTN t^ H CO LTN 
rH r^ rH rH rH 



UN CO (^J t— J- 
LTN ITN VD l/N LTN 
r-{ r-i r-{ r-f r-f 



h 



CO ON CO CVJ rH 
ON t-- MD rH LTN 

^ LTN cvj ro J- 



O (M CO (M CO ON^X) OJ O (M t— OJ t/N (M 
O rovo COCO -d-0\ t^O t^lMCO^t- 
ro (M H OJ OJ H 



^ 



^ 



a 


CS 


u 


fH 


u 


Fh 


V 


V 


^ 


^ 


+3 


•p 


o 


o 



"^ 



VD O 
VOEH 

ON 



O O (DC 

+> K -P !h 

•r! M^ -H bO 

(S « -e £ a; H^ 



rH -rl bO ^ -H t3 






LTN O 



S; CO HJ S S 

(l> -u O 

5=VO &^ 



4299 



nd 


fH 










. 




S 0) to 


-4 OOQOOOO 


O O ITN O O 


ITN 


o e p s 


O u~\ 


O 00^^-O^CVJHH 


CVJ ro t— H-rJ- 1 


CO 


^ Ot~ CD 


ITN r-t 


e to pl, 'd f 


"^ ■ oJ H CJ IB ONtsj cn 

r-l H rH H 


H rH 


CO 
H 


CO HV>D MD 
H 


"£-3 


tw tn 












CO) >H 












O M fH c3 


• 










^tSfSJ^ 


O H H MD (TOCO ON dO 


csNvo o o t- 1 


t— 


ur\ o O t^ 


CO l/N 


^ rH dO^ OA H ITN O 
^ OJ CVJ H rH CVJ 


d- M3 ON J--d- 1 


oo 


OJ CVJ CO H 


"^,-2 




CVJ <^J H rH H I 


m 


CVJ OJ CVJ CVJ 


CVJ r-{ 


-d 

to o 




^1 rH rH rH H rH rH 


LTNcnco cno 

CVJ CVJ CVl CJ CVJ 


C/N 

OJ 


t— O J- OJ 
OJ CVJ CO CO 


1 CO J- 
, COrH 


o > 


1 ij^ir\OOOir\LPv 


O ir\ O LTN O 


o 


l/N LTN O LTN 




Ti 


H 


' ^2 




fn >: 


^ O^HoncvJtr^^-li^ 


ITNCO CVJ O VD 


CVJ 


CVJ t- l/N J^ 


1 CVJ r^ 


CO 


0) C3 

P^ -d 


Q l/NMD UA UA u\^ VD 


t-^ ^-VO VD V3 


CO* 


VC VD LTN trv 


' LTNt-^ 


(1) 


^ b 

V cd 

PM 4) 


Ji t^HOJOViDONt^ 

TJ LTN CO CO CO OJ r-TH 

Q MD VO l/N UAVO UA ^— 


J- VO ON C^^ 


1 UA 


t- OJMD CO 


1 rH J- 


iC 


t-- (^-* ON ON 


1 CO 


t-- o CO j- 


' "^S 


CO 


CO C3NVD i/N^D 


1 o 


VO CC LTN ITN 


1 LTNCO 




>: 






H 






^ -d 




CO to q 


A OOCTNrHrOONON 


■■ VO C3N l/N ON LTN 


1 OJ 


C3N CTx t- b 


1 ^- LTN 


^ t?T 


^ rHrHOrHrHOO 


H H O OnO 


1 CO 


O rH 0\ O 


1 ONCVJ 


cfl U 


S rHHHHHrHrH 


H H H rH 


1 H 


H rH H 


1 H 


-^ 


O O O O O UA LPv 


O O O i/N O 


O 


LTN ITN O O 


l-O-O- 


fi cO 


r-l 


OOOOU^ONONtv-) 


O ^ OO O h- 


1 O 


VD COCO CO 


1 VD J- 


P-. cO 


f^ M3 t^VD UA Lr\-* t^ 


. CO 00 VO MD VO 


1 ON 


VD t^ LTN UA 


' lA t~^ 


-d 


Q 










to 0) 

Ch 
















CO H CO ro J- CO H 
^ rH CM t— ^ t^ OJ 


CO CVJ CJN ON rH 


1 OJ 


CVJ oj^ o 


c^ CJN 


O i) 


B 


OJ o to ro .;j- 


1 CVJ 


O OJVO MD 


' '^9i 


a tc 


B CO 


f^ CO 0\t-^O t- U^On 


H OJCO C— CO 


I ^ 


CJNO f- t^ 


1 t- o 


CC 


O (U 


O 


» ^ •* 






1 ? 




ft >■ 


O 


H H 


H 


H 


H 


CO •■ -- -• 

e -d 

B tn (U 


*, t— ON O OJ VD MD LfN 


H OJ fO CVJ U-N 


1 t- 


VD ONH CVJ 


I UA C!N 


to >5^i 


o wcMaJCMCJr^(M 


J- ^ rocvj OJ 


1 LO 


CO CO CO CI 


1 CO CO 


C^ , to J^ 


si ,-1 H rH H rH H H 


. H rH H H rH 


1 H 


,-t r-\ r-{ r-> 


1 l-{ Jl^ 


....?.?. 












en 


- 


U B 

0) (U 


3 


CO CVJ LP> J" t^ t^ ON 


CO MD OJ CO^ ^ u\ 


VJD C- ON OJ 


ON OJ-^ 


p Ch ^ 


O 


t— rH VO CO t-- ITN O 


CO CVJ VD CO ON-d- rH 


C3N l/N CO N- -^ CVJ LU 


1 O fn 
P 


g 


OJ CVJ H rH 


I CVJ CVJ H 


r-{ 


OJ rH H H 


r-l 


s > 





- - - 






".. . .. 








'■^'" 








M to 


m 


CO 


n 


n 




0) O 


0) 


(D 


o 


« 




o o 


o 


O 


t) 


o 




a) cj 


cS 


oJ 


? 


(d 




U U 


h 


U 


u 


u 




U U 


u 


U 


u 


u 




i) 0) 


OJ 


o 


0) 


0) 


■d 


;5 ^ 


^ 


X3 


XI 


^ 


§ 


+» -P 


-p 


-P 


+> 


•p 


o o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


C 5-< 


»€ ."d 


-d 


•^ 


"3 


^1 


5 O 


§ § 


§. 


§ 


§ 


to O 

0) O 


O O (DO 


4) O (U 


D 


0) O 


a) o 


(S 


■p m +5 ^1 


■P B -p 


B 


+> ^1 


+3 ^1 




rH -H M ^ -H bD 
+> S a ?^ 3: S tn 


rH -H U^ -H 


W 


■ H -H bOx! 


•H hD 




CO x: 0) -P XI 
^_ +3 S S 3 5 


(1) +5 
a to 


CO i; CJ -P 

, +^ S S g 


r; 0) ^J 
3 !<; to 




ro o o (u 


OJ O O 


V 


■■H. O O 


(U 








VI EH W S: 


';i> EH CO 


^^^EH W 


:s 



O T^ 



4300 





'd 




i-H 




O ITN O 1 


1 




LTN o tr\ 1 O 


1/N t/N O LTN ir\ 


UN tTN LTN O O 




0) 


^1 


>: 


rH 


OD -* On I 
• • • 1 


1 
1 


ONCO O 1 vo 
. . . 1 . 


ON t^ OJ LTN on 


OJ rH m L'-nVO 


CtJ 

ti-l 


n" 


ca 


O 


VD t- O 




^VD OI CO 


OOOO rH t-^ oJ 


OJ on on o o 


tv) 
(D 


P-i 


Ti 


Q 


H cH OJ 




r^ rH rH H 


rH rH H H 


r-{ r^ t-\ r^ i-i 


.. 
















C 


to 


















O 


dl 




f-i 














S 


t: 


fH 


C3 


H 


i-H O OJ 1 


1 


-^ ro C\ 1 m 


OJ on LTNVO LTN 


J- VD rHOO VD 




CO 


# 


0) 


O 


J- -^ CO 1 


I 


-d- ON_:t 1 OJ 
^S rH m 1 OJ 


O rH OJ ONCO 


on ITN OJ CO ON 




^ 


Pm 


^ 


Q 


CO (M C- 1 


1 


tTN 0-:t rH H 


ITN t-VD VC 






•• 




H 




rH 


H 








-d 
















IQ 


A1 


• 














& ^ 


O 


O iH >- 1 


1 


rOrH ON 1 OJ 


^ J- CO VO tTN 


^ t- t— iTN On 




Cd 


u 


?^ 


LTN C^ J- 1 


1 


^ t^ OI 1 H 


on LTN on OJ H 


;■ 'J- u^ J- VD 




'd 




^. 




<D u-\ US 1 


1 


LTN O Lr\ 1 O 


t/N ir\ ITN O l/N 


O O lA L/N L/N 




g 


M 


>^ 


H 


J-^' C- 1 


1 
1 


J- H CO 1 O 

. . . 1 . 


CO uA m ON t^ 


CO iTN ON c^ OJ 




n'^ 


cd 


O 


HCO O 




rH rH CO <M 


O O ON ON rH 


O rH CX3 O rH 




cS 


Ph 


•d 


Q 


iH H 




r-t r-i rH 


rH H H 


r-i r-i rH H 




in 
p. 




U 
















t: 


Jh 


cd 


H 


rH CT) -d- 1 


1 


t^ rH ro 1 t^ 


OJ LTN LTN rH CO 


VO t^ OJ VD on 




^ 


^ 


3i 


O 


0\t-- ON 1 


1 


rH H on 1 ^ 


OJ ON o c^ m 


^ O rH 0'. J- 


e 


■^ 


P-i 


>; 


Q 


CO -:t 1 


' 


ONrH -d- 1 ON 


ON LTN ONVD 


O H J- O VD 


a 


.. .. 


" 








OJ 


OJ 


I-H H OI 


f^ 


to 


-d 

OJ 
















CtJ 

P 


o 


o'l 


CO 0^V^ 1 


1 


O O ON 1 LTN 


Lr\ ON^ CO -d- 


VD ON LTN OJ Ifv 






t~- -d- 1 


1 


CO H J- 1 ^ 


CO ITN 0^ OJ 


c. ^ o on 


.. 


** 








OJ 


OJ 


.-1 OJ 




-d 




r-l 




O O O 1 


, 


O O LTN ! LTN 


LTN O O L'^ L'^ 


ITN ITN LP» L'^ LTN 






U 


>-. 


H 


J- on ON 1 


1 


vo (3N o 1 m 


1— on o on t- 


OJ CN rH VD OJ 


fi 


t1 

0) 


O 


cd 
-d 


O 


c^"^. ir\ 1 




OJ tr\ O OJ 


r-t t— O ON rH 


rH OJ r-l O rH 


o 
c 


'"' 


Q 


r-l rH rH 




H H rH ^^ 


H rH H H 


r^ rH rH H rH 


M 




cd 




OJ V t^ 1 


1 


OIJ- on 1 rH 


J- ON o r^-* 


O on on -;J- On 


0) 

Crt 
^3 






ro rH t^ 1 


1 


VO O CO 1 I-- 


OJ o mvo cj 


CO VD on CO m 


1 — t 

o 


t^ OO^ 1 


1 


Lr\ on t— 1 rH 


^ rH ON rH CO 


lACO O t— t— 


Oj 


ririrH" 




rH rH on 


r-i H rH CJ 


H rH H OJ 






•d 














H 


to 

















cd 




'^ 


i\ 


ONH m 1 


1 


-* OJCO 1 t— 


rH <t rn t/N o 


ovo QJ t--i- 

J-VD CNVD ^ 
H i-H OJ 


o 
> 


OJCO C3\ 1 
rH 1 


1 


OJCO t— 1 LTN 
H 1 OJ ■ 


OJ VD ON OJ -* 

<-l H OJ 


^ 




^ 














9 


o 

EH 


N- ir\ J- vi) 


rH 


ONonirNCNOJ ^OrHrHVOf- 


. rH VD J- f«-) t-- 


o 


ir\CO <X) -* -* 


t- O CO m Lr\ 
OI H 


t^ CO CD ITN l/A 

OJ 


ITN ^- rH t- 00 

en H 


^ 


> 




















to 


tN| 


to 


to 


to 








"d 




-d 


-d 


•d 








Lr\ -^ 


u 


LTN --^ f^ 


ITN ^1 


ITN ^1 


c 
o 

•r1 






CVI CM 

S o\ 


1 


OI cm| o 

c3 ON 


OJ 0) 
ra On 


OJ 0) 
w On 


-P 






,c; -;)- J- 
-P t- rH 


rd 


^^ ^ xi 


^ -^ ^ -d 


^ J- ^ -d 






to 


H^^rHg 


.•^^Hg 


H^^rHg 


6 






to 1 1 

rH t.0 


o 


to 1 1 

rH to O 


to 1 1 


to 1 1 

rH to O 








cij 0) ir\ ir\ UA 

4Jt-5 OJ f- rH 


• (0 Q) ITN LTN ir\ 

. .Ut-^ (M t— H 


CO C) LTN LTN irx 
•U l-J CM K rH 


Cd qi LTN ITN L-N 
U t-i OI t^ rH 








cy> O 




CO 


o r- 


O 


vD O 








VD f-l 




O 


H 'vo 


H 


vO H 








cr. 




o> 


o> 




cr. 












rH 




iH 


rH 

• 




.H 



4301 





TS 


■Hi 




m 


O 


LO 


O 


in 


O 


O 


in o 


o 


o 


o o 


o 


o 


m 


m m 


m m 




(U 


K ' 


iH 


t-i 


CO 


<D 


vo 


C-J 


m 


CO 


vD CO 


CM 


VO 


1-1 r^ 


vO 


iH 


CM 


co<r 


<• CM 




E 




O 


O-l 


CO 


O 


O 


o 


o 


in 


•a- CM 


CM 


CM 


CO rvi 


CM 


OX 


o 


O 00 


fH cm 


a 


(1) 




.H 


iH 


.-H 


<-i 


i-H 


iH 




iH i-H 


i-H 


I-H 


iH iH 


rH 




iH 


1-1 


tH iH 


C 
o 


en 


VI 




O 


u~l 


r-- 


iH 


vD 


00 


<r 


Ov <jv 


00 


-a- 


m CO 


CM 


O 


CJX 


-a- CO 


CO CO 


t>0 


U CO 


t-H 


VO 


vO 


co 


i-H 


00 


m 


vO 


O O 


vO 


CO 


in o 


1-1 


O 


OX 


m iH 


00 vO 


z 


ca 


0) 4) 


o 


u-l 


O 


CO 


-3- 




•<i- 


CO 


O CM 


.-1 


CO 


vO CO 


CM 


iH 


CM 


-a- CM 


CM CM 


? 


cu >. 


o 




iH 












1-1 


















" 


" ^ 








01 (U 

o o 










































^ 


O 


0-) 


o> 


00 


~3- 


CO 


(^ r^ 


CO 


vO 


O -3- 


r~~ 


iH 


OX 


O- vO 


m tH 






•<f 


00 


en 


CO 




<r 


vD 


vD rH 


>H 


CM 


m CM 


iH 


1-1 


CM 


-a- CM 


CM CM 






?. .. 








































"-^* 






g 

01 


Cl, to 


■-H 
O 

Q 


O 


o 


O 


in 


O 


m 


in 


o m 


m 


O 


m m 


O 


O 


o 


o o 


O m 






o 
en 


t~^ 


-3- 
CO 


O 
i-H 


oo 




O 00 

o r^ 

.-1 


CO 
ox 


CJV 

in 


vo 00 

<f in 


o 

vo 


O 
vD 




CO in 
vo m 


m CM 
r^ CO 




en 

<u 

60 
nj 

13 


t-l 
1-1 CO 
i) (0 




cs 


u-\ 


<r 


CO 


iH 


CM 


vo 


CM CO 


vr 


vo 


vo m 


O 


tH 


CTV 


00 m 


CO vO 


iH 


O 


a^ 


CM 


00 


vO 


00 


vo 


<■ m 


CO 


00 


-a- vo 


m 


vO 


r^ 


vo vo 


-a- iH 


O 

a 


00 




CO 


00 


m 


r>- 




-* 00 


rH 


-a- 


CM 


m 


CM 


vo 


CM 


CO o 


















CM 








CM 








iH 






CM 




" ^ 








CD (U 

CO n 
Q O 

?. 

.. .. 


. , 


CN 


o 


-* 


-a- 


in 


r~ 


CJv 


<■ 00 


00 


CM 


o m 


iH 


O 


iH 


iH 00 


CO <• 






o 


00 


^ 


VT 


o 


CO 


00 




<r o 


CNl 


00 


iH <r 


OX 


iH 


Ox 


iH -a- 


iH <■ 






zi 








<-{ 


CM 






<-{ 


Cvl 








CM 






tH CM 


















































•a 


,. '"'' 


• 


LTl 


o 


O 


in 


in 


in 


in 


in in 


in 


in 


o m 


O 


in 


m 


in in 


O O 




0) 


P-i CO 


o 

Q 


in 


00 


in 


o 


CO 


o- 


a> 


00 <- 


in 


in 


l~^ CM 


O 


iH 


iH 


m in 


CM vO 


o 


OJ 


CO 


0^ 


o 


<y> 


in 


CM CO 


CJN 


P^ 


i-i CO 


r- 


vD 


CO 


ox vD 


CO CO 


« 


« 


-a 




iH 


•-t 






.-1 






.H 






iH 












H-l 


<u 






































C 








































o 


en 






































c 


o 


u 




CNl 


o 


,-< 


<r 


r~- 


o 


o 


.H CM 


CM 


1-1 


1—1 Ov 


co 


iH 


oo 


CM CO 


vO Ox 




6C 


U CO 


■H 


\D 


vO 


VD 


c:n 


-a- 


<• 


CO 


in vo 


o 


CN 


O vO 


vO 


VD 


r~- 


CM 00 


CO r-~ 


•o 


CO 


9) (U 


o 


m 


iH 


^ 


C-J 


vo 


CsJ 


-<r 


<- o 


CO 


00 


r- in 


r~- 


CO 


c^ 


in -a 


iH CM 


c 


rs 


PM >% 


Q 


•« 


•t 




•. 




^ 






•s 








•t 








(0 








CO 


o 


r~. 


CO 


CM 
CO 




Cvl 


CO m 


CM 
i-H 


00 


O ox 


00 


iH 
CM 


o 


m -a- 


iH CM 




m OJ 


00 in 


« 




>.^ 


O 


CN 


CTN 


r~ 


-* 


<- 


CO 


r^ 


iH Cvj 


-* 


O 


vo vo 


o 


CM 


CM 


m r^ 


CO vO 


p4 




CO M 
Q O 

?. 


z 


r-i 






.-1 


CM 


i-l 




.-1 .H 


CM 


iH 




■H 


CM 


iH 




iH CM 


" 


en 




u 


n 




































o 


<u 


3 


\D 


u-l 


-* 


c^ 


■* 


VD 


-* 


^^^ CO 


CM 


vO 


00 ON 


iH 


00 


O 


CM CO 


CO CO 


■i 


IW ^ 


O 


VO 


^ 


■H 


ON 


0\ 


00 


M 


O 00 


00 


00 


O CO 


iH 


r~~ 


CO 


ox CO 


OO r^ 


O >J 


x: 


<■ 


.H 


■H 






CO 


iH 


■r-{ 




CO 


r-( 


.-( 




CO 


t-l 




D 


o 


H 


































z 


S 












































en 








V 


eo 








CO 








to 












>^ 










>» 








>> 








>v 












to 










to 








CO 








CO 












■o 










xl 








•o 








•«• 












u-l 






u 




in 




M 




in 




(J 




in 


u 




c 






Cs] 






0) 




CM 




0) 




CM 




0) 




CM 


a) 




o 












> 








> 








> 






> 




•H 






c 






o 




C 




o 




c 




o 




C 


o 




4-1 






to 










to 








to 








CO 






CO 






J3 






•d 




s: 




-a 




X 




•a 




^ 


ts 




U 






•u 




cr. 


C 




*j 


a^ 


c 




■u 


OX 


d 




4J 


ox C 




3 








~3- 


<■ 


to 






<t <T 


to 




-a- 


<f 


to 




■ Si- 


-a- to 




Q 






tn 


r^ 


iH 






en 


r- ,-1 






en 1^ 


iH 






tn r~- 


iH 








M 


tn 


1 


1 


o 


rH 


w 


1 1 


o 


iH 


en 1 


1 


o 


rH 


en 1 


1 o 








(0 


(U 


tn 


in 


in 


to 


OJ 


in in 


in 


CO 


Q) in 


in 


in 


to 


0) m 


in in 








, iJ 


J 


CvJ 


r^ 


iH 


t-> 


J 


CM r^ 


M 


4J 


i-i Cvl 


r^ 


iH 


4-1 


,-1 CM 


r~. iH 








LO O 










<t O 








col o 








CM O 












VD H 










vO H 








VD H 








vo H 












cr\ 










On 








C^N 








ON 














i-l| 










t-l 








■-ll 








M 







4302 



t. 



C 'p. 



U ON 
<0 ^ 

•a o 
^ "^ 

C H 

s ^ 

M 

0) O 

(U > 

00 4) 

CB W 

»> Co 

^ > 

■a ^ 
c p 
« 3 

•a ^M 

<U r 
•^ ^ 

•* O 

"? 
-a ^ 



"^ Ad 

M 2 

« «^ 

5> Co 

-5 > 



















TJ 


.-Hi 


• 


O u^ O O LO 




in in in in in 1 




0) 


H ' 


ihI 


<■ o 00 csj r~ 




CN fH C7> CO in I 




g 


0) >, 
A4 CO 




cj\ iH r-~ o f^ 




v£5 r-- in vo -J" 


g 


CO 
0) 


-O 




.-1 rH 






nJ 














<4-l 
C 

o 


01 
0) 
60 
CO 


V4 




sr en ncocvi 




m CM CM CM o 1 >- 


U CO 
<U 4) 


iH 


o <■ CM ir\u-) 




CM CM 0\ vD O 1 


O 


m in en CVJ 




CN CO rH CO iH 1 1 




s 


111 S>s 


Q 






' 




■* ^3 






Cfl (U 


ol 


CN ON CS ITNI^ 




vO m CM t-^ CM 1 






zl 


c^ -a- ■* CM 




CO -4f CO in CM 1 






a o 






1 








?. 




CO o o Ocn ■ 


1 


o in in o m i 




4) 


M ^' 




.-1 

o 
o 


CN v£) ovoo 


1 


vO CM vD iH O 1 

1 




g 


P-, CO 


O O v£)\D O 




v£) in r-^ 1^ o 




CO 












QJ 












a 


0) 


M CO 




a\ o rocDo 


1 


O v^ CO vo -^ I 


ca 


00 


.H. 


CN CO r-.00rH 


1 


in vo vo CM 00 1 


pij 


CO 


<U 01 


o 


in CMVOrH 


1 


vo CO r~- iH 1 




^ 


Pui >» 


ol 


iH 




rH 




" 4j 






01 0) 




in en in-3- -3- 


1 


00 CO 00 CS O 1 






s?-?^ 


o| 


CO rH -3-0 <X> 


1 


(3N iH <r O ON 1 






CO M 


2:1 


iH iH 


1 


.H iH 1 






Q O 














> 










*' 




"•^' 




13 


. '-'1 




o m mo o 


1 


o m in o o 1 




(1) 


u 


i-H 


,H iH COrO iH 


1 


in r-^ CJ^ 00 C3N 1 


g 


s 


P-i CO 


o 

Q 


r^ O or-- ^ 


1 


\0 **D vO vO in 


cfl 


CO 


"V 




.H 






•*4 


0) 












c 














o 


05 












c 


<u 


u 




CO CT\ \0 O CN 


1 


in 00 m 00 <f I 




M 


U CO 


1-1 


CO cs a^<l■ VO 


1 


r^ oo m 00 00 i 


•o 


CO 


<u <U 


O 


00 vX) in C^ rH 


1 


CX3 CO m O CM 1 


c 


S 


p^ >» 


o 


•^ 




M ^ 


CO 








iH 




>-l rH 




" ^ 


n 




01 0) 




r~ csi r~~ ON ,-( 


1 


St 00 O CJN CO 1 


<fl 




>.^ 


o 


iH vD CO CM C^ 


1 


CO m 00 m rH 1 


&4 




CO U 

a o 


z 


■H I-I iH 




iH iH CM 1 




m 


^ 


i-i 










0) 


(U 





m o^ .H o r~- 


00 


On CM CM -* <r r~~ 




<+-! J<! 


o 


ON en CO 00 v£> 


rH 


O <3N CM CO CO CM 


"b 


O U 


x; 


CO ,H 




<■ rH 


3 


O 


H 








2; 


S 
















(fl 




cn 








>^ 


cm] 


>^ "~-i 








CO 




CO CM 








na 




•a 








in 


Vj 


"^ ^, 




c: 
o 




CM 


% 


CM g; 




•H 




d 


o 


c ^ ° 




4.) 
CO 






13 


CO ^ « 
•S cn '^ g 




3 




vf <r cN 


CO 




O 




0) r-~ t-i 1 




0) r-- rH ' _ 








•H 0) 1 1 O 


o. 


rH cn 1 1 o ° 
CO <u in in in ^ 

U rJ CM r-- rH ^ 








CO a) in in in 


in 








*j fj CM r-- ,H 


CM 








.H o 




O O . 








vD H 




vo H 








cr. 




cn 










■H 




rH 



|CM| 



4303 



Table 12.— Distribution of migratory farm wageworkers , by duration of farm.wagework, 

1960-69 





\ Number of farm wagework 


ers 




Percentage 


distribution 


Year 


: Total 
:workers 




Number working 


Total 
workers 




Percentage wo 


rking 




:Less 
:than 
: 25 

:days 


25- 

74' 

days 


75- 
149 
days 


150- = 
249 ; 
days] 


250 
days 
and 
over 


:Less 
: than 
: 25 
:days 


25- 

74 

days 


75- 
149 
days 


150- 
249 

days 


250 
• days 
and 
over 




: Thou. 


Thou. 


Thou. Thou, 


Thou. 


Thou. 


Pet. 


Pet. 


Pet. 


Pet. 


Pet. 


Pet. 


1969 


. 257 


85 


84 46 


18 


24 


100 


33 


33 


18 


7 


9 


1968 


279 


103 


85 39 


30 


23 


100 


37 


30 


14 


11 


8 


1967 


276 


81 


81 56 


42 


16 


100 


29 


30 


20 


15 


6 


1966 


351 


76 


114 73 


57 


30 


100 


22 


32 


21 


16 


9 


1965 


466 


165 


llA 92 


69 


25 


100 


35 


25 


20 


15 


5 


1964 


386 


114 


102 88 


66 


16 


100 


30 


26 


23 


17 


4 


1963 


386 


108 


89 111 


71 


7 


100 


28 


23 


29 


18 


2 


1962 . 


380 


92 


133 83 


40 


33 


100 


24 


35 


22 


10 


9 


1961 : 


395 


99 


131 80 


67 


18 


100 


25 


33 


20 


17 


5 


1960 : 


409 


92 


122 84 


84 


27 


100 


22 


30 


21 


20 


7 



Numbers of workers are rounded to the nearest thousand without being adjusted 
o group totals. 



Source: Hired Farm Working Force. 



4304 



c a <?; 

<H O I 

43 AD 
Oi >> O^ 

4) "g 
g § 

S e 

> §• 

§ H 

o o 

> ^ 

CO 
V u 

§>? 

h S 

II 





■d 


H 




ij" t^ t^ 


1 "^ 


L/\ LTN 


1 


LTN ION 1 


u^ 1 




e 


^ >: 


<-( 


uA c\l -* -d- 


ICO 
1 • 


LIACO CO 


1 ON 
1 


on CO ON t-- 1 OT 


On m H r-l [ OJ 




(U 03 





VC t— 




OJ LTnCO VO 


C3N 


rH CO CO CO 


rH on (3N on CO 


(d 





PLi "d 





iH OJ i-f rH 




.H rH rH 




rH H rH 


H rA H 


0} 

(1) 


^^ 



















g 


0) a) 


-^1 


J- C^ rH 


1 


NO On rH ro 


1 t- 


CO m^o m 1 t— 


CM VD ON ND 1 CTN 




:s 


CL, ;> 





-d- t-- -* -* 


1^1 


OJ -* OJ On 


1 rH 


CO rH rH 1 Lr\ 


^-00 H u^ 1 ND 








Ql 


^i OOCVJ OJ 


I.H 


rO-:t OJ r-! 


1 rn 


CU -* OJ 1 OJ 


-d- t- OJ I-- 1 OJ 






" ^. 




f-T rn" 




rH 




rn" 






ra S 




CTxCO m rH 


1 <NO 


t^ CJN u^ r-l 


1 CM 


CO c'N rn^ 1 rH 


On CJN J- t^ 1 on 




>> ^H 


o| 


fov; OJ t-- 


1 f^ 


OJ OJ- OJ t^ 


1 on 


cvi m OJ LTN 1 on 


on uA CM L-^. 1 on 




m 


sl 




1 




1 


1 


1 




Q > 


















■d 


H 




LTx L-A 


1 


LTN LTN 


1 


LTN 1 6 


ICN 1 




3J 


0) cd 


• 


-d- OJ LfN^ 


\<-i 


ITNCO l/N i-i 


1 ON 


CO CM CO L'N 1 CM 


CO CO ITN 1 ND 




g 


H 



rH OJ CO 


'cD 


rH OJ C3N rH 


' 


CM CJN CO 
iH rH rH 


rH On r-l On 







Pk -d 





. iH rH rH 




rH H rH 


rH 


H H H 




CO 


.. .. 




n OJ 0\C0 


1 rH 


l/N UA LfN rH 


1 ON 


NO CO IfN 1 -* 


t- OJ t- ! -d- 






u 




ON rH CC t- 


1 00 


CO rH^ rH 


1 


NO CO CJ-N On 1 t~- 


CM on 1 On 

m t^ H 1 




s 


U (d 


r-l 


OJ OJ t— 


1 


ro OCO iH 


1 rH 


(MOO CO 1 




m m 









•\ -» 








e 


5: 


& > 


a 


rH OJ 




H OJ 




H H 


H OJ 


p=, 


■d 




II 




m rH L'^ ON 


1 


t- CS 


1 


t— J- OJ ON 1 c:n 

rH L'A On 1 

r^ rH 1 


H H ON 1 On 




§\ 


H 03 t- 
rH r^ 


1 r-! 

1 


C\J UACO rH 
rH H 


1 H 

1 


OJ t-CO ! 
H H 1 




-d 


rH 




L/N Lr\ 


1 


l/\ l/N LTN 


1 u^ 


ctnitnO 1 


U-N C^ LTN 1 ITN 




. 


r- ro J- 0-1 


1 L'A 


ITN ,H on On 


1 ON 


t-- rH r-l on 1 on 


C) CM C3 C^^ j u^ 


g 


g 

(8 




■5 


OJ -ct 00 

H rH rH rH 


1 • 


rH rO ON LTN 
rH H rH 


' 0^ 


OJ C3N [^ 00 
rH rH rH 


H CM C7N OJ CO 


,* 


(U 


















g 

a 








t^ rH ON 


1 OJ 


rH J- t^ J- 


r t-^ 


CJ"N^ J- On. 1 OJ 


ON(X) ON on 1 C^ 


u 

u (d 




ro On rOrH 


l-d- 


rH NO VD 


1 OJ 


c/^CAVO 1 on 


t^ ^ NC 1 ITN 


i 


On l/N rO 


10.' 


^- J- Cr-1 

•« vs w^ ■% 


1 J- 


CTN CM rH 1 on 


t--co CNco 1 en 


•d 
g 


r-TrOH rH 




rH OJ rH H 




H CM r-! rH 


H CM 


& 
> 




i 


OJ ON rH 


, ^ 


00 t--^ OJ 


1 en 


., ctnCnnd ^ 1 


-d- vr 1 CM 


L-^ b^ CnCO 


i3- 


-d- CO H CO 




^ CO rH VO 1 ^•■ 


ND on vo 1 j 


rH OJ 




rH rH rH 


1 "* ■ 


H H rH 1 


H CM H 1 


umber : 

of ! 

orkers ; 


3 



OJ H rH U-N ONVD 


VO H U-N tn t-i/^ 


-4- CO ^- rH rH 


uA on OJ M3 V? 


t-^N:; rHco 


rHVO 


t^CO ONO 


CM ^- 


CN t-- rH CO CM VO 


t— CM UA t- CM U-N 


H H 




rH rH 




H rH 


OJ H H 


8 > 














\ - ;-— — -, 


• 




IS 

U 


CO 
U 


CO 
U 


s 


e 


a 
U 








% 


s ^ 


1 


0) 


^ 1 


:3 




i ' 


>l 


5 ^ 

E 


"^i 


1 ^i 


1 "^ s 

g c^3| 


^3 

n (d 
p -P. 




w -d 01 

■d r^ >, 
Q) Cd CU 


10 -d 

-d rH 
CO 


'0 CO rd m 


CO t) 
S 


°r§ " rg;^ 

a, S .CO ^ 3 






a) XI 


£ x; -S 


0) x: 


S 5ht3 a; xJ 


n 5j »H ^ 4) x; 


55 




^ 0) 


x: V 


5 XI <iJ 


X! <U 


5 XI a) x: (U 


XI X! <u 


w 




^.d 9S 


^ 3 


^-d3S 


CO. 


^3"^- si 


•d B c^J "d p 






MHO 


rH 


U rH 


l-t 


Ij rH OJ HO 


M H aj .HO 






^ c 


x: 


W c 


x: 


e d ox: 


B c x: 






01 ftj ^H X 


x: 


• X3 , CO 


x: , 


XJ , Cd X5 , 


X! , CO X! , 






0) Vl 


CO i> M x: 


<u u 


a, <i> f-'s: v U 


m v y< s:: <a U 






^ W 0) 4J 


3^ 


^S^" 


3^ 


^§^- B^ 


5-3^- 95 






■0 -P w 
worn 


5S 


""wS S 


:§8' 


•"^SS «s 


•°^S S:§S 






ON u-i Q) 




00 in 0) 




r-^ in 0) 


v£> in Q) 




VO tNJ hJ 




VD CNI ^ 




>0 CN iJ 


vO CNI kJ 




CTN 




o\ 




ON 


ON 










rH 




rH . - . 




H 


H 



4305 



i^A 



ss 



"5 ^H 



c^ ^- u%vr^ '^c o 

OJ j rH C -* CM 



t^ rH c: o t— vO 



u-\ o o o o o 

t^^ t^ O W (^ 
o' r-l t- O OJ f- 



OJ O <^ irN>0 iH 



C3N rM r- OJ -i-. t~ 



J- CMC o o o\ 



H OJ H W 



Ch mco O VD r-. 
J- H o c^ r- f^ 

H OJ ■-! <-l 



CO CO ro-d- I H 
ON O OJ VD I O 



cr\ O r-vD ^ 



ro LTN ir\vD I CO 
CO O OJ ^ I ^o 

•O LT^ t- 1 



ITN OJ O ^ I ro 



OJ LTN t— _d- ON LP\ 

t— OJ -* H i-l ON 



OJ ON LTN m ^o 



OJ H OlMD I H 



t— O ONV3 I J- 
ITNCO CO -* 1-4- 



CO t^ -d- H I ro 
M3 r- 01 O I NO 
CO Ov t- t— I rH 



t- O O O I On 
CJ -d- f-IVO I OJ 

H r-l rH I 



CO O t— CO OJ '^C 
f-VD H O. ro t— 
OJ i-l H H 



On ir\ t— -* I On 
^ VD H ITN I H 
Ol rOH -* I i-l 



O u^ C O I u^ 
iTN J- NO ro I O 



-a- ONco CO I NO 
t— ro u^NC 1 "^ 
CO OJ -d I 



CO ON uA On l'n 



ro J- iTN OJ I "^ 
OJ O t^ OJ I t-- 





m ro "d 




n! ro O 


Vj (U .G 


■D 0) /5 


O ^ <U 


^ a) 


^-H^ 


^-H^ 


IJ rH O 


iH O 


O O ^ 


C O ^ 


.^ 


Id ^ 


(B (U U 


X (U fn 


f», ro 1) 


- S^^ 


n 3 ^ 


•O, O 4£ 
W O 


to O 4J 

ro K O 



4 -a 


^'ol 


"^ e 






ro w "d 


Q) O O 


^-s-^ 


S a) J3 


•a 3J ^ 


o ,c <u 


^ 4) 


^^ i§ 


S -d 1 


M rH O 


i-H O 


o o W 


C O J3 


■ ^ 


ta JS , 


u) a u 


s: o u 


>, ro 01 




D ?i ^ 




■o O -P 


m o +J 


W O 


m W O 



:n 



>j D ^^•a a) J3 





"^ 


e^ 






9i 




o 


fclr 




.a 


. « 




OJ 


Ih n 




ro 






P 


^ 


•o 


;y 


SS 



ro 


^ o 


o 


n 








-n <u 










o 


J2 




y 


4-t 


4J 


•^ 




y 


o 




O 








S 






t; 


n o 


^ 




m 




td-t^ 




UH 


T) 


QJ 



(U (H jC (U fH 

w 8 Sk 8 



4306 



Table 14. — Percentage of adgratory farm wageworkers who did farm and nonfarm 
wagework, and average nvmiber of days worked and wages earned for 
migratory v;-orkers who did .farm wagework only, I963-69. 





Farm wa 


geworkers 


Workers who did farm wagewo 


rk 


only 




Number 

of 
workers 


: Percentage 
:who also did 
:some nonfarm 
: wagework 


Number 

of 
workers 


Farm 


Year 


Days 
worked 


: Wages 


earned 




: Per 
: year 


! 


Per 
day 1/ 




Thou. 


Pet. 


Thou. 


No. 


Dol. 




Dol. 


1969 


257 


43 


146 


99 


1,175 




11.85 


1968 


279 


43 


158 


91 


1,018 




11.20 


1967 


276 


38 


170 


138 


1,494 




10.80 


1966 


351 


48 


184 


123 


1,322 




10.70 


1965 


466 


46 


252 


104 


1,046 




10.05 


1964 


386 


44 


218 


109 


935 




8.60 


1963 


386 


34 


256 


108 


484 




4.50 



\f Rounded to the nearest 5 cents. 
Source: Hired Farm V/orking Force. 



4307 





01 


rHi 




ITI 


o 


m 


U-1 


m 


O 


o 




^. ' 


i-H 


r^ 


a> 


en 


CM 


rH 


to 


vO 




c 
u 


4) >^ 

^3 


O 

D 


vS 


<r 


r-i 


<N 


CM 


o 


CM 


c 




iH 


rH 


rH 


rH 


rH 


T-{ 


rH 


U 


4) 




















« 






















C 
o 


n 

o 


U 

0) 01 


. 


u-1 


rH 


O 


CO 


CM 


a\ 


CO 


iH 


<■ 


a\ 


rH 


rH 


CM 


<t 


0^ 


rt 


O 
Q 


''I 


<■ 


CO 


H 


CM 


o 


0^ 




^ 


CU >^ 


i-l 


1-H 


rH 


rH 


r4" 


rH 




■ ^ 




05 O 

o o 


. 


\0 


o 


<r 


CM 


O 


CJv 


CO 




o| 


rH 


o 


cr. 


cr> 


o 


av 


f~- 




■Z\ 


rH 


rH 






rH 








?. .. 




O 


m 


o 


UO 


m 


U"| 


m 




13 






o 


o 


o 


n 


o> 


c^ 


r^ 


O 




1-1 




o 


O 


CM 


rH 


o 


CO 


o 


r^ 




a) 




.-1 


iH 


rH 


^ 








c 


to 




















p 


a) 


u 


















rt 


CO 


U CJ 


i-HJ 


0^ 


CO 


CO 


<T 


m 


L-1 


CTv. 


f-% 


rt 


(U 0) 


o 


I— I 


00 


CO 


<T 


rH 


00 


CO 




3 


PU >» 


ol 


lO 


r~- 


03 


r^ 


UO 


m 


-* 


■" ^ 




CO 0) 


, 


















STt^ 


o| 


C^ 


lO 


■-J- 


r~- 


r- 


o 


en 




O O 


2 


LO 


vO 


r~ 


vO 


in 


VO 


vD 






LO 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


" 


13 


o -^1 




0) 


Vj 


1-1 


vO 


r-~ 


00 


r^ 


o 


CM 


o 


S 


c 


a >, 


o 








• 




• 




Vj 


l-l 


cu fd 


o 


-J- 


ro 


CM 


^ 


rH 


O 


o 


c3 


ta 


-a 




.-: 


rH 


rH 


rH 


rH 


■rH 


rH 


U-( 


0) 




















C 






















o 


w 




















C! 


d) 


u 




~3- 


<■ 


0^ 


CM 


P~ 


UO 


CM 




u 


u ca 


tH 


vO 


r~ 


sr 


vO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


-0 


rt 


<u a 


o 


■<1- 


CM 


.H 


00 


r- 


VO 


<■ 


c 


:s 


FM >, 


« 








«t 


f. 




• 


ca 








CM 

CO 


CM 


CM 

CO 


r-i 
ON 


rH 
CO 




rH 
00 


n 0) 


rt 


>,,y: 


o 


vO 


^C 


vO 


UO 


m 


u-i 


-a- 


fi< 


O o 


z 


rH 


,-i 


rH 


rH 


rH 


rH 


rH 


in 


u u 


















0) (U 


D 


iH 


rH 


VO 


00 


C^ 


00 


O 


-Q ■*-< ^ 


o 


1-1 


CM 


O 


VO 


rH 


vO 


CO 


X 


r-A 


i-l 


rH 


rH 


CM 


rH 


rH 


3 O 


H 
















:3 > 


















u 




o^ 


00 


r~- 


vO 


lO 


vT 


CO 


rt 




vO 


O 


o 


O 


vO 


vD 


o 


u 




CTv 


C\ 


CJ^ - 


O 


(JN 


C3N 


o 


>< 




rH 


rH 


rH 


rH 


rH 


rH 


rH 

























4308 



a Qs 



? H 



M 


^;■^ 


cd 




> 


v< 


•rt 


b», 




CJ 










TJ 


tfi 


PI 


^ 




1) 






() 


?H 


S: 


O 












0) 


>. 


^') 


a 


CD 


-d 





O CO 






o ^ 



t" 



o > 



o td 

PL. T} 



u ■ 



-d 
m o 

no 



.H rH O 

0\ [-- t^ 
LA ro i/\ 



H O H 

on on ro 

CO VD OJ 



OJ t-l CVJ 

W O' o 
^ O CO 



CO. CJ u-\ 
H O OJ 
H H H 



J- VD u^ 

,-f r-1 U-\ 

cn o \j-\ 



t— us en 

owo CO 



LTN O 03 
CM t— H 
CO VO CVI 



rH i-l rH 



O CO o\ 
J- 1-1 u-\ 
VO CM VO 



u-N-d- O 



t--VD 0\ 
O VD H 
CO "O H 



o o o 


O O O 
VD CO O 


i-{ 0\ cri 


O CO rn 


rovo oi 
OJ ro O 


OJ o o 
CO ro^ 
CVJ O ir\ 



OJ O -^ 
O H OJ 
CO m t~- 



O vc on 

ITN t-- t— 
ir\ (V-| ITN 



t~- OJ CO 
moj-^ 



COMD VD 
MD OJ OJ 

m OJ iTv 



PO^ I-l 
OJVO f- 
VC J- o 



LrNrH-:t 
ITN-^ CO 



LTNCO t~- 
OO OJ 0^ 

OJ o\^- 



OJ OJ OJ 
iH 1-1 I-l 



OJ -d- MD 
iH t— CO 

J- I-l LTN 



O 1^ l/N 
O CO UA 

O vo Lr\ 



OJ I-l o 
OJ CJ ro 
vc ^ ir\ 



OMr\oj 



iH O OJ 
iH H I-) 



-* 0^ t— 
CO I-l-* 



< P 



§•5 



,c 






x: 




,a 




^ 




^ 


h1^ 

nj O 

^•5 CO 






H-st; 




•ti 4J 




■P -P 




•P +^ 








iH pi W 




1-4 P (0 




H pi 01 






03 O (D ■ 




tVi O <L) 




OJ O (U 




Oj O 0) 








■P to U: 




^J CO s; 




•P CO IS 














ITN 


o 


_-t 


o 






vu 


H 


V!) 


M 


VM 


Eh 


V) 


EH 






(j\ 




o\ 




(IN 




(A 








I-l 




I-l 




I-l 




H 





4300 



(U u 







r^ 




LTN O U^ 


UA O LTN 


O l/N UA 




. 


u^ CVI Lr\ 


rH OJ 00 


m OJ CTN 


g 


g 




o 


O CO OJ 


O b- rH 


ONt-- O 


R 


CD 


Ph -d 


Q 


rH iH 


r-l r-i 


r-I 


CO 


O 












tH 




• • •• 










c 


to 












o 


(1> 




o 

Q 


^ t-- CVI 


rooo O 


-d- t- o 


s 


oicc J- 


LTN t— O 


CO t^ m 




Pm >; 


CO rH U^ 


rOrHMD 


OJ rH m 




•d 




4) 
tfl ^ 
>5 Jh 




H ro cv~) 


LTMTN rO 


rH^ rH 




O 


CO CJ -* 


ro OJ u^ 


cn CM cn 




ca o 


S 










P > 




O u^ Lr\ 


o o o 


Lr^ LTN ITN 




-d 


i-J 




d 


^ >: 


A 


J- ml-( 


t-\o ^ 


u^O t-^ 




<U CO 


o 

Q 


>^i ITN ON 


VD LCN On 


^ ir\ ON 




dJ 














CO 














S^- 


^1 


• 


m onco 


moJ H 


CO rHMD 




tL 


}-< a 


H 


CC CO CO 


m rH On . 


ONCJ rH 




d 


^ ^ 


O 


Jd- m\0 


ITs^ t- 


^ cno 


E 


IS 


p-i >. 


o 






H 


OJ 




P=H 


-d 












1^ 




UA CU LTN 


-O-d- -d- 


VD ^ ^ 




CO ^ 


• 


t^ t^ t^ 


CO t^co 


t-MD O 




>-. !h 


ol 






H 




cB O 


SI 










O > 




UA L'A U^ 


l/N O LTN 


O 1/N LTN 






•^^ 




V 
C 


fH 




U3 O (^ 


t— O H 


OOVD ON 




^ b 


A 


r-^vc o 


t^vD d 


t— ITN CN 


^ 


u 


a cd 


o 


rH 


rH 






a 


PL, -d 


Q 








ffi 
c 


o 












Cl 






CO o o 


MD O rH 


ojcn vD 


o 


V 


^^ 


• 


rH t- m 


CO ON ON 


CO ON-d- 


c 


t: 


U a) 


rH 


CC u^ OJ 


CO if\ en 


t^ J- cn 




Oj 


<U CJ 


O 




•\ 


^ 


1 


:5 


Ph ;>: 


Q 


r-H 


rH 


rH 


-d 

CO o 




t^-* (j\ 


i/N On t^ 


t^CO CTN 


a 


!>.^ 


• 


O ONrH 


rH ONOO 


O CO ro 


P^ 


o o 


i\ 


iH M 


H rH 


H rH 




> 


3 


OJ CO CN 


CM rHCO 


• j-vo J- 


^ s 


^.^^ 


O 


i-H 00 LTN 


J- CD CM 


ONN-rH 


XI 


OJ ^- LTN 


CVJ t^ ITN 


O t— LTN 


l°s 


E^ 


OOH 


CO i-f 


OOrH 


s > 










. c 




x; 


A 


.a , 


U '-J o 




■p -p 


+J -^ 


. +J -t^ 


nj ?; -H 




H ;^ CO 


H p3 CO 


rH :3 CO 


0) (3 fx 




Cd O (L) 


oJ O 0) 


ctf O O 


>H ■ O 




-P C/3 :- 


HJ LO t; 


4^ CO 17.- 


' K 




en o 


OJ a 


rH O 






vo E-1 


VD EH 


VD EH 






On 


ON 


ON 










rH 


i-\ 


l-\ 



> 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 18 



4310 



III. SOME POSSIBLE CAUSES OF FARMWORKER ECONOMIC AND MANPOWER PROBLEMS 
Question 

5. The Subcommittee held hearings on May 21 and 22, 1969, on the 

Border Commuter Labor Problem. The record documents that persons 
regularly cross from Mexico into the U.S., either as holders of 
so-called green cards, visitors permits, or birth and baptismal 
certificates. Other cross illegally. In the opinion of your 
Department, does this border situation contribute to the redundancy 
of the farm labor supply, and/or depress living and working 
conditions along border areas, and/or increase the need for United 
States residents along the border to migrate North in search of 
better paying jobs, and/or cause a depressing impact on the entire 
National farm labor, rural, and/or urban economy? If so, please 
explain why in detail, and please submit all reports, analyses, 
and documentation in support of your position. If not, please 
submit documented evidence of why the border situation is not a 
source of the economic and manpower problems outlined above. 

Answer 

It is our opinion that there is a redundancy of farm labor 

along the border stemming in part from the causes enumerated above 

which compound two other important forces which have been operating 

in the agriculture of the Lower Rio Grande Valley and other Border 

Areas to reduce employment opportunities. A shifting agricultural 

pattern has been placing increased emphasis on cash grain and 

livestock enterprises which have relatively low labor requirements. 

At the same time, technological processes have been serving to 

reduce the labor input in all enterprises including the most labor 

intensive. For example, changes in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, 

including substantial decreases in vegetable and cotton acreages, 

have resulted in an estimated 40 to 60 percent reduction in farm 

employment opportunities over the past decade. 



4311 



Moreover, while agricultural employment opportunities In the 
Border Areas have been declining, the population — with its above 
average male labor replacement ratios, as shown in USDA, Statistical 
Bulletin No. 378 — has been Increasing and all areas have experienced 
net out-migration. At the same time, a study covering the years 
1965-66 found that a pool of 100,000 or more seasonal workers existed 
in South Texas along with established patterns of migration to more 
than half of the States during the spring and summer months to do 
migratory farmwork. A copy of the study — The Farm Labor Situation 
In Selected States , AER 110 — is enclosed in the package of 
supporting materials being forwarded the Subcommittee. 

We have not studied the impact of these facets on living and 
working conditions along the border or their relevance to program 
recommendations for economic and hence job development. The 
reasons for this are essentially twofold: (1) the Economic 
Development Administration of the Department of Commerce has been 
involved in such studies and, in that connection, we have provided 
them materials relevant to agricultural aspects which expand on 
points discussed above; and (2) the matter of foreign workers is 
governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act, Public Law 414, 
which is administered by the Immigration Service of the Department 
of Justice with the participation of the Department of Labor (USDL) . 
Accordingly, USDL is providing you a more detailed ansv/er to this 
question. 



4312 



The following topics are treated collectively in the general answer 
below: 

Farm Labor Market Information : (questions 6-17); 

Barriers to Job Mobility : (questions 18-24); 

Worker and Employer Attitudes : (questions 25-26) 

Answer 

The responsibility for recruiting, placing, and training of 
farmworkers and the associated facets of labor market information 
and mobility are the primary responsibility of the U.S. Department 
of Labor (USDL) , just as most programs pertaining to aspects of 
migrant health are appropriately administered by the Department 
of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). 

The termination of the World War II agreement with Mexico 
regarding employment of Mexican nationals in domestic farm wage 
jobs on December 31, 1947, marked the end of the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture's primary responsibility for foreign labor importation 
programs. Subsequently, recruitment has been handled by the Bureau 
of Employment Security, first as part of the Federal Security Agency, 
and later in the U.S. Department of Labor. Labor's functions in 
this area were enhanced by passage of the Manpower Development and 
Training Act in 1962, which represented the chief legislative step 
toward formulation of a domestic national manpower policy by 
establishing a nationwide program of occupational training for 
unemployed and underemployed workers. The capability for matching 
workers with jobs was increased by a new program called for by the 
1968 amendments to the Manpower Development and Training Act. These 
amendments essentially strengthened the system whereby the Secretary 



43131 



of Labor could establish programs on a national, State, and local 
basis for matching employer worker requirements with individuals 
seeking employment ( Termination of the Bracero Program , AER No. 77, USDA, 
and the 1969 Manpower Report of the President) . 

However, the Department of Agriculture has both farmers and 
farmworkers among its constituency and we recognize a deep and 
traditional, as well as legal, responsibility to farmworkers. 
Continuing programs of the Department pertaining specifically to 
hired farmworkers include rural housing loans for farmworkers, wage 
regulations for workers in sugar crops, and research. 

Two types of loans are provided by the Department's Farmers 
Home Administration (FHA) . Individual housing loans are available 
to migrant workers who desire to establish a permanent residence 
for their families. This program also includes a self-help 
provision for low-income rural families. To finance low-rent 
housing for domestic farm laborers, loans are available to indivi- 
duals and grants to State and local political subdivision housing 
authorities. Publications are enclosed in the package of supporting 
materials which describe these loans in greater detail. 

Under the Sugar Act of 1948, the Secretary of Agriculture is 
responsible for establishing fair and reasonable rates for persons 
employed in the production of sugar cane and sugarbeets. 



4314 



Annual average hourly earnings In 1969 for workers on sugarcane 
farms were $1.60 in Louisiana, $1.96 in Florida, and $1.82 on sugarbeet 
farms throughout the nation. IJ The minimum wage for farmwork 
established by the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended in 1966 was 
$1.30 per hour. 

The composite wage rate reported by the Statistical Reporting 
Service, USDA, for all farm wageworkers during 1969 averaged $1.33 
per hour. 

The information provided by this Department in response to 
the Subcommittee's questions which have preceded this one and that 
which follows in response to its other questions, along with the 
package of supporting materials, will indicate the extent and 
magnitude of our research effort on farm labor. While we have 
previously indicated some limitations on this work, we also believe 
some of it has been and will continue to be instrumental in the 
inception of policies and programs which contribute to the well-being 
of farm wageworkers. 

Thus, while Labor is rightfully answering most of these questions 
(6-26), the following is provided in accordance with the Subcommittee's 
request for all relevant available information and in the belief 
that it may complement Labor's response and be helpful to you. 



2./ Sugar Division, ASCS, USDA, annual publication in process. 



4315 



Some Special Studies 

An analysis of the socio-economic profile of the 1965 farm wage 
force (AER No. 157, USDA) showed the median family income was $2,900, 
less than half the family Income of all persons in the United States. 
The average farmworker was younger, less likely to be white, and 
more likely to live on a farm in the South than the average American 
worker. 

Results of a study of the manpower implications of trends in 
the tobacco industry indicate the high labor-reducing potential of 
mechanical tobacco harvesters is inhibited by lack of economic 
feasibility under the present tobacco program. Thus, while not 
immediately Imminent, full mechanization would displace at least 
150,000 workers from producing flue-cured tobacco. Little is known 
about the characteristics of the hired worker segment, but the 
average age (47 years) and education level (7.6 years) of the 
commercial farmer group indicated a disadvantage in competing for 
nonfarm employment, which is Increasing in the area. Specific skills 
and educational requirements of the expanding industrial jobs are not 
known ( Potential Mechanization in the Flue-cured Tobacco Industry — 
With Emphasis on Human Resource Adjustment , AER No. 169, USDA). 

A study of Workers in Agribusiness (publication in process) 
in New York indicates most agribusiness workers have farm backgrounds, 
and work more than 40 hours per week. As a group, they are generally 
satisfied with their jobs, but satisfaction levels are lower among 



4316 



the younger than the older workers. Most mobility is from one 
section of agribusiness to another, with mobility from production or 
supply to processing being the most profitable in terms of wages. 
The majority of agribusiness firms are small, and individually 
or family owned. Larger corporate firms are most prevalent in 
processing, but even these are small in number of employees. Few 
firms (9 percent) have organized recruitment programs, but most have 
some preferred procedures; almost all express preference for employees 
with farm background, regardless of skill level of job. Newspaper 
advertising and informal personal contacts are the principle ways 
of recruiting. Experiences of the processing firms, which are 
larger generally than production and supply firms, indicate a 
changing manpower situation with a consequence that agribusiness 
firms must increasingly compete with other industries in the general 
labor market. 

Thus, improved labor management skills and increased costs 
per unit of labor are indicated as agribusiness firms increase 
efforts to obtain and keep an adequate supply of workers. 

A cooperative study of Changes in the Spanish Speaking Labor 
Force of Saginaw County, Michigan (Mississippi Report 22, 1968) 
encompassing job mobility of two distinct groups of Spanish-speaking 
persons: (1) urban residents of the city of Saginaw, mostly from 
Texas or other Southwestern States and more or less permanently 



4317 



attached to the Michigan area, and (2) rural residents, most of whom 
were recent arrivals in the county and maintaining ties with their 
communities of origin in the Southwest. 

Most of the adults claimed to have had but little difficulty 
in adjusting to the Michigan environment, although they spoke little 
or no English on arrival. They appeared to have encountered no 
major hurdles in looking for unskilled or semiskilled work or in 
the readiness of employers to hire them. However, lack of facility 
in the use of English along with the fact that the majority of the 
adults — particularly the older adults — had little or no formal 
education or trainings which made it difficult for them to move 
into skilled jobs. 

A study of Low-Income Families in the Spanish-Surname Population 
of the Southwest (AER No. 112, USDA) gives some further insights 
into the mobility pattern of agricultural workers in this group. It 
shows the mobility pattern of these workers -- especially those in 
seasonal farrnic'ork — is often that of temporary, relatively short-time 
movement to job opportunities, and return to a home base at the end 
of the season. Some farm laborers may move considerable distance to 
these jobs. Spanish-surname people are more likely to make these 
temporary moves for farmwork than the Anglos in the Southwest area. 
The dominant stream of migration of a permanent nature, however, is 
from rural to urban areas. 



4318 



Question 

27. What efforts have been made to describe the exact nature of the 

demand for migratory farmworkers (for example, in terms of requisite 
skills and abilities, job components, etc.)? 

Answer 

The U.S. Department of Labor has been more deeply Involved 

in this aspect of migrancy in connection with its annual worker 

plan. The Department of Agriculture has the following relevant 

activities which, we believe, will complement rather than duplicate 

Labor's discussion: 



(1) The Hired Farm Working Force series in which the 
number of persons lA years of age and over who did 
migratory farmwork during the year, daily and annual 
wages, and other socio-economic information as 
presented in the previous tables (1-16) and the discussion 
pertaining thereto, are obtained and published annually. 

(2) Changes in Farm Production and Efficiency (published 
annually in Statistical Bulletin No.. 233, ERS, USDA) 
contains the series of man-hours of labor required 
in farm production. In connection v;ith this series, 
periodic estimates on man-hours of labor required by 
specific types of crops and livestock enterprises are 
published by State, region,. and for the United States. 

(3) Crop Production , published by the Crop Reporting Board 
of the Statistical Reporting Service, reports planting 
intentions by farmers for most crops 60 to 90 days 

prior to planting on a State basis. In this Federal-State 
cooperative activity estimates of acres actually planted 
and acres harvested are available in some states on a 
county basis, depending upon the degree of interest and 
participation of the particular State. 

The latter two activities may be used in conjunction with other 

information (such as proportions of work done by hired and family 

labor in the area, extent of mechanization and other technology, etc.) 

by farm placement service officers or others attempting to estimate 

the amount of labor needed in a specific location. 



4319 



Question 

27a. Please supply data which reflects as accurately as possible the 
current nature of the demand for migratory .farmworkers and the 
behavior of that demand over the preceding 10 years, and in 1930, 
1940, 1950, and 1955, as well as demand projected into the future 



Answer 



Table 17 (below) contains the total number of persons who 
have done farm wagework, the number of them who were domestic 
migratory farm wageworkers and the number of foreign nationals 
for those years in which data are available from 1949 through 1969, 
These data show, as stated in response to question 1, that the 
number of migrants have been declining since 1965. 



Table 17. — Total number of domestic farm wageworkers, number of domestic 
migrants and foreign national farm wageworkers, 1949-69 





Domestic 


farm wageworkers 




Year 


Total 


[ Migrants 


: Foreign nationals 




Thou. 


Thou. 


Thou. 


1969 


2,571 


257 


16 


1968 


2,919 


279 


13 


1967 


3,078 


276 


24 


1966 


2,763 


351 


24 


1965 


3,128 


466 


36 


1964 


3,370 


386 


200 


1963 


3,59 7 


386 


209 


1962 


3,622 


380 


■ 217 


1961 


3,488 


395 


310 


1960 


3,693 


409 


335 


1959 


3,577 


477 


455 


1957 


3,962 


427 


452 


1956 


3,575 


427 


460 


1954 


3,009 


365 


321 


1952 


2,980 


352 


210 


1949 • 


4,140 


422 


113 



4320 



While we have made no study and projections of the specific 
nature of the demand for migratory farmworkers only, we estimate that 
the total demand for all farmv^ork (farm family and hired workers) 
will continue to decline during this decade. V 

We have appraised the flue-cured tobacco industry and forsee 
the potential of mechanization substantially reducing labor needs 
in that crop (AER No. 169, USDA) . 

Also, we have participated in a joint Land Grant College-USDL-USDA 
effort to appraise the demand and other manpower aspects of techno- 
logical change in the fruit and vegetable industry. 

Using data prepared by a number of leading engineers, economists, 
and horticulturalists , the USDA-ERS developed detailed estimates of 
labor demand to 19 75. Total man-hours of labor on vegetables are 
projected to decline 27 percent from 1964-68 to 1975. M But, the 
harvest labor (that more commonly done by migrants) is projected to 
decline by 40 percent. For fruit production, total labor input 
projections are down only 3 percent with harvest labor declining 
some 8 percent by 19 75. This reflects an expected increase in fruit 
acreage and production of 19 and 27 percent, respectively. Thus, 
migrants who follow fruit harvesting will likely be less affected 
by new technology than those working vegetable crops. 



_3/ Farm Labor In A Changing Agr iculture, Part 4, Senate Hearings 
90th Congress, First Session, 1968. (This report will be forwarded 
in the package of supporting materials.) 

hi Econom ic Impl ications of Future Horticu ltural and En gineering 
Technolog y in the Produc tion of Fruits and Vegetables , by Velmar W. 
Davis, ERS, USDA. 



4321 



To the extent that migrants work both fruits and vegetables, 
there may be some further discontinuity of employment as some crops 
in the normal work sequence become mechanized. 

Question 

27b. Please include data to describe the source of the demand (i.e., including 
but not limited to employer by size, crops involved, geographic 
locations, degree of nonagricultural interests, etc.) 

Answer 

The sources of data provided by this Department are as discussed 

in answer to question 27a and copies of the footnoted papers 

are contained in the package of supporting materials. 

Question 

27c. If such information is not available, specifically explain why this 
is so. 

Answer 

See response to questions 27, 27a, and 27b. 

Question 

28. What has been the behavior of labor productivity (especially related 
to the introduction of technological advances) in agriculture 
(and specifically in those agricultural sectors using migratory 
farmworkers) over the past 10 years, and in 1930, 1940, 1950, and 
1955? What will be future behavior? What has been, and what will 
the behavior of migratory farmworker earnings over these time 
periods? Please supply all data relevant to these determinations. 
If no such data are available, please explain why not. 

toswer 

While we have not specifically studied the productivity of 

migrants, or for. that matter the increased output of farm labor in 

general due solely to labor's increased skills and efforts, total 



4322 



farm labor productivity has increased drastically since World War II. 
The substitution of capital for labor in the form of power equipment 
and machinery along with such yield-increasing technology as hybrid 
seed, new forms of fertilizer, and chemical pesticides has 
materially increased production per hour of labor in crop farming. 
From 1940-44 to 1950-54, total crop production per hour rose at the 
rate of 5.0 percent per year, 6.5 percent per year in the 1950's 
and a preliminary 5.9 percent per year for the 1955-59 to 1964-68 
period (table 18). From 1940 to date the greatest gain in output 
per hour has been in feed grains. Large modern tractors, self- 
propelled combines, minimum tillage practices, and high yielding 
hybrids have enabled labor productivity, in this sense, to increase 
at an annual rate of 8 to 10 percent since 1940. 

However, gains in labor productivity have not been equally 
distributed over all crops. Those most resistant to mechanization — 
vegetables, fruits and nuts, and tobacco — have achieved gains of 
only 2 to 4 percent a year since 1940-44. These crops are, of 
course, the ones that provide most of the employment for migrants, 
primarily because they have been difficult to mechanize and migrants 
and others employed on them have been doing, essentially, the same 
jobs of hand weeding, hand hoeing, and hand harvesting over the 
years. Thus, any efforts to appraise the productivity of migrants 
or any others on these crops without taking into consideration the 
detailed aspects of what proportions of productivity was contributed 



4323 



Iablel8."Chanees in farm labor productivity. United States, selected periods, 1910-1968 



Farm output 
. . per 
nan-hour 



Annual rate of change 



1910-14 

to 
1920-24 



1920-24 

to 
1930-34 



1930-34 

to 
1940-44 



1940-44 

to 
1950-54 



1950-54 

to 
1960-64 



1955-59 

• '° / 

1964-68 1' 



Total 
percent- 
age 
change 
1910-14 

to 
1964-63 !■ 



total— 

Xll crops 

Feed grains-- 
Hays £c forage 
Food grains — 

Vegetables 

Fruits & nuts 
Sugar crops — 

Cotton 

Tobacco 

Oil crops 

All productive 
livestock 3/ 

Meat animals 

Milk cows 

Poultry 



0.8 
1.2 
1.4 

.3 
1.3 

.4 
1.7 

- .2 

- .9 

- .2 

- .5 

.3 
,6 
.5 
.2 



0.9 
.2 


- .6 
2.9 

.6 
1.1 
1.2 
1.7 

- ,3 

- .3 

A/ 
.3 
.2 
.3 



3.6 
3.8 
4.3 
3.5 
4.7 
1.7 
2.6 
1.9 
3.4 
.9 
5.6 

1.7 

.8 

1.4 

1,8 



Percent 
5.2 
5.0 
8.1 
6.3 
5.8 
4.2 
2.5 
6.0 
5.4 
1.9 
9.7 

3.2 

.9 

3.5 

4.3 



,6.8 
6.5 
10.6 
4.2 
8.0 
A. 2 
2.1 
6.8 
8.7 
3.2 
6.0 

5.9 

3.3 

6.4 

10.3 



6.7 


588 


6.3 


553 


9.6 


1301 


6.6 


437 


5.1 


907 


2.5 


214 


3.2 


211 


4.5 


418 


9.8 


773 


2.4 


82 


3.8 


710 


6.8 


284 


4.5 


119 


7.3 


332 


9.8 


609 



\l The 1964-68 farm output per man-hour numbers are preliminary. They are based on 
man-hour requirements that are modified extrapolations of trends in labor inputs from 
the previous period. These man-hour inputs have not yet been m.odified to account for 
adoption of new technology during 1964-68. For example, output per hour of vegetables 
Is grossly understated because of the adoption of such labor-saving technology as the 
tomato and snapbean harvesters. 

2l Man-hours in ratio include labor used for crops, livestock, and overhead. 

^/ Excludes horses and mules. 

4/ Less than .05 percent. 



4324 



by capital thru technological innovation and adoptions in relationship 
to that resulting from the workers' efforts would give a distorted 
picture. Our needs in this area have not required such detailed 
examination. We do, however, continue to appraise the gains in 
labor productivity in the aggregate sense as indicated above. 

In this regard, the gain in labor productivity on vegetables 
has been accomplished largely by mechanization of the processing 
portion of those crops. The rate of 2.5 percent per year from 
1955-59 to 1964-68, is probably low because the labor used per acre 
estimates since 1964 are extrapolations from a previous period. 
Thus, they do not reflect the productivity gains associated 
with the rapid adoption of the tomato and snapbean harvesters 
since 1964. It is unlikely, however, that revised input data would 
cause the annual rate of change in labor productivity to exceed 5 
percent. 

The slow annual gain of 2 to 3 percent for fruits and nuts 
clearly indicates the difficulty in reducing the labor input and 
boosting productivity of a group of crops having tender skins and 
flesh that are produced on mechanization-resistant plants and trees. 
Mechanization of tree fruits has been very slow, and most gains 
thus far have occurred in the preharvest stage and postharvest 
handling. Harvest, the heavy labor-using operation , is still a 
hand operation — only aljout 1 percent of production was machine 
Harvested in 1968. This will commence to change within the next 



4325 



few years, as the grape and citrus harvest becomes somewhat 
mechanized. Yet, we estimate that only 17 percent of fruits and 
nuts will be machine harvested by 1975, and hence the demand for 
seasonal labor in these crops will continue accordingly. 

Productivity of labor on sugar crops from 1940-44 to date have 
about kept pace with the average of all crops. The mechanization of the 
harvest of sugarcane in Louisiana was nearly complete by 1950, but 
the Florida crop still remains predominantely hand harvested. 
Sugar beets became largely machine harvested during the mid-fifties. 
Progress in mechanical blocking and thinning of sugarbeets, which 
moved much slower, has accelerated and is eliminating some of the work 
traditionally done by migrants. Future gains in labor productivity 
in sugar crops will likely not increase above 5 percent annually. 

Question 

29. What has been the relationship between the productivity of migratory 
farmworkers and their level of earnings in 'agriculture compared 
with productivity and earnings of nonmigratory agricultural and 
non-agricultural workers over the preceeding 10 years, and in 1930, 
1940, 1950, and 1955? What will be the relationships in the future? 
Please supply all data bearing on these questions. If no data are 
available, please explain why not. 

Answer 

We have not made such detailed studies, as indicated in answer 

to question 28, as they are not required in our method of measuring 

the changing production efficiency in farming. 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 19 



4326 



Question 

30. Please indicate the amount of money (direct and indirect - sources 
and recipients) expended annually to improve agricultural technology- 
currently and over the preceeding 10 years. What are projected 
expenditures for future years. 

Answer 

Annual expenditures to "improve agricultural technology" 

include: 

(1) Expenditures by USDA and the Federal funds allocated 
to State Agricultural Experiment Stations. 

(2) State appropriations for research at State Agricultural 
Experiment Stations. 

(3) Private industry expenditures. 

In each case, the estimates contained in table 19 correspond 
only to that portion of research which is designed to increase 
agricultural production capacity. That is, it does not include, 
for example, expenditures on research designed to improve the 
functioning of food distribution programs or that designed to 
benefit consumers generally. 

Question 

31. Please indicate amount of money spent (direct and indirect - sources 
and recipients) to reduce output of agriculture, and/or support 
agricultural prices - currently and annually over the preceeding 

10 years. What will be the extent and nature of future expenditures? 

Answer 

The USDA has two broad sets of programs which "reduce output of 
agriculture and/or support agricultural prices." One is the price 
support and diversion program administered by Agricultural Stabili- 
zation and Conservation Service (ASCS) and the other is the "Section 
32" program administered by Consumer and Marketing Service (C&MS) . 



4327 



t^ On 



ri $3 



S^. 



'd. 



i_ f 


•.J V ^-' 


!.J 


8 


V--H r- 


o 

CO 








s 


UfN Lf\ 


'd 


H 






H CO OOH 


QJ 


OvX) CO VO 


0-^ 


CO 


H J- 


\0^ 








d 


cn CM 


c-^ 


o\ 




m 


J- 


O rn u^ 


J- 


CA 

m 


^3^cSl 








g^ 


on CM 


u^ 


"^ 


VO t^ CM 


-J- 


O 


\D CT\ CM HI 


mco H 


vo 




•\ ** 




J- 


CM CM 


lA 


CO 




cn 


on vD ro CO CO 


mvo ir\ o") c'1 


^ 


O -^ 


-t 




•» « 




C\J 


roco 


CO 


CO 




CO 


^ 


C\c^ 


t- 


01-^ 


LTN 


roco i^ 


H 








-:f roH " 


H 


CO 




m 


O 


cn t^ 
Oncm 


t> 


H 


OJ 


t>- 


H IJ^- 1 










ON COH 


■H 


C- 




ro 


o 


u> oo 


O 


§> 


S5:, 


cn 








^o 


m H 


O 


t- 




CO 


8 


O vb 

CO CM 


8 


CM 


^- cn 1 




•% 






ONOJ H 


c- 


VD 




CM 


8 


CO lA 
OOCO 
O CN 1 


8 


-^ 


vO 








H 


CM 


o' 


ir\ 




CM 


^ 


rOO 


O 


o 


J- J- 


cf\ 


q5 


0\CA 1 


vQ 








0\H 


0> 


^ 




H 



8roc-- 
CA\o 
oj C^co 



UA CJ vo 
ir\ o >:> 

CM CO !J- 



8^^ 

Hv£> 

UN 00 ON 
COCO CJ^ 
H H CNJ 



H CO OJ 
OOVO U" 
H H CM 



CO Q O 
CO O O 
-^ UA O 

O O >.o 

CM l/NNO 
H H CM 



s^; 



O H on 
CM u-\\i5 
H H CM 



CM Q I 
\0 O 1 

H cn I 



H CM 



CO CM C3 

CM O C^ 
H -^ -iT 
H H CM 



H vo CO 
O CO CM 
H H CM 



LA rove 

^- CJNvD 

H 



as -^ o 



^■n 



^ 





CO o >> 


CO eg CO « 


al-U 
tes- 

ustr 


+j rf tJ 




O -t' « 



cn 



H 

\o 



S^ 



OO 



^ 




■^"S. 


lf\ 




U H 






-j- 

.^'i 


oo" 




U 


LA 
iA 






CO 




O 






gs 


vo" 




Jh O 


cn 




M-H 


LA 




O +> 




VO 


Ph ^ 




H 


11 


o" 


O 


O W 


-:t . 


■P 


•'^ . 


■LA 




-'■' ^> 




1-1 


d W 




O 


;2: p 


CM 
5 


•a 


=-l 


»% 




a 


CO 


(U 


In -H 


H 


H 


O 


•^ . 


■-•S 


W O 




H 


+J V( 


CO 


.■?3 


o 


LA 


W M 


J- . ■ 


S 


J3^ 



4328 



Price Support and Diversion Program 

The ASCS is currently administering price support programs 
(purchases, loans and/or payments) for the following commodities: 
com; grain sorghum; barley; oats; wheat; rice; rye; dry edible 
beans; castor beans and oil; flaxseed and linseed oil; soybeans, 
cottonseed and vegetable oils; honey; upland cotton; extra long 
staple cotton; dairy products; peanuts; tung nuts and oil; rosin; 
tobacco; wool and mohair; and sugar beets and sugarcane. In 
addition, diversion payments may be earned under the Cropland 
Adjustment Program, Cropland Conversion Program, Conservation 
Reserve Program, and annual commodity diversion programs. 

Identification of specific recipients, or beneficiaries, of 
the programs listed above is not available. Only an "eligible 
producer" can obtain price support or earn payments. In general, 
an eligible producer may be any person or other legal entity 
producing the commodity of the crop being supported as owner, 
landlord, tenant, or sharecropper. 

A producer's eligibility for price support and/or diversion 
payments in some cases is conditioned by his participation in, 
singly or in combination, acreage allotment, marketing quota and 
acreage diversion programs. For other commodities, a producer 
may have no specific eligibility requirements for price support 
except providing adequate storage facilities for the commodity and 
the commodity meeting certain quality requirements. However, because 
support for manufacturing milk and butterfat is indirect (through 
purchases of dairy products) there are no eligibility requirements 
for dairy farmers. 



4329 



The effects of price support and supply adjustment programs, 
however, go far beyond the benefits earned directly by program 
participants. The extent to which commodity prices are strengthened 
also benefits nonparticipating producers of those commodities. 
Likewise, producers of other agricultural products also may derive 
benefits from commodity programs (for instance, feed grain prices 
directly affect the livestock and poultry industry) . Too, the 
extent to which these programs strengthen farm income also 
directly influences farmers' ability to employ labor. In this 
broad context, most of agriculture is either directly or indirectly 
affected by programs administered by ASCS. 

To project the nature and extent of future expenditures 
on these programs would be purely conjecture. Legislative authority 
for current programs of some major crops expires with 19 70 crops. 
Legislation for still other commodities could be changed drastically 
in some future year. Therefore, the type and nature of future 
programs, and the expenditures associated with them, will be largely 
determined by the legislative framework provided by the Congress. 

The following table shov/s expenditures associated with efforts 
"to reduce output of agriculture, and/or support agricultural 
prices" during fiscal years 1962-71. 



4330 



r^ CM o* o O 



00 cj c* «n •^ 



\0 w I 

>0 PI ( 



in O r. r~i ^ 



o ^ 



r^ (-t 00 00 «j 



\o r« r^ r^ ^o 



^o ON o r^ < 



O I »^ \0 



o o 



O -i 
r<. DO 






in in 



00 N 

m o 



u o 

O u 



'.:: 



o u 
u o. 

-" a. 



ON vO 



13 -I 



-:! ri 



t-< o> ■-< m 
^ Ci Pv t> 



00 in en 
in m 



O •* ON o> 
*j m \o o 



fM in 

<n \o 
NO r» 
in »s 




— • -a 
u o 



«M| O 



M -* E 

e e «i 



, -o o o &. o 



E O u E u « -^ 

.4 •- fj •-. O 4J « 

o a. o *o o Q. 3 



•1^ 
■ 5 C J 



' O O C ti) i-i 
I- >- o 3 n 
W O O <o 5S 






3 O O O 



O O >-( W .-I 



<9 E B. u 

CI u i-> ^ n 

-. -J o w. o c 

CO i-> i-i [-1 o o 14 



-IK 



4331 



Explanation of Section 32 

Funds are appropriated In an amount equal to 30 percent of 

the gross receipts from duties collected under the customs laws 

during the year. These funds are maintained in a separate fund 

and shall be used by the Secretary of Agriculture only to (1) 

encourage the export of agricultural commodities and products 

thereof by the payment of benefits in connection with the export 

thereof or of indemnities for losses incurred in connection with 

such exportation or by payments to producers in connection with 

the production of that part of any agricultural commodity required 

for domestic consumption; (2) encourage the domestic consumption 

of such commodities or products by diverting them, by the payments 

of benefits or indemnities or by other means, from the normal 

channel of trade and commerce or by increasing their utilization 

through benefits, indemnities, donations or by other means, among 

persons in low-income groups as determined by the Secretary of 

Agriculture, and (3) reestablish farmers' purchasing power by 

making payments in connection with the normal production of any 

agricultural commodity for domestic consumption. 

Estimated ibllgatlons under Section 32 for 1970-71 and a statement 

pertaining to future years follows: 

Fiscal Years 1970-19 71 

Section 32 funds budgeted for commodities, including export payments. 

FY 1970 - $351,738,996 FY 1971 - $248,874,000 

Future Years 



The amount of funds which will be used in future years for perishables 
and other surplus removal programs will depend upon market situations 
which develop 4s peak marketing seasons approach. 

Preceedlng Years 

Table 21, which follows, contains USDA obligations for removal of surplus 
agricultural commodities (section 32) by commodity groups for fiscal 
years 1936-69. 



4332 






O n n ^ , 



■ 3 O -^ 



O < O' oreeOtNtn ^<MO'^-4 ©NO 
i-<-jin •Jr^n-Jo^ o Q CO y\ t^ »rt— roo 



O O n^ ^ ^ O ' 






(NO ^ f 



) r- -; o ^o O ■ 



J ^ -- <N 00 O* O Oi 



ISSS: 



: : : s 






? • 8 



C O 

I' 



; s ; 



»o -^ -J o 



o* »^ c* c^ 



.^11 . 
if 

4 1 i 






'. i! 






;S£ ; 



;.f .? 



' (N in Q < 



223 Si 



a*00-^r*- 0'^o^< 



• O M r- o c 



a. O f^ (M < < 
-J -H csi - cJ'eM . 



?§§; 



< nD -. — 



S 5^. 






5 O O X m ^ 
) CI CM -^ rv f^j 



8 :p;: 



;_ *T m 0^ < ' 
J (N 00" =r u-i" ( 



1 < -J 



<■ -ff ^ »» -s -J . 



?S! 



4333 



ijuestlon 

32. Please indicate sum spent (direct and indirect - sources and 
recipients) currently, annually over the preceeding 10 years, and 
projected future expenditures, to reduce labor supply in agriculture, 
and especially in migrant agriculture, necessitated by efforts 
to relatively decrease the demand for agricultural labor. Please 
supply all data on which figures are based. 

Answer 

The Department of Agriculture spends no funds for the purpose 

of reducing labor supply in agriculture. 

Question 

33. Please indicate measures of relative effectiveness of monies 
spent to change the nature of the demand for agricultural (and 
•migratory agricultural) labor compared with monies spent to change 
labor supply. Please supply all data on which these measures 

are based. If no data are available, please explain why not. 

Answer 

There are no measures of the relative effectiveness of 
monies spent to change the nature of the demand for agricultural 
labor compared with monies spent to change labor supply. The 
reason is that no funds are spent by USDA for the purpose of 
reducing labor supply. 



4334 

(Here follows a list of enclosures submitted with their respective 
responses to questions, by the Department of Agriculture and the 
Department of Labor. Because of space and printing limitations, only 
the following excerpts will be included in the hearing record.) 

The following enclosures were submitted by the Department of Agriculture : 

Enclosure 1 — Farm Labor Used for Fruits and Tree Nuts, 1964, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Statistical Bulletin No. 436. 

Enclosure 2 — Farm Labor Inputs, 1964, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eco- 
nomic Research Service, Statistical Bulletin No. 438. 

Enclosure 3 — Labor Used to Produce Vegetables; Estim^ites by States, 1959, Farm 
Production Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Depratment 
of Agriculture, Statistical Bulletin No. 341. 

Enclosure 4 — A Sooio-Economic Profile of the 1965 Farm Wage Force, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic 
Report No. 157. 

Enclosure 5 — Occupational Change Among Spanish- Americans in Atascosa County 
and San Antonio, Texas, Texas A&M University, Texas Agricultural Experi- 
ment Station Report No. B-1061, R. E. Patterson, Director, College Station, 
Texas, December 1966. 

Enclosure 6 — Changes in the Spanish Speaking Labor Force of Saginaw County, 
Michigan, by Olen E. Leonard, Social Science Research Center, Missisisippi 
State University, Report No. 22, September 1968. 

Enclosure 7 — A Survey of Migrant Farmworker Housing in Oregon, by Melvin 
J. Conklin and Robert C. McElroy. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon 
State University, Corvallis, in cooperation with the United States Department 
of Agriculture, Station Bulletin 602, June 1966. 

Enclosure 8 — The Farm Worker In a Changing Agriculture, Part I in a series 
on Technological Change and Farm Labor Use, Kern County, California, 1961, 
by William H. Metzler, California Agricultural Experiment Station, Fiannini 
Foundation of Agricultural Economics, in cooperation with Farm Production 
Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A., Giannini Founda- 
tion Researsh Report No. 277, September 1964. 

Enclosure 9 — Farm Workers in a Specialised Seasonal Crop Area, Stanislaus 
County, California, by William H. Metzler, California Agricultural Experiment 
Station, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, in cooperation with 
Farm Production Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A., 
Giannini Foundation Research Report No. 289, July 1966. 

Enclosure 10 — The Hired Farm Working Force of 1968; a Statistical Report, 
by Robert C. McElroy, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agri- 
culture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 164, June 1969. 

Enclosure 11 — Termination of the Bracero Program, by Robert C. McElroy and I 
Earle E. Gavett, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Agricultural Economic Report No. 77, June 1965. 

Enclosure 12 — Domestic Migratory Farmworkers ; Personal and Economic Char- 
acteristics, prepared under the direction of Robert C. McElroy, Economic Re- 
search Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report 
No. 121, September 1967. 

Enclosure 13 — 1969 Manpower Report of the President, U.S. Department of Labor. 

Enclosure 14 — Major Statistical Series of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; 
How They are Constructed and Used; Volume 2. Agricultural Production 
and Efficienoy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 
365. April 1970, vol. 2. 

Enclosure 15 — Crop Production, Crop Reporting Board, Statistical Reporting 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 1970. 

Enclosure 16 — Farm Labor, Crop Reporting Board, Statistical Reporting Service, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, January 1969. 

Enclosure 17 — Farm Labor, Crop Reporting Board, Statistical Reporting Service, 
U.D. Department of Agriculture, March 1970. 

Enclosure 18 — The Farm Labor Situation in Selected States, 1965-66, Economic 
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic 
Report No. 110. 



4335 

Enclosure 19 — Low-Income Families in the Spanish-Surname Population of the 
Southwest, by Olen B. Leonard and Helen W. Johnson, Economic Research 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, April 1967. Agricultural Economic 
Report No. 112. 

Enclosure 20 — Farm. Labor Housing Loans and Grants, Farmers Home Adminis- 
tration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Revised May 1966, PA^'521. 

Enclosure 21 — Self -Help Housing for Low Income Rural Families, Farmers Home 
Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 1967, Revised 
November 1969, PA-822. 

Enclosure 22 — Rental and Co-Op Housing in Rural Areas, Farmers Home Admin- 
istration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 1967, Revised May 1969, PA- 
800. 

Enclosure 23 — Rural Housing Loans, Farmers Home Administration, U.S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, Revised October 1968, PA-i76. 

Enclosure 24 — Farmers Home Administration Strengthens Family Farms, 
Strengthens Rural Communities, Reduces Rural Poverty, Farmers Home Ad- 
ministration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Revised August 1969, PA-705. 

Enclosure 25 — Potential Supply and Replacement of Rural Males of Labor Force 
Age, 1960-10, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Apiculture. 
Statistical Bulletin No. 378, October 1966. 

Enclosure 26 — Economic Implications of Future Horticultural and Engineering 
Technology in the Production of Fruits and Vegetables, by Velmar W. Davis, 
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Enclosure 27 — Labor Used to Produce Field Crops; Estimates by States, by 
Robert C. McElroy, Reuben W. Hecht, and Earle E. Gavett, Economic Research 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Bulletin No. 346, May 1964. 

Enclosure 28 — Changes in Farm Production and Efficiency; a Summary Report, 
1969, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical 
Bulletin No. 233, Revised June 1969. 

Enclosure 29 — Potential Mechanization in the Flue-Cured Tobacco Indliistry 
With Emphasis on Human Resource Adjustment, Economic Research Service, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 169, 
September 1969. 

April 7, 1970. 

In accordance with the statement contained in the USD A response to the 
questions posed by Senaitor Mondale to Secretary Hardin on March 3, the fol- 
lowing publications are listed by agency and number. 

Economic Research Service : 

AER No«. : 77, 110, 112, 121, 157, 169, 180. 

Statistical Bulletin Nos. : 346, 233, 438, 436, 341, 378. 

Agriculture Handbook : No. 365, volume 2, and volume 7. 
Farmers Home Administration : 

PA— 800, 476, 705, 822, and 521. 
Statistical Reporting Service : 

Crop Production, March 1970. 

Farm Labor, March 1970. 
State Publications: 

California — Giannini Foundation Research Report No. 277 and 289. 

Oregon — Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 602. 

Mississippi — Mississippi State University Report No. 22. 

Texas — Agricultural Experiment Station Report No. B-1061. 
Other Publications : 

1969 Manpower Report of the President. 

Part 4, Senate Hearings, 90th Congress (Farm Labor in a Changing 
Agriculture). 

Economic Implications of Future Horticultural and Engineering Technology 
i/n the Production of Fruits and Vegetables — by Velmar W. Davis, FPED, 
ERS. 



4336 

The following enclosures were submitted by the Department of Labor : 

Enclosure 1 — Agricultural Labor Mobility by Paul B. Miller, published in Fruit 
and Vegetable Harvest Mechnization, Manpower Implicatimis, B. F. Cargill 
and G. E. Rossmiller, editors, Rural Manpower Center, Michigan State Uni- 
versity, 1969, sponsored by the Manpower Administration. 

Enclosure 2 — Article entitled "Improving Economic Opportunity for the Mexi- 
can American" from Urban and Regional Dimensions of Manpower Policy, 
(prepared under contract to the Manpower Administration). 

Enclosure 3 — Rural Worker Adjustment to Urban Life, by Varden Fuller, In- 
.stitute of Labor and Industrial Relations, Univei'sity of Michigan-Wayne 
State University and the National Manpower Policy Task Force, February 
1970. 

Enclosure 4 — The California Farm Labor Force: A Profile, April 1969, by the 
Advisory Committee on Farm Labor Research, California Legislature, As- 
sembly Committee on Agriculture, with the assistance of the California De- 
partment of Employment and the financial support of the U.S. Department 
of Labor. 

Enclosures 5 and 6 — Federal Manpower Programs, An Evaluation by the Na- 
tional Manpower Advisory Committee, March 1968, by the Manpower Admin- 
istration ; Federal Training and, Work Programs in the Sixties, by Sar A. 
Levitan and Garth L. Mangum, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, 
the University of Michigan-Wayne State University, 1969, by the Manpower 
Administration. 

Enclosure 7 — Report of the Rural Manpower Services Task Force, by Varden 
Fuller, Thomas H. Bride, and Daniel Sturt, January 1968. 

Enclosure 8 — Farm Labor in the United States, C. E. Bishop, editor, Columbia 
University Press, 1967. 

Enclosure 9^— See enclosure 1. 



4337 




Endorsed by 

AMERICAN SOCIETY 

OF 

RICULTURAL ENGINEERS 

St. Joseph, Michigan 



FRUIT AND VEGETABLE 
HARVEST MECHANIZATION 

Technological Implications 

B. F. CARGILL and G. E. ROSSMILLER, Editors 



Published by 

RURAL MANPOWER CENTER 

Michigan State University 
East Lansing, Michigan 

Supported by 

OFFICE OF MANPOWER RESEARCH 

Manpower Administration 
U. S. Department of Labor 
Washington, D. C. 



1969 



4338 



Copyright 1969 by the Board of Trustees 
Michigan State University 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-626960 



Additional copies of this report, Tzahnical Jmptiaitioni, Rural Manpower 
Report No. 16, are available for $3.50 from either the American Society of 
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085, or Bulletin Office, 
Agriculture Hall , Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823. 
Copies of the other two reports in this series, ManpouizA JmptLccuUom , Rural 
Manpower Report No, 17 and Potlcy Jmpticatiom , Rural Manpower Report No. 18, 
are available for $2.50 and $2.00 respectively from Bulletin Office, 
Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823. 



4339 



PREFACE 

This is the first of a series of three publications emanating from a 
nationwide project on the Manpower Implications of Mechanization in Fruit 
and Vegetable Harvesting. The project, designed in three phases, has the 
following general objectives: 

I. To present technological information on all aspects of fruit 

and vegetable harvesting. 
II. To assess the implications fruit and vegetable mechanization 
will have on manpower, the industry, the consumer, and the 
public. 
III. To assimilate and analyze material presented in fulfillment of 
the first two objectives and to present conclusions and recom- 
mendations dealing with the nature and priority of policies, 
programs, and research. 
Each of the above objectives will be dealt with in the respective project 
phase and culminate with the appropriate publication as follows: 

fnult and \/zgeXa.bl& HoAvut MzchayiizcuUon, Tzahnologlcal 
Impticatiom . Rural Manpower Center Report No. 16. 

FfiUAX and VugaXahtt Hanvut Uzckanlza^on, ManpouieA. ImpZA-caZioM . 
Rural Manpower Center Report No. 17. 

?muX and Vtgztablz HoAvz^t Mzchayiization, Policy Implicatiom , 
Rural Manpower Center Report No. 18. 

The editors wish to acknowledge the U.S. Department of Labor for finan- 
cial support, and the Rural Manpower Center, Departments of Agricultural 
Engineering and Agricultural Economics, all of Michigan State University, for 
providing personnel and services for the project. The views expressed by the 
authors contributing to this publication do not necessarily reflect the view- 
points or policy of the above named institutions. 

The editors also wish to express their sincere appreciation to Daniel 
Sturt, Director, Rural Manpower Center, for his council and guidance. 

The basis for this publication was a Technical Seminar on the Implications 
of Mechanization for Fruit and Vegetable Harvesting held under endorsement of 
the American Society of Agricultural Engineers in December, 1968. At this 
seminar 45 nationally recognized scientists— agricultural engineers, horticul- 
turists, and agricultural economists— presented assigned papers on categorized 
aspects of production technology in the fruit and vegetable industry. 

To assist with the formulation of the Technical Seminar agenda' and to 
provide continuity between Phase I, the Technical Seminar, and Phase II, the 
Manpower Colloquium, a Task Force on Technology was established. This Task 
Force on Technology consisting of four agricultural engineers, two horticul- 
turists, and two agricultural economists was instrumental in the drafting of 
the Technical Seminar agenda and selecting key national scientists to prepare 
and present the required papers. The Task Force is also responsible for a 



4340 



summary report of the results of the Technical Seminar at the Manpower Collo- 
quium. The contribution of the Task Force on Technology— Michael O'Brien, 
E. Stanley Shepardson, B. A. Stout, Donald Black, William Sims, R. Paul Larsen, 
Eric Thor, and Velmar Davis--is gratefully acknowledged. 

It has been a privilege to work with such a knowledgeable group of 
dedicated persons who have contributed to the success of the project in Phase I, 
culminating in this first of a series of three publications. 

Michigan State University B. F. Cargill 

May, 1969 G. E. Rossmiller 



4341 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PREFACE iii 

I. INTRODUCTION B. F. Cargill 3 

II. PRODUCTION AND MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS 

Introduction G. E. Rossmiller 9 

Trends in the Production and Utilization of Fruit and 

Vegetable Crops Velmar W. Davis 11 

Rural Manpower - Overview Eric Thor and John W. Mamer 51 

III. HORTICULTURAL AND ENGINEERING OUTLOOK OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLE 
HARVESTING MECHANIZATION 

Introduction Carl W. Hall 75 

The Prospects for Fruit and Vegetable Mechanization: 

Horticulture Outlook John Carew 79 

The Prospects for Fruit and Vegetable Mechanization: 

Engineering Outlook Jordan H. Levin 85 

"Crystal Balling" Tomorrow's Consumption: 

Fresh Fruits and Vegetables for Tomorrow as Influenced 

by Post Harvest Practices A. Lloyd Ryall 89 

"Crystal Balling" Tomorrow's Consumption of Processed 
Products as Influenced by Packaging, Shipping, and 
Consumer Demands Edwin A. Crosby 97 

IV. EFFECTS OF MECHANIZATION ON SUBSEQUENT HANDLING 

Introduction B. A. Stout 111 

Influences of Mechanization on Handling and Preservation 

J. F. Herrick, Jr., Earl K. Bowman and Louis A. Schaper 113 

Containerization and Transportation of Mechanically 

Harvested Produce Michael O'Brien 129 

Effects of Mechanization on Harvest Quality: 

Processing Machine Harvested Fruits and Vegetables 

R. L. LaBelle 143 

Effects of Mechanization on Harvest Quality: A 
Horticultural Point of View L. L. Claypool 153 

Engineering Properties of Fruits and Vegetables as 

Rel ated to Mechani zati on 

C. T. Morrow and N. N. Mohsenin 161 

V. ROOT, BULB, AND TUBER VEGETABLES 

Introduction Paul Adrian and Donald Black 173 

Developments in Mechanization, Post Harvest Handling, and 

Preservation for Potatoes and Onions Eric B. Wilson, 

Walter C. Sparks, Charles L. Peterson and Paul H. Orr 175 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 20 



4342 



VI, MECHANIZATION OF FRUIT AND POD VEGETABLES 

Introduction Velmar Davis 205 

Developments in Machinery for Processed and Fresh Market 

Tomatoes and Sweet Peppers Coby Lorenzen 21 5 

Cultural Practices for Fruit Vegetables William L. Sims 225 

Breeding Developments for Fruit Vegetables 

James W. Strobel , G, C. Hanna, P. G, Smith, 

C. A. John, G. B. Reynard, E, V. Wann and P. W, Leeper 239 

Developments and Future Trends in Machinery and Cultural 

Practices for All Pod Vegetables Andrew A. Duncan 269 

VII. VINE CROPS 

Introduction E. S. Shepardson 293 

Mechanical Harvesting of Cucumbers B. A. Stout 295 

Post Harvest Handling of Vine Vegetables 

Michael O'Brien and Robert F. Kasmire 307 

Cultural Practices for Vine Vegetables Clark W. Nicklow 319 

VIII. LEAFY AND STEM VEGETABLES 

Introduction William L. Sims 339 

Cabbage Harvesting Mechanization 

E, S. Shepardson, G, E. Rehkugler and J. G. Pollock 341 

Lettuce Mechanization 

B. L. Harriott, E, S. Shepardson and R. E. Garrett 357 

Celery and Sweet Corn Harvest Mechanization and Post 

Harvest Handling W. W. Deen, Jr. and R. K. Showalter 369 

Mechanical Equipment for Harvesting and Handling Asparagus 

Milo J. Moore 389 

Cultural Practices and Variety Requirements for Mechanical 

Harvest of Leafy Vegetables Vincent E. Rubatzky 407 

IX. ON THE GROUND FRUIT (STRAWBERRIES) 

Introduction R. Paul Larsen 433 

State of the Art and Future Outlook for Mechanical Straw- 
berry Harvesti ng 

Dean E. Booster, Dale E. Kirk and Glenn S. Nelson 435 

Cultural Practices and Plant Breeding Influences for Straw- 
berry Harvest Mechanization Ervin L. Denisen, 

Ralph Garren, James N. Moore, and El den J. Stang 469 

X. LOW AND HIGH BUSH FRUITS 

Introduction R. Paul Larsen 501 

vi 



4343, 



Cultural Practices and Mechanization of Cranberries 

John S . Norton 505 

Cultural Practices and Mechanization of Wild Blueberries... 

Hayden M. Soule, Jr. 533 

Mechanical Harvesting of Raspberries and All Cane or 

Brambles for Fresh or Processed Market 

Glenn S. Nelson and Dean E. Booster 543 

Cultural Practices to Facilitate Harvest Mechanization of 

Cane Fruits Jerome Hull, Jr. 557 

XI. GRAPES 

Introduction Arnold G. Berlage and Donald Black 569 

Mechanical Harvesting of Grape Varieties Grown in New York 

State E. S. Shepardson, N. J. Shaulis, J. C. Moyer, 

M. C. Bourne, D. F. Splittstoesser, I. E. Friedman, 

T, D. Jordan, E. F. Taschenberg and B. A. Dominick, Jr. 571 

Mechanical Harvesting of Grapes in California: Cultural 

Practices and Machines Henry E. Studer and H. P. Olmo 611 

XII. DECIDUOUS TREE FRUITS - APPLES 

Introduction Michael O'Brien 625 

Mechanical Aids for Apple Harvesting Arnold G. Berlage 627 

Mechanical Harvesting and Handling for Apples 

Everett D. Markwardt, Jordan A. Levin and Bernie Tennes 635 

Cultural Practices of Apples as they Relate to Harvest 

Mechanization, Past, Present, and Future. .Loren D. Tukey 653 

XIII. DECIDUOUS TREE FRUITS - CHERRIES 

Introduction Michael O'Brien 675 

Mechanical Harvesting and Handling of Cherries 

...Jordan H. Levin, H. D. Bruhn and Everett D. Markwardt 677 

Cultural Practices for Cherry Mechanization. .R. Paul Larsen 687 

Effects of Mechanization and Handling on Cherry Quality.... 

Robert T. Whittenberger and Robert L. LaBelle 699 

XIV. DECIDUOUS TREE FRUITS 

Introduction E. S. Shepardson 715 

Mechanization and Handling of Deciduous Fruits by the 

Shake-Catch Method P. A. Adrian and R. B. Fridley 717 

Mechanization of Pears and Fresh Market Peaches and Plums 

by Use of Man Positioning Equipment 

R. B. Fridley and P. A. Adrian 731 

Cultural Practices with Deciduous Tree Fruits as they 

Relate to Harvest Mechanization 

L. L. Claypool, J. A. Beutel and A. D. Rizzi 737 



4344 



statistical Summary of Harvest Mechanization Outlook - 

Apricots, Peaches, Pears, Plums and Prunes 

R, B. Fridley, L. L. Claypool and P. A. Adrian 751 

XV. NUTS AND OLIVES 

Mechanization and Cultural Practices of Nut Production 

P. A. Adrian and R. B. Fridley 757 

Mechanization and Cultural Practices in Olive Production.,. 

R. B. Fridley and P. A. Adrian 765 

XVI. MISCELLANEOUS FRUITS AND NUTS 

Introduction Eric Thor 773 

Review of Citrus Harvest Mechanization G. E. Coppock 777 

Mechanization Practices for Subtropical Fruit - Figs, 

Dates, Coffee, Avocados, Etc Jordan H. Levin, 

Galen K. Brown, Gordon E. Monroe and Bill C. Bilbo 807 

XVII. THE FUTURE WORLD OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MECHANIZATION 

Carl W. Hall 825 

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 835 



4345 



INTRODUCTION 
B. F. Cargill 

The background, historical patterns, and trends of growth and develop- 
ment of the fruit and vegetable industry are important in setting the stage 
for this publication. Since the day Adam selected and harvested the apple 
from the tree in the Garden of Eden, the world has been striving to develop 
a better apple and a better tree and improve the methods of harvest. Until 
recent decades, however, fruits and vegetables have remained in that select 
group of products individually selected and hand harvested. 

It is obvious that fruits and vegetables must follow the trends estab- 
lished for the staple food and feed crops which succumbed to the technology 
of mechanization many years ago. It is not the intent of this introductory 
chapter to be specific for any Individual fruit or vegetable crop but rather 
to suggest the philosophy and trends. Predictions are that any fruit or 
vegetable crop that cannot be mechanically harvested will disappear from the 
consumers shopping lists due to economic competition from fruits and vege- 
tables that can be mechanized. 

In some cases mechanization has been successful for the processed product 
and not the fresh market product. This has been one factor influencing an 
important trend in our fruit and vegetable industry--the trend toward increased 
percentage of processed fruits and vegetables. As an aggrega i, the per 
capita consumption of all fruits and vegetables in 1935 was ai/jut 480 pounds. 
By 1960 this per capita consumption increased to more than 500 pounds. Within 
this array of fruit and vegetable commodities, some have increased and others 
decreased in per capita consumption. Processing of fruit and vegetables has 
played a significant role in this increased per capita consumption. Prior to 
World War II less than 20% of the fruits and vegetables were processed. Some 
projections indicate that by 1980, 65 to 70% of the total U.S. production of 
fruits and vegetables will be processed. These processed fruits and vege- 
tables will be a responsible factor in continued per capita consumption 
increases in aggregate production of fruit and vegetables. 

On the input side we find that over one-fourth of all farm labor used 
for the production of crops in the U.S. is e p-^.ided on fruits and vegetables. 
Since the close of World War II the annual man-hours of farm labor have been 
reduced. This reduction in total farm labor by 55% (from 18.8 billion to 
approximately 7.5 billion in 1967) is more siciificant vhen we realize that 
production of field crops has become more effi' ient in mechanization relative 
to fruit and vegetable production. 

Farm laborers, and in particular, migrant laborer;* have declined steadily 
over the past years. Growers depend heavily upon these seasonal workers and 
the forecast is for an even tighter labor market, which can only result in 
reduced production of certain crops if labor saving machines are not readily 

3 



4346 



available to the industry. Without mechanization fruit and vegetable growers 
may have labor costs that are well over 50% of their total production cost- 
labor being the most expensive single input in the fruit and vegetable grower's 
operation. Without mechanization the grower must depend to a large extent 
upon seasonal workers, many who only enter the seasonal work pool for a few 
weeks or months. 

Another dimension to the utilization of fruits and vegetables is the 
fact that the population of the United States will continue to increase. The 
U.S. population is projected to increase from 188 million of the early 1960's 
to approximately 245 million by 1980. Because of the rising population, the 
total consumption of farm produce including fruits and vegetables will increase. 

The national economy is expected to exceed the trillion dollar level by 
1980 and people will have more leisure time. The average work week may be 
reduced to four days, and more people will retire at an early age. It is also 
predicted that a larger portion of the labor force will be women. This will 
require more convenience and processed foods for easy preparation due to the 
outside activities of the homemaker. With increased salaries plus limited 
preparation time obvious in the years ahead, the consumer will demand and be 
willing to pay for more services incorporated and marketed with the food. Thus, 
the homemaker will be more interested in the quality of the food that her 
family consumes than the absolute cost of the product. The trend will be for 
the per capita calorie consumption to decline, and a shift toward increased 
per capita consumption of the ready-made processed fruits and vegetables is 
evident. 

Along with changes in food consumption patterns will be changes in the 
food buying habits of the consumer. Food retailing organizations will undergo 
great changes in the decades ahead with more corporate and affiliate groups 
supplying the food to the American public. It is predicted that we will have 
more vertical integration between the retail, wholesale, processing, and 
production organizations; and a very high percent of the total retail food 
sales will pass through a few organized groups or chain outlets. The shelves 
of these large marketing organizations will continue to contain many items of 
a non-food nature which influence the consumers expenditures for "food". As 
a result, these non-food items will continue to be accepted as a part of the 
so-called food budget. 

Another important factor influencing the fruit and vegetable industry 
is the changing production and consumption patterns of foreign countries. In- 
creasing population, increasing incomes, changing consumer tastes, increasing 
wages, the use of more sophisticated technology, and international capital 
flows will contribute to the production and consumption shifts. As a result, 
international trade patterns will change. The effect on the U.S. industry may 
be significant, particularly on the production side. 

4 



4347 



The salvation from extinction of many fruit and vegetable commodities 
is research on mechanization directed toward the development of mechanical 
harvesting techniques. The solution to most fruit and vegetable problems are 
directly related to the machines and preservation techniques available; and 
likewise, almost every new development in plant science research requires 
engineering research for its most effective implementation. For example, 
rheological properties (physical and mechanical properties) for fruits and 
vegetables are essential for the design and development of mechanical harvest- 
ing and handling devices. Without this background of adequate knowledge, 
mechanical harvesting and handling systems may prove unsuccessful. Another 
fundamental research aspect is that plant breeding research may alter the 
mechanization concept or vice versa--mechanization designs may dictate the 
plant, tree, or cultural practices such as modified trees or intensified 
seedbeds with maximum plants for optimum yields. As research continues to 
develop more efficient, lower cost per unit of mechanical harvesting techni- 
ques, fruit and vegetable growers will continue to substitute capital 
investments for labor in the reorganization of their enterprises in order to 
increase the output per man-hour. Other evidence of fruit and vegetable 
grower acceptance of new technology and research includes the use of environ- 
mental storage facilities (including C. A. Storages), larger and newer 
marketing facilities, on and off farm processing facilities, support of 
industries as nursery and greenhouse facilities, and bedding plant operations. 
The fruit and vegetable grower is interested in any technology which will 
increase high quality output per acre at a lower cost on larger holdings. 

The implications and trends in mechanical harvesting indicate growers 
will continue to increase production in spite of increased wages, declines in 
the labor force, declines in cropland acreage, and increased training require- 
ments for more efficient use of farm laborers in the operation of larger and 
more efficient machines. These more efficient, but expensive machines, will 
permit growers more economical operation of larger holdings with less manpower 
resulting in more timely harvest of their fruit and vegetable crops. The 
timely performance of some critical operations will result in major changes 
in the mechanization of fruit and vegetable crops, and these changes will 
occur in system techniques in harvesting and handling. These will include the 
development of mechanical harvesting and handling systems that are essential 
if the growers are to continue to produce their crops at present levels. In- 
creased costs and lack of availability of harvesting labor will restrict 
expansion of production of some fruit or vegetable crops if mechanical harvest- 
ing techniques are not available. In some cases, the restrictions will be so 
severe as to reduce the acreage or even eliminate the crop. 

Thus, it is with this background that the project on "Implications of 
Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization" was conceived. Many universities, 
firms in the industry, governmental research stations, and agencies have 

5 



4348 



within their organizations people who have studied in depth various aspects 
of the passive problems evolving from the need for mechanization in the fruit 
and vegetable industry. The problem not only has technological overtones but 
also has economic, social, and political dimensions as well. 

This is a three phase project on the assimilation of knowledge in an 
effort to more closely bring into focus and provide a solution to the broad 
problems in technology, manpower, and policy associated with fruit and 
vegetable mechanization. Phase I, the Technical Implications culminated in 
this publication, resulted from technical papers presented by 45 scientists 
at a Technical Seminar. These scientists were asked to present their papers 
on fruits and vegetables based on a classified grouping designed to integrate 
and unite mechanization concepts previously restricted to specific crops. 
The rationale to use a classified grouping for the Technical Seminar proved 
appropriate for organization of this publication. The classified grouping 
is as follows: 

Vegetables Fruit 

Below ground vegetables On the ground fruit 

(Root, bulb, and tuber) ^ow bush fruit 

Fruit and pod vegetables ^^.g^, ^^^^^ ^^^.^ 

Vine vegetables g^^p^^ 

Leafy and stem vegetables Deciduous tree fruit 

Miscellaneous fruits and nuts 

Phase II of the project will deal in a similar manner with the Manpower 
Implications of Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization, and Phase III will 
treat the policy aspects. This latter phase is designed to use as a foundation 
Phase I--Technology, and Phase II--Manpower, and draft these into conclusions 
which may be used to develop recommendations, policies, priorities, and 
proposals for future endeavors. 



4349 

RURAL MANPOWER - OVERVIEW 
Eric Thor and John W. Mamer 

Rural manpower is a general term for those persons commonly called farm 
labor--those employed in the production of agricultural products. It includes 
the self-employed farmer, members of the farm family who work on the farm, 
hired year-round workers, local seasonal workers, and migratory seasonal 
workers, both domestic and foreign. 

This paper is most concerned with seasonal farm workers. They are the 
segment of rural manpower most directly affecting the production and harvest 
of fruit and vegetables and most affected by mechanization. 

Historical Setting [1] 

For many decades farm employment has been the first step on the economic 
ladder for thousands upon thousands of immigrants into the United States. 
Also, for many decades persons who lacked the necessary skills or desire for 
industrial employment have sought work in agriculture. 

Conflicting views about farm labor problems in the United States' fruit 
and vegetable industry have persisted since the East and West were linked by 
rail transportation. The Central Pacific and Union Pacific Railroads were 
joined by the driving of a "golden" spike in May, 1869. 

1870 to World War I 

As transportation improved and expanded and as seasonal labor supplies 
developed, farmers in the West shifted their production from wheat and grains 
to more perishable and more labor-intensive crops. From 1870 through World 
War I, large acreages of farm land in the West were placed under irrigation. 
In the process, many large land holdings were subdivided into smaller farms. 
As the intensive production of fruits and vegetables increased, so did the 
need for seasonal farm labor. 

One of the first groups available for seasonal employment on California 
fruit and vegetable farms was the Chinese. The Chinese had come to the 
United States to help build the transcontinental railroad. After the rail- 
road was completed these workers became unemployed. Agriculture provided 
the only opportunity for most of them. Soon, however, labor groups and 
others began charging at public meetings and in statements to newspapers 
that the Chinese were taking jobs away from whites. Intensive anti-Chinese 
campaigns culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. 

Historians have noted that the Chinese by doing the 'stoop labor" tasks 
had helped to get commercial fruit and vegetable production started in 
California and. thereby helped to open up better jobs for the whites in indus- 
tries associated with agriculture. 

Between 1882 and 1889, two new groups of workers sought seasonal employ- 
ment in the fruit and vegetable industry: (1) whites who because of the 

51 



4350 



severe depression of the 1880's had been laid off from their factory jobs in 
the cities, and (2) new Japanese immigrants. The two groups competed for 
the jobs. 

The competition for employment created resentment against the Japanese 
immigrants. This resentment continued even after the depression was over in 
1890 and the whites had gone back to the cities. The same groups that had 
opposed the Chinese set off strong anti-Japanese movements during the 1890's 
and early 1900' s. Responding to the pressure of the U.S. social and labor 
groups, the Japanese government attempted to discourage immigration to the 
continental United States. Japanese laborers thwarted this move by first 
migrating to Hawaii, Canada, and Mexico, and then re- immigrating into the 
United States. 

The Japanese like the Chinese made a lasting mark on the fruit and 
vegetable industry. One of their most significant contributions was the 
widespread establishment of piece-frate wage system which is still used today. 
Their view was that piece-rate wages gave willing workers an opportunity to 
earn better wages than other farm workers. This approach to wages made them 
unpopular with domestic white workers and contributed to eventual Japanese 
exclusion. 

After 1907, fruit and vegetable farmers began encouraging the immigra- 
tion of Europeans. Most European immigrants, however, found work in the grow- 
ing non-agricultural industries. The number of Europeans employed as seasonal 
farm workers never became large. From 1907 to 1916 the seasonal farm labor 
force in fruit and vegetables included Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Filipinos, 
Negroes, Europeans, and native-born whites. Data are not available to deter- 
mine their relative proportion in the total labor force. 

World War I - World Mar II 

The years from World War I to World War II brought increased demands 
for fruit and vegetables. The call to arms of young men for World War I plus 
the increased need for food and fiber created a shortage of farm workers. To 
help farmers obtain seasonal labor government assisted in recruitment. Domes- 
tic recruitment efforts failed to attract the number of workers necessary to 
meet the needs of an expanding agriculture. The great need of food for the 
Allies forced the United States Government to bring workers in from outside 
of the United States to help in the production and harvest of the crops. 

In May, 1917, the Department of Labor authorized farmers to employ 
workers from Mexico on U.S. farms. Although Mexican laborers had immigrated 
to the United States for two decades, it was not until after U.S. entry into 
the war that Mexican workers became the dominant labor force in the fruit 
and vegetable industry. 

In the spring of 1918, the Secretary of Labor extended the farm labor 
emergency exceptions to include agricultural workers from Canada. Statistics 

52 



4351 



are incomplete, but a committee investigating the farm labor situation in 
1920 estimated that more than 50,000 Mexicans entered the United States during 
the World War I emergency. This committee also reported that, contrary to 
popular opinion, the imported Mexicans had not come into direct competition 
with white labor for farm jobs, nor had they displaced white laborers. The 
white workers had gone to war, gone to work in the expanding non-agricultural 
industries, or were not in the United States in sufficient numbers to take 
care of the expanded agriculture and industry. 

After World War I large numbers of immigrants from many countries entered 
the United States. Labor groups demanded limits on the number of persons who 
could enter the United States. The first quota legislation on immigration 
was approved in 1921. This slowed the rate of inflow, but unskilled workers 
continued to immigrate into the United States throughout the 1920 's. Many 
found employment in the production and harvest of fruit and vegetables. 

Filipino laborers had been free to enter the United States from the 
beginning of the century. They did not, however, migrate to the United States 
in large numbers until 1923. Between 1923 and 1929, Mexican and Filipino 
immigrants were the primary source of new workers employed by fruit and vege- 
table farmers. 

At its September, 1927, convention, the California State Federation of 
Labor took the position that there should be quota restrictions on Mexicans 
and that Filipinos should be excluded from immigration. Support for labor's 
determination to restrict Mexican immigration came from the American Legion, 
the state and federal Public Health Departments, social workers, school teach- 
ers, ministers, and "do-good" organizations. Consequently, a policy restrict- 
ing immigration of Mexicans and Filipinos was adopted in March, 1929. 

After the depression began in May, 1929, domestic workers who had been 
working in the factories turned to agriculture for employment. A second time 
in 50 years, workers who became unemployed in non-agricultural industries 
sought farm employment. Throughout the depression there were cries from 
social and labor groups that white Americans who wanted farm work were unable 
to work because foreign workers (mostly legal immigrants) had the jobs. 

World War II - 1964 

World War II affected the need and the supply of farm labor much the 
same as did World War I. The United States again became the breadbasket and 
arsenal of the Allies. As in World War I, workers left agriculture for non- 
agricultural jobs. Farm labor became scarce. By early 1942 the farm labor 
situation had become critical. Farmers went to the government for help. Dur- 
ing the war years and up until December 31, 1947, approximately 310,000 foreign 
workers were imported into ttie United States from Mexico, Jamaica, the 
Bahamas, and Canada to work on farms (Table 1). 

At the end of World War II, the same groups that sought to eliminate 

53 



4352 









0) 

+J+JUS- o+J>,c 








-C 


OOOJQ. OJOOJO 








■!-> 


OOQetlOOSI'Ol I 


CO 






10 


.0 


0) . 1 • . II 











S 


C C C C >, 


10 






C 




3 ro fO 03 03 


0. 0) c 










■-3 '-0 Z 


s- 






a 






- • 3 












• >, a)T3 












4-> •.- <U 






.,— 


s. 




• •.- i*- to 




r. 


Ll. 


Ol 


roLDOoooooooo 


C3 .— 10 




0) 


Jit 


cocsiroro CMCsicMui 


03 CO J2 




^. 


E 


r— r-" r— 


- C LO 




z> 


3 




CO 1 to 




■!-> 


Z 




o-r- 00 01 










■l-> +J <d- i- 




"3 






□1 (O CT» 3 




u 






,C C r— O) 














i. 


-C 


• 


JZ ^ • <<- 




o> 


■♦-> 


• -M ■•-> >> • • 


</) <U 




=t 


,c 


■»-> CL CL U C S- en.— E S. 1 


03 03 s~ • r-~ to 






0) 





U<U(Da;QJO>Q.3303CLI 


3 Ol 3 S- kO ■<-> 






</) 


s: 


i>o t/i Q Q -D <c ^a: T-^ <: * 


4J 0» S. 




'^l 


a> 






>• S. .— XI .— 
C 3 03 Q- 




:3 


10 






<♦- (J _J ••> 0) 






a 


&. 


oooooooooo>a-o 


■.- ■.- </) S- 




c 


ro 


Ol 


cT.a>oix>roco«a-'^«*r^a^ 


■tJ ^ S- I*- 4J 






■-D 


J3 


cocr.c\iLr)00r-«a-ojcvjoOr- 


(O (O 0^ W OJ 






E 




I. 0) ct ••-> 




c/l 


3 




■!-> 0. ■!-> Q. <U 




JD 


z: 




in 1- c (U .— 











■.- >, 0) a: 0. 




•-o 






•r- .c +J •!-> s- 






4J 




E ■•-' c s- u 

-0 C <U 03 XI C 
<C E Q. OJ -r- 




+J+J+J+J4-' • •+J • .+J+J+J+J+J+J+J+J+J+->-t->-t->-t->+J 




s- r^ 


to 


c: 


Q.Q.0.Q.0.4->+J Q.-l->+J O.CLO-Q.CLQ.Q.Q.CLO.Q-0-O.a 


E •!-> OJ —1 




U3 


c 





Qja>aj<i>a)oua)uu(i;<uai(uaj<ua>(Da)a)cD(iiiDa> 


S- i. Q E • 




Q.cn 


10 


s: 


00l/100l/100OOl/5OO000000(/l(/100l/000l/0l/1000000l/1 


01 <U (0 E in 




E >— 








S J= 0. • 1. S-r— 




0} 1 


■0 






+-> QJ I/) 03 <f- OJ 




1— CNJ 


n} 






0. Q • U- ■!-> 




>* 


c 


s- 


Lnin^O«*OCOOOOOVOU3000lOi— lOr— CVJCOCMCOCTva- 


C ^ ID -00 




S- CTl 


IQltU 


i^rocsjLr)o<Tioooor^oo^or^o»c>jii5csj<*i— csjcvjiT) 


03 -M • C 0) ■!-> 




r— 


3 


■=3-iocr>cM"3-CTiLnoocvjr-»c\j<j3ioc\joo^-C3Lnr^«a-ooc\jLnoo 


s: •.- OO - ■•-> 
3 • >, 00 03 0) 
=3 •!-> 03 E to 




1— n>a-u3Lni— cvjcsjLDini^kOi^r^uaaDoooooocor^^fOco 




TD j:: 


2: 




S. O) ■.- 0) •.- OJ 




<U -!-> 






"O OJ S- I/) ••-> -C 




■!-> C 






XI -.- JZ 3 1 00 ■!-> 




■!-> 






03 u +-> (J c '-^ o; 




-.- 2: 






_1 C Ol .-1 . c 




E 


-C 




■.- >,00 OJ OJ •.- 




XJ T3 


+J 


>>>>>>-->^->)tu>> 


It- XI COS. 




=C C 


C 


r- ,— r- +J Cn,— Olr- C— 4JjDOU>,COOOUCOCOU 


U -M -r- OJ -0 




nj 


10 





333(J333333U<UQJ(UOJ03<UQJ<l)aJ03ajO3a)<l) 


-0 c > 01 




in 




s: 


'-3'-D'^0<;'-Det'^.-D'-D01-i-QQ:£'-DOC3QQ'-3Q'-3QQ 


■!-> >,a) 0>T3 S--1->T3 




1- • 


h—l 






C.— S-E0JO)C3 




<U s- 








OJ-.- OJ >,tooo OJ.— 




j«: <o 


3 






E i- Q. OJ E <J 




i. a> 




S_ 


>*.— crii^ix>oooor^«a-cvjr-i->.cn^cOLr)>3-«*r^cMcnLOLr) 


-l->03ajr-X31.>iC 




>- 


oa 


cu 


.— oooun(NJOCOOOLnLnnLnLn<nr^r^«d-r^cooouDCMro.— 


s- to i- 0. ••- 




3 


JD 

E 

3 


r-.— r^r-oO"*rocn<Maii^cocsir-vocnu3r-coooo<nooo 


OJ to Q. E to J3 .— 

0. 0) uj OJ OJ a. OJ 
0) <J CO s 1 E S- 




C >1 


n-^oo^ooovDODncsjr— 1— cTi.— CM.— 0.— odro^LD^ooa^ 




a)+-> 


z: 




Q OJ +J H- 3 0) 03 










c s- O) E 




<U 1— 






-r- I. S. >, 




s- 10 






OO+J. Q.3M- 03 OJ OJ 




c 






• OJ 03 U- -i.: jz 




u. 


-C 




=) C S- OJ lO s- +-> 










I. ID >4- 
- 00 E 3 1 S in 




<^- +J 




c 


Q. 0. O-r- .— C-l->-t->-l->+J-l->-l->4->-l->-l->+->4-> a. CL+J O. Q. Q. CL O- ■!-> 




ro 


t/> 





cua)(i)333ouuuu(juu<jou(i)a)<J<u(D<u<ua)u 


00 OJ LQ n 1 s- 




s 


c 


s: 


OOOOOI'-J-a'-DOOOOOOOOOOOtOl/lOOOOOl/OOOOOO 


v£) S- LO 0) C OJ 




+J 


ItJ 






cn T3 t- OJ CTi u o»-^ 




C >1 


(J 






r— _C ^— •.— •.— t- 




Ol JD 








U1 "O ■!-> "t- OJ 






K 


S. 


ocrir^r->^oocoooro.;j-^r^ncsjLOLr>.— .— «a-<NJOOO"* 


>, 1- OJ ■"'*- i- S 




>, 


O) 


<u 


ooOCT)cgu->^3-or^OOr~~r-^rooiCTic\iCM.— r^f— .— >a-'3-i-rjix>c\j 


t- OJ c >, to 







^ 


l^ 


CMCsjo«3-nooi£)r~»t^iX)>;i-r-Lnc\jcOLr)LOLr>.— LT)"*.— .— vor-^.— 


03 -:»:•.- XI ■<-> <*- c 
3 t- OJ t. - cr 
i. +J -0 in >,T- 




Q. 


3 


■<^u3LnLnLOi,OLn53-o.— i-ncri"a-ovju30<3-r— ^co.— ocvjijar^vD 




E 


2: 


rouDy3«3-nnr^r^c>jooLr)CTvror^vor^a^roo.— cnco.— 


-QS-OOJO-S-.— OJ 




LU 




.— .— r-.— CSJCOCMCSJCNJCSJOvJ.- 


OJ r- 0) ^ S. 
Ll- C -r- 1. +J +J 




-ii: 






cn OJ CL E n- 




(0 






-•r- S- E 0) OJ 




<U 1 


> ^ 




■W0JQJO>i-E+-> 
si t. s <J •.- •.- 
<i) +J T3 C C 




Q. 


L. 








Q.CLO.r— r— C+J+J-M+J+J+J+J+J-l-'+J CLQ.0.4-> O.CLQ.Q.Q.+J 




r— 


OJ 





<l)<U<U3330UU(J(J<JU<J00<U<ll(U0(l)CU(U<Ua)0 


E If. r^ r^ 03 




(O 


■^ 


^" 


l/00000.-3'D'0000000000000(/1000t/100l/)00000 


C >* l£) S- r- OJ 




3 


i. 






0.— CT>Cri+J03<OS- 




C 









O'^OJn-r-tOC+Jro 
<l) +J -r- OJ 




c 


3 








et 


C 






3 0^^ C-r-TJ (/) 

cii -fj a> oj-f- o) c 

» 3 3 E 0) 03 

i*- -o s- tn 




r— 


0) 




O) (U 


^e S- S- OJ <Tl -r- 






s- 


s_ 


OCTvcsjo^oooo<a-r^covo.— i^LnLr)C0Lr)«3-csj>*^cOCTi.— 


x: -c M- .— q: 




0) 





Ol 


ooor-^i— Ln^oOoorocMCvj^Lnnrouar^nrOLncoo^uan 


J3 .:>; +J +-• .— 






U- 


E 
3 


csjcMLOcsjncoo^^.— r— ^.— ujcor— <a-00i— kOo^o>*r^u3.— LD 


ti OJ 03 "O 

—J 0)C>joOt- in c+-> 

Q."* ^ U +J 03 S- 




,_ 


^i^JuD^uniaOLDCTiooi.— c\jooc\j<a-oO'j3or^u^CMrocsj<Nj 




1— 


1 — 


z 


nuicTi^a^-a-oooorofor^O'^crir^aDO'a-c^jcsjocnoon-.— 


E (TV <n 01 S- 0) 






=c 




.— .— .— CSJCMCJCSJCMrOCNJCSJ.— 1— 


5 >,r- — Q. - 3 










« .— in CLCTi a. 










U- x: E E OJ **■ 










+J c s- cn ^ 






s- 




c s- s_ .— a 






03 


T3 


■• t- 4- >, 3 






-a s- 




OJ E -a .— - 






C 03 


T3 -O 


u 0) 01 OJ J.: 00 x: 






OJ 0} 


cvjn<a-Lr)U3r-~oocno.— oyrora-LDusr^ooCTicDr— cMro«3-unu3r^ 


t.aj+j+jtooj»3-+-> 






•— >- 


'3-^«a-«*'3-'3-«a-'3-Lr)ur)unLnLnununLr)ir>Lr)u3uDu3U3tpu3ij3vo 


3JZ0303IIJ0)Cnr- 






10 


01— QQXi 2.— >* 






(_> 




OTIO XI U "O 0) 



54 



4353 



foreign workers from agriculture after World War I began to apply pressure on 
government to force agriculture to hire only domestic workers. However, domes- 
tic workers who had been employed on farms during the depression and who had 
found wartime employment in non-agricultural industries did not return to 
agriculture, and the supply of workers seeking employment in agriculture 
remained small . 

In 1951, when the Korean War began, agriculture was again called upon 
to increase production of food and fiber. Seasonal farm workers were already 
in short supply. Farmers maintained that if they were to increase production 
they would need foreign workers. Public Law 78, often called the Mexican 
National (Bracero) Contract Farm Labor Program, was passed by Congress. It 
authorized the importation of foreign workers under contract to accept sea- 
sonal agricultural employment. 

The demand for fruits and vegetables expanded throughout the 1950's. 
The supply of domestic seasonal farm workers continued to be in short supply 
relative to demand. Farmers, particularly fruit and vegetable growers, re- 
ported that it was difficult to obtain an adequate number of workers. Public 
Law 78 was continued. From 1943 to 1954, foreign workers from Mexico, the 
British West Indies, Canada, Japan, and the Philippine Islands were admitted 
under contract for seasonal work in agriculture. The number of foreign work- 
ers admitted for temporary farm work reached a peak of 308,168 in 1959. 

The Mexican National was the predominant foreign worker in the period 
from 1943 to 1964. The maximum number of British West Indians (BWI's) em- 
ployed in a single year was never over 30,000. Canadians never exceeded 
8,000 in any year. The Japanese did not exceed 2,000. The largest number 
of Filipinos was 120. No fewer than 100,000 Mexicans were employed at peak 
in every year from 1951 to 1963. In 1959, there were 291,515 Mexican Nationals 
employed at the harvest peak (Table 2). 

Public Law 78 was terminated on December 31, 1964. However, with the 
advent of the Vietnam conflict came an increasing demand for agricultural 
products. It became necessary to continue importing foreign contract workers 
for seasonal employment in agriculture. 

In 1965, there were 16,650 Mexicans and 14,929 BWI's employed at peak. 
At the 1967 peak, 6,124 Mexicans, 9,015 BWI's, and 3,854 Canadians were em- 
ployed. (Domestic migrant workers include legal immigrants, as well as 
native-born.) No foreign workers were imported into California in 1968. 
However, some BWI's and some Canadians were brought into to help harvest 
apples, potatoes, and sugar cane in some of the eastern states. It is doubt- 
ful that foreign contract workers will again be available, except in extreme 
emergency, such as a major war. 

Domestic Seasonal Labor 

Seasonal farm work is performed by local workers (those who work only 

55 



4354 









in 






(J 












O 


















c 






Q 












01 •.- 


















(/) a. 


















0) -1- 
(0 •>- 




oocT>Lnror^<a-inLnioir)0 
















ooooCTicMvooooounLOLninr— o 












Q.L1. 






o> 












lO 






c 












TJ -o 


















C 






.c 












(0 






in 

3 

c 
o 

■Jj 








n 










(0 








V) 










t. 








i- 










+J 








01 










in 








.^^ 


















i- 




1/1 






c 








o 




c 






•r- 








3 


+J 


ro 






E 








■l-> 
(J 


c 


■o 
<o 




r^^«*p^c\jir>«s-r~«*-ovocMi— looo 


-o 

t. 


10 








csjr-^oor-Icr>iDior^odooooo»iococo 






(0 


>1 


c 




r^ 


i- 


<u 






&. 


o 


(O 






01 


>> 






■!-> 




o 






:s 








c: 


'a. 








o 


OJ 






o r^ 


E 




CO 




o. 


i. 






O VD 


LU 




.c 




c 








Ol 






+J 




ro 


■t-> 






c •— 


S- 




c 




£ 


c 






O) 


0) 




o 






<u 






•1- o 


^ 




£: 












0) +-> 


s. 




» 




S. 


<u 






i. 


o 




c 




o 


■c 






O CO 


3 




(O 




XI 


■4J 






Li. LD 


» 




£: 




la 








o» 


c 








—1 


4. 






<4- 1— 


O) 




t- 






o 






O 




10 


o 




H- 


<4- 








0) 








O 








+J 1/) 
C 0) 


s- 
o 

Li. 




10 
T3 


CTll~NCMLn^r— r— C0l£>CSJO>OOOf^ 


C 


-o 

0) 

4-> 






" 


OlOCVJlOlOVOVOLDCMOOrOi— CSJ^IO 






E nj 




3 


■a 


OlTiOOCMOOCTlCnOOOOr^"*"* 


$i 


4J 






>>■'-• 


<4- 




in 




E 








o oo 


O 


CQ 


3 




*J 


E 












o 




i- 


XI 






O.T3 


</) 




.c 




lO 


3 






E <1> 


jC 




1— 




a. 


in 






UJ ■•-> 


+J 








o> 










c 








a 


0) 






H- C 


o 










i. 






O => 


s: 








i/> 


0) 

5 


m 




10 •> 


c 












ro 




-C >) 


fO 








^ 


<n 


■IJ 




■U -tJ^ 


s 










•4-> 


O 




c •<- 










« 


I. 


■i-> 




O 1— 










00 


o 






1 c 

C O 




in 

c 

<0 




oo>— oooocj^inoi— cT><a-'a-i— Loroi— 




a. 

OJ 


O 

■(J 








r^i£ifoi-^r-^i— i-^coooiooodiocjr^ 




<0 •!- 




(J 




^air-oooooroin^a-.— LDOCMr— 






-a 




z ••-> 




•r- 




ooooroinLnLOuacor— r^iDLD 


>> 


i- 


-o 




ro 




X 






s. 


o 


lO 




-a z 




<u 






lO 


^ 






<u 




s 






3 


lO 


■tj 




•»-' >> 










i. 


_l 


o 




(0 ^ 










JH 




c 




E 










<u 


E 
















u. 




>, 




■tJ 












<0 






M 










•V 


u. 


£ 




LU 










in 
■•-> 

c 


1= 
o 


in 
0) 




CM 












to 

lO 
0) 


i. 
3 




0) 










O 


I/O 






J3 








<*c\jroooc\jc^r>^ro^i— roCTir-oot^ 


i 


1 


•f^ 






ID 




Ood«*CMCOVDCTlOOOOOOOrOCT10r^ 


„ 




1— 




+J 




v£>CTiooc\jnoO'a-oor~»«a-r^roo^oin 


0) 




o> 








O 




<n<ns3-vor>.i£)i~~«a-c\iooiovOf— 


o 


.c 


c 








1— 




-tc 


i. 
o 
X) 

lO 

_l 
EOO 

s. 

(0 • 
LL. O. 

oi 
u 


u 

x: 

&. 
o 

M- 

S. 

n> 

0) 

>> 

•tJ 
in 


■o 

c 

3 

e 

o 
■♦J 

01 

3 

a 








i- 




oosi-Ln«jr^oOCT>Oi— CMOO^invor-* 


J. 


i. 


LU 








<0 




inLnLninLnminioioioioioioioio 


3 




(— 








>- 




O^ 0> O^ 0^ O^ 0> 0> O^ 0> CT* <T» CTl 0> 0% O^ 


o 
t/1 


Ll. 

* 


o 



56 



4355 



in their own comnunities) and by workers who migrate from area to area fol- 
lowing the crops. (Domestic migrant workers include legal immigrants, as 
well as native-born.) Slightly more than a million local workers are employed 
on a temporary basis in agriculture. About 350,000 domestic workers migrate 
in pursuit of farm employment. The number of such workers has fluctuated 
between 350,000 and 450,000 since 1949 [3] (Table 3). To these domestic 
workers should be added some of the 600,000 Mexicans who hold inriigration 
visas that enable them to come to the United States to work. Data are not 
available to estimate exactly how many of these are employed in seasonal 
agricultural labor. A survey indicates that about 35,000 were temporarily 
employed in agriculture in 1965. It is believed that the number was consid- 
erably larger in 1968. 

Patterns of Migration 

Farm workers who spend their winters in Texas or Florida have several 
well-established patterns of migration. In the spring and summer these work- 
ers travel to the North. The largest group goes north and east from Texas 
and ends its sutimer work in Michigan. Smaller groups travel from Texas in 
the direction of the Mountain States, Some branch off and go to California, 
Arizona, Oregon, and Washington. A few also move directly north to the 
Plains States, terminating their migration in North Dakota (Table 4). 

The second largest group migrates from Florida north along the Atlantic 
Coast, terminating its travels in New York and the New England States. 

A third but smaller group migrates from Southern California to Northern 
California and into Oregon and Washington. 

In the Florida-Atlantic Coast migration, both whites and non-whites 
follow the crops north. A 1966 survey indicates whites predominate among 
these migratory workers from the Southeast. Americans of Mexican origin 
dominate the group that migrates from Texas. Also in the Pacific Coast migra- 
tion, Americans of Mexican origin tend to predominate. 

Seasonal Employment by States 

Nine states employ nearly all of the seasonal workers used in the pro- 
duction and harvest of fruits and vegetables. The relationship between the 
expenditure for hired labor and cash receipts from farm marketings in these 
nine states varies from a low of 6% to a high of 17%. These states, and the 
expenditures for hired labor per dollar of cash receipts from farm marketing, 
were as follows in 1966: 

Expenditures for Hired Labor Per Dollar 
State Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings 

California 17 Cents 

New York 7 

New Jersey 16 

Oregon 10 

Ohio 4 

57 



4356 



Table 3. Domestic Migratory Workers 

Employed For Any Period During 

Specified Years, Selected Years, 

1949-1966 



Thousands 
Year of 

Workers* 



1949 422 

1952 352 

1954 365 

1956 427 

1957 427 

1959 477 

1960 409 

1961 395 

1962 380 

1963 386 

1964 386 

1965 466 

1966 351 



Source: Vomutic lligA.cuton.y Vcum 

WoikzAi, U.S.D.A., E.R.S., 
Agricultural Economic Report 
No. 121 , Washington, D.C., 
1967, p. 2, and Seaiona£ 
Tcvm Working FoAce o{, 1966, 
p. 10. 

*Based on household survey made annu- 
ally. Does not include foreign 
nationals who did farm wage work, 
but returned to their homes before 
the survey. Includes persons 14 
years old and over in civilian non- 
institutional population who did any 
migratory farm work for cash wages 
or salary at any time in the year. 



58 



4357 



Table 4. 
By 


Estimated Employment of M 
State and Month, 48 States 


igratory Agricultu 
, January-December 


ral Workers, 
1967 












(Thousands of Workers) 












State 










Migrant-Worker Employmen 


t^ 










Jan. 


Feb. 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


July 


Aug. 


Sept. 


Oct. 


Nov. 


Dec. 


U.S. Total 


35.7 


38.1 


38.3 


53.6 


107.7 


200.7 


238.8 


228.1 


209.7 


165.5 


52.3 


41.4 




























istern Seaboard 


16.5 


18.8 


18.5 


18.1 


32.6 


38.7 


50.0 


59.6 


53.2 


47.0 


17.7 


16.8 


Connecticut 


.1 


.2 


.2 


1.2 


1.7 


2.2 


5.4 


5.3 


2.3 


1.6 


.7 


.2 


Delaware 














3.2 


1.6 


.8 


2.1 


1.7 


.8 








Florida 


16.3 


18.6 


18.2 


15.9 


16.9 


8.2 


1.8 


.6 


1.8 


4.3 


10.4 


16.5 


Georgia 














.2 


.1 




















^aine 


























* 


* 








*1aryland 








.1 


.1 


.2 


.8 


2.3 


2.0 


1.3 


1.0 


.4 





^Massachusetts 














.8 


1.5 


2.1 


1.9 


2.0 


.9 


.4 


* 


^lew Hampshire 

















* 


.1 


.1 


.2 


.2 


* 





^ew Jersey 











.9 


6.1 


11.2 


10.5 


12.2 


10.6 


5.6 


.5 


.1 


'^ew York 














2.1 


4.2 


8.3 


14.4 


16.7 


16.9 


.2 





^orth Carolina 


* 


* 


* 


.1 


.6 


2.7 


9.9 


11.6 


7.5 


5.2 


1.6 





'ennsylvania 














.3 


.6 


.7 


2.5 


5.3 


5.9 


1.8 





?hode Island 














3 























>outh Carolina 

















4.5 


3.7 


2.6 





.1 


.1 





fermont 

















* 


* 


* 


.1 


.1 








/irginia** 














.5 


1.1 


4.5 


4.5 


3.7 


4.0 


1.6 





Jest Virginia** 

)rth-Central 
;ilinois 


























.1 


.2 









































2.7 


14.3 


56.9 


80.5 


76.1 


59.4 


36.8 


2.3 

















3.7 


4.9 


3.7 


4.2 


5.3 


2.4 








ndiana 














1.4 


2.9 


3.0 


6.7 


8.8 


5.4 








:owa 














.3 


.3 


.5 


.8 


.7 


.1 


.1 





^ansas 











.8 


2.3 


4.1 


5.2 


1.6 


1.7 


1.6 


.7 





lichigan 











.5 


2.1 


26.8 


40.1 


34.3 


19.1 


12.4 


1.5 





linnesota 














.2 


5.6 


5.7 


.3 


.2 


1.0 








lissouri 














.2 


.2 








.2 


* 








lebraska 

















2.1 


7.6 


1.0 


.1 


.2 








lorth Dakota 











1.4 


2.2 


4.1 


4.8 


6.3 


2.2 


5.2 








Ihio 














1.5 


4.9 


6.7 


12.1 


19.7 


7.2 








lisconsin 














.5 


1.0 


3.2 


8.8 


1.5 


1.2 

























































59 



(continued) 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 21 



4358 



Table 4. (continued) 
Workers, by State 


Estimated 
and Month, 


Employment 
48 States, 


of Migratory Agricultural 
January-December 1967 








(Thousari 


ds of 


Workers) 












State 








Migrant-Worker Employment 










Jan. Feb. 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


July 


Aug. 


Sept. 


Oct. 


Nov. 


Dec, 


South-Central 
Alabama 


.4 .1 


.4 


3.5 


6.8 


12.3 


21.4 


18.4 


11.1 


12.1 


12.5 


8.' 











1.0 


.9 


1.2 


.9 


.2 


.2 


.1 




Arkansas 











1.5 





.3 








.3 


.5 





Kentucky 











1.1 


.2 





1.0 


.1 


.1 








Louisana 


.1 





2.6 


.3 











.7 


.6 


.6 


, [ 


Mississippi 





























.3 


. I 


Oklahoma 


* 


.1 


.6 


2.0 


8.2 


3.6 


2.5 


2.1 


.8 


.7 


A 


Tennessee 











.4 


.2 


* 


.3 


* 


.1 








Texas 

Western 
Arizona 


.3 .1 


.3 


.4 


.5 


2.9 


17.2 


13.7 


8.0 


10.2 


10.3 


7.i 
























18.8 19.2 


19.4 


29,3 


54.0 


92.8 


87.0 


74.1 


86.0 


69.6 


19.7 


16,2 


3.6 2.3 


2.6 


3.6 


2.8 


3.2 


2.3 


.9 


1.3 


2.3 


4.0 


4,; 


California 


14.8 15.6 


14.1 


18.6 


29.8 


40.4 


32.9 


32,9 


34.5 


35.3 


12.3 


11. < 


Colorado 








.6 


3.6 


8.7 


7.1 


6.6 


5.2 


3.7 


.4 





Idaho 








1.4 


4.1 


6.6 


7.6 


3.4 


4.2 


4.5 


.8 





Montana 


.2 .2 


.4 


1.1 


1.4 


5.5 


5.4 


5.3 


3.5 


2.2 


1.1 


J 


Nevada 




















1.0 


.2 











New Mexico 





* 


* 


.5 


.6 


.4 


.2 


* 


1.1 


.3 


.1 


Oregon 


* .4 


.7 


.8 


3.4 


13.2 


14.0 


15.7 


6.7 


2.4 


.1 


.1 


Utah 











.3 


1.1 


2.2 


1.8 


1.4 


1.4 








Washington 


.1 .8 


1.6 


3.1 


7.5 


10.3 


13.2 


6.2 


9.0 


16.6 


.7 





Wyoming 











.7 


3.1 


1.9 

















Source: U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 90th 
Congress, 2nd Sess., Thz lU.qicuton.y Vam laboK VKoblm In th& Unitzd 
Statu, 1968 Report of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 
Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Report No. 1006, Pursuant to S. 
Res. 44, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Washington; U.S. Govt. Printing Office 
1968, p. 8. 




*Less than 50 workers. 






















**Employment 
employment 


in Berkeley and Jeffers 
figures. 


Dn Counties, 


W. Va 


. , inc 


luded 


n Virginia 




NOTE: Due tc 


rounding, fi 


gures 


may 


lot adc 


to totals. 













60 



4359 



Expenditures for Hired Labor Per Dollar 
State Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings 

Florida 17 Cents 

Michigan 6 

Texas 8 

Washington 10 

The amount spent for farm labor during the period 1950 to 1966 has re- 
nained almost constant in all of the states except California and Florida. 
In California, expenditures for hired labor increased from $408 million in 
1950 to $677.2 million in 1966. The increase in Florida was from $69 million 
to $171.5 million (Table 5). 

Farmer-Worker Relations 

Seasonal agricultural workers may be described as casual farm employees. 
That is, there is generally no continuing relationship between the worker and 
the employers. Some growers may employ many of the same workers for 5 to 10 
years in succession. But, the worker-job relationship is not covered by any 
formal contract that gives the worker prior rights to the job in the next 
season or guarantees the employer that the worker will return the following 
year at a specified time. 

In some cases the understanding that prevails between returning crews 
and employers may approach the stability of a contractual arrangement. On 
the other hand, frequently, the recruitment and management of the seasonal 
farm work force on farms is carried out by a middleman--a labor contractor. 
The fruit or vegetable grower may deal only with the labor contractor, who 
Ispecializes in recruiting and managing relatively large numbers of casual 
Lorkers for short term seasonal jobs. In general, the relationship has been 
jinformal and unorganized. 
Inc ome to Seasonal Farm Workers 

U.S. hourly farm wage rates have increased at an average annual rate of 
5.2% since 1950. Industrial hourly wage rates have increased 5.5% per year. 
U.S. farm wage rates in 1966 were 38% of the gross hourly rate of production 
rjorkers in manufacturing. In California, where there is great union and 
social pressure on farmers in regard to seasonal labor, the farm wage rate 
is 48% of the California manufacturing wage rate, and approximately 47% above 
the average U.S. farm wage rate (Table 6). 

The annual income to seasonal farm workers has not moved up at the same 
rate as wages increased. In general, farmers have reduced the number of man- 
nours of labor hired as wages increased. For example, during the period 1950 
to 1966 farm wages increased over 80% and the output of agricultural produc- 
tions expanded; but the expenditures by farmers for hired labor remained 
almost constant--$2.8 billion in 1950 and $2.8 billion in 1966 (Table 5). 

The total number of farm workers employed varies greatly from year to 

61 



4360 



CL-t- 

X c 

LU i~ 



1. * 

ro <U 



O U- +J 



pjncD'S-^' — cvjlo^ooldi 



. o r~- ir> r-~ <M lo 



Lr)v£)Tj-o«ri — r~.i — ooojr~c3a>ocMOjojc — 

r^OOOi — CT>CTtCDOOCTtOO^O%OCJ^CD<TtCTt 



r^OLOOOO^^ojcsivo^OLOvo^rou^ocM 

r^ooooi — «a-vof^iooicT>'^CT>r— r^oooocNjr^ 
a^onLr>Lnro^r^r~.airO'd-r-»«*iooror-» 
n<3-"!a->*«d-<*-^«a-^«*i-nLr)Lr>Lr)ir)v£)>x3io 



r-~vocsjir)cooocMOOr^i^^ovor^r^ojr-o 

CVJi — 00C\JLn(TtOi — CTl^OO^O^CTtvDkD'^VOOO 



csjCN4csjc\jcvjc\jc\jcvjc\jc\jrororoforococoro 



Q. E C7> 
•I- S- C 
0) nj •■- 



oor^couiooou3«*cMOtnr^oOi — CDvoi — i — 
^^t^CT»oOLr)»^^roir>«^oo>cvic\jc\j<Ttco 



coooo^oor^Lr)>jDUDr*^coco<Tto>crtCTvo^cooo 

CSJCSJCvJC\ICMCSlCVJCSJCSlCMC\JOdCSJCSJCSJCSJCSJC\J 



ir)i— oocoi— ojOi— «d-tDi— '3-a»ijD00ro>*ro 
ou3uncMC3(ocr>Oi — LDi — Lncotncnrooocvj 



cnoi — csjn«a-ir)i£)r^oocnoi — ojn«;i-Lr>u3 
<:rt<TtCT>cTicT»crto^cji<T»a^cTtcr>cTtcr>CT»o^<T»cT» 



62 



4361 



•1- o^ 

+-> ^ 



COOCTtO" — tnvOi — COi — COt^DkOCO«^COLO 



oo^a^•:J-*d■^^o^^'^^oo>x)^^d-^^c^JCO 



coooooaiocnoio^ooooi — > — (^ 



cncnoo>— or^>d-oocoi— Lr>cOLnu-)cri>— 



O'a-'— oocrisa-C3Lnfooou3i — r— >a-oor— n 
co«^<NJO^r^Oi — CTtocMi — I — roc\jc\jr^i — 



I — csiiX)cnoy3COoocsjLf>Lr)0'i-cr>u3>a-i — i — 



<NJC0CSJU3";)-I — C3"^'a-lOLr)U3C0i — OJUD^ 

cn«^^«a-c — CDroi — ocoaioor-~i — Lntor-- 
c\jrororororocororoc\jc\jc\jc\jc\jc\jc\jc\j 



nijD«3-iX)cnfOi — LDrocna^oocM. — unoocvj 



r-~>£>Lr>oni — ooooronto^i-or-^CMrj-csj 

r^CTtcsjLnocD' — ^»x>^LnLnvor^< — coc> 
r~~oOCTicooococococococococoooaicrio 



LnLni-OLnLnLnLnLnLOLOu3»^^£>^iDtxi»X)'^ 



63 



4362 







<U O 
S- -Q 


1 c\jcMCT>Lr)Lncsjojr^"*torocn<— r--.n»3-<d- 








1 uaoa^oooitOLnonncvjcooiDtouncsj 






•1- lO 


1 tof^tototototor^r^r^r^r^r^f^r^'^''^ 












ni _j 












c 














o 
■(-> 






"c 








en 






o 








c 












s- 








■u 






o 


j= 






« 






.Q 








3 






(0 

_1 


to 

3 


+J 

-C CL 


I c\jcMtoc3oocncocsjLnooOi— o«a-r^i— un 


4J 














to T- 


I ooocMrocsjLr)«a-csji— u->cooo«a-unroi— u3 


00 






"O 




ta 01 


I txJLnrorocoooOi— «3-«;i-r-~ir>co.— cn<3-oj 








OJ 




(_) u 


I "a-tntnLOLOLDLOLDLOiDunmLntriLDtor^ 


(U 






s_ 




0) 




E 










cc 




o 






■jz 










(/) 




i. 










i. 




o 










0) 




I*: 








E 


1" 




to 








<a 






<D 








u. 


o_ 








-o s- 

QJ O 
S_ JD 


1 1 — tocTi^OLOCNjroror^i — crtO>*^to<Ttco 


- 


OJ 








I r— r^nto-jJ-ror^uDLnoo.— ntnorosa-CT) 


■o 




Q. 




•1- rtJ 


I ^c\ja>tO"*Lncsj<3-n<d-Lnr~~r^Lr)ror— .— 


c 


>. 




X 




n; —1 


I rOnCSJCMCSiOJCNiCSJCMCSJCSJCVJCVJCMCSJCVJCVJ 


<o 


JD 




LU 








<^ 


-o 




CJI 


t/) 






to 


•r— 




c 


rt) 






CT> 


nj 






X 








o. 




4-> 


O) 






1 






(O 


1— 






CTl 


{/) 




i. 




to 


I LDcxit— i^csji— CT>Osjtor^ai«3-c\jcsji— toto 


cn 


0) 
X 
(0 




Cl 




I «i->— csj<a-r— oor^CTiovjrotooor^cntncoco 




o 




l/> -r- 


t <TiLor^oo<:i-aitoogir)cnLn(ncMr^<— v£)ai 
to ooji— coa^cooor^roovJCMn<3-Lr)ro>a-t£> 


„ 


■!-> 




"O 




o o 


^ r.*v•^*^«r^*^*.«^•^n>vrk<^•^•^n 


irt 


>> 




c 




OJ 


(O CSJOOCVJi — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — C\JC\IC\JC\JCSJC\JC\JCMC\J 


<u 


+J 




to 




a: 


;z 


+-> 


s- 




10 vo 






o 


E 


3 




cnio 






Q 


•r— 


u 




C 1 








+J 


(U 




•.- en 






c 


t/> 


oo 




+-> •* 






o 


LU 






Qj in 






















Ol 


lO 




s- *" 




T3 S- 

a> o 
I- J3 


r— roOi— r-~i— oor-~ncMr^cj>C3ai.— <— U30 




u 
o 


s- 
o 


s: lo 




£ 00 ■— ■— LT) O CTl O LD r^ .— CTl ■— 00 OO O CSJ C\J 


Ol 




•1- (0 


1 LntotoLoiD^LntnLDvOLnkDi-otouDLnLn 


oo 


oo 


la 


E -t-J 




zn —1 








—1 


s- m 














ro ■!-> 


c 








<D 


-a 


Ll_ 00 


n} 






- 


■<-> 


<v 




Ol 








<o 


i~ 


E >> 








E 


-a 


■r— 


O J3 


-C 






o 




3: 


s- 


o 






o 


o 




u. 




to 




c 


+-> 


t. 




s 


+-> 
to -^ 


1 ootncaocor- >*ouicT>Lnn-aiojooO"=i- 


'— ' 




£ 


to 




1 o Lf> i-~ CM a> csj cTi CO r~ r^ CO LD r- (M o r^ to 


E 


IT) 


a. 




n3 OJ 


1 rocMCOi— r-~ir>t^oOCTicoc\jcsiLf)t£)CT>a>oo 


s_ 


cn 


to 






<_) o 


1 tor-~r-^r~tr)UDtotou3tor-~r^r^r^t^r^oo 


lO 




Ol 


S 




O) 




U- 


% " 


to 


o 




d: 




-: 




c 


(U 










-a 


01 


q: 














-C 








+-> 




LU 










c 


•V 




nj 








O) 


to 


a> 


o 








E 
a> 


■(-> 


c 






-o i. 
01 o 
S- J3 


1 .— (NJCMCMr-~tor-~to>— ua^CMr-^^cncTiLT) 


'a. • 
O- <u 


^ 


• 4-> 
•r- 03 


"a 




1 CT><TlCX)Or— CMtO'^OOO^i— toojrotooOi— 


Ol 




•r- ro 
^ —1 


1 t£)r-~^-~ooc^la^o^r— I— 1— c\ic\jron«a-Lnt^ 


:3 =3 
00 to 


3 

2" 


(0 OJ 

S n. 
ro O 








fO 






t^ ■.- 


0) 


^ 


■4-> 


-o 






o 


Q. 


+-> 


C 








OJ 00 


« 


-a c 


o 


ll 






to 


t/1 


C 0) 


u 


o 






oo cr> 


0) . 


03 s- 












D> I/) 


i- 




U- 


to 
+-> 

-c a. 


1 oroCTi>— t^^<d-oocT>tooocvjLf)Lntr)cnoo 


Ll- 


to s- 

3 O 
■!-> 


03 3 






1 cooOLncor--i— Ln^>a-tr)cnaiotr)oooo 


oo >, 


ID 




to ■>- 


1 oOr-<Nj«*Ln^cor~~csjcMr-~^coocrvCT>oo 


q: s- 


-c ro 


03 II 






ra O) 


1 ^LnLnLnLntot£)tor-^oor-~oooocri(TvcncD 


lli ro 


to s- 




Ol 




C_) u 


1 " 


^ 3 


IT3 <u <: s- 1 






Ol 


1 1 — 


<: t- 


O CL 


o 


!a 




q: 




Q JD 


o 


Ol-Q 


rt3 








OO 0) 


to 


C OJ 


1— 








=) Li_ 
OJ 

u ■ 


CU E 

•o s- 

3 (O 

o 


•>- _l 
X) 
3 -O 

r— 0) 
U S_ 






i- 


o< — cMco^LOtr)! — ^ooo^Ot — CNjro^a-tntjD 


S- 


—1 o 


>— 1 zn 






n3 


LnLnLr)Lr)Lr)LnLnLr)LOLntot£)to*X)toto*^ 


3 


* -K 


* 








C7%CTt<TtO^Cr>CTi(Tl<TtO^CTtCT>Cr>0^0^(nO^<Tt 


O 
OO 


•K 


* 

* 











64 



4363 



Table 6. Farm and Nonfarm Wage Rates 
California and the United States, 1950-1967 



California U.S.A . 

Farm Wage Gross Hourly Farm as a Farm Wage Gross Hourly Farm as a 
Rates Earnings of Percent of Rates Earnings of Percent of 

Year Composite Production Manufactur- Composite Production Manufactur- 
Rate Workers in ing Rate Workers in ing 

Per Hour Mfg. Per Hour Mfg. 



Dollars Dollars D ollars Dollars 

1950 .884 1.65 53.6 .561 1.44 39.0 

1951 .960 1.77 54.2 .625 1.56 40.1 

1952 1.016 1.87 54.3 .661 1.65 40.1 

1953 1.039 1.97 52.7 .672 1.74 38.6 

1954 1.032 2.03 50.8 .661 1.78 37.1 

1955 1.054 2.11 50.0 .675 1.86 36.3 

1956 1.100 2.22 49.5 .705 1.95 36.2 

1957 1.115 2.32 48.1 .728 2,05 35.5 

1958 1.133 2.44 46.4 .757 2,11 35.9 

1959 1.165 2.53 46.0 .798 2.19 36.4 

1960 1.210 2.62 46.2 .818 2.26 36.2 

1961 1.25 2.72 46.0 .834 2.32 35.9 

1962 1.27 2.79 45.5 .856 2.39 35.8 

1963 1.31 2.88 45.5 .880 2.46 35.8 

1964 1.33 2.96 45.9 .904 2.53 35.7 

1965 1.40 3.05 45.9 .951 2.61 36.4 

1966 1.52 3.16 48.1 1.03 2.72 37.9 

1967 1.59 3.29 48.3 1.12 2.83* 39.6 



Source: USVA VoAm Labofi - January issues. 

U.S. V^pt. oi laboK, B. L. Stcututioi, - Bulletin No. 1370-4, pp. LX, 
LXI, Wash., 1967 (G.P.O.). 

U.S. V^pt. oi labon.. 'Manpower Report of the President.' Trans- 
mitted to the Congress, April 1968. 

U.S. dipt. 0(5 labon. 'Employment and Earnings Statistics for States 
and Areas, 1939-67.'' Bulletin No. 1370-5, issues August, 1968, 
p. 26. 

^Preliminary unweighted average. 



65 



4364 



year depending upon crop conditions (Table 7). The trend in the total number 
of hired farm workers employed annually for the years 1950 to 1966 shows a 
very slight decline. The trend in the number of hired farm workers employed 
25 days or more has been downward. The trend in the number of hired farm 
workers employed less than 25 days has been upward. One can only conclude 
from the above data that annual income to the average seasonal farm worker 
has not increased significantly during the past decade and a half because 
mechanization is reducing the amount of employment that is available to the 
worker as rapidly as wage rates are increased. 

The Changing Framework 

Fruit and vegetable production developed and expanded within a framework 
where: (1) seasonal labor, both domestic and foreign, could be drawn upon to 
meet the peak labor requirements; and (2) wages paid to farm workers were 
relatively low. The reservoirs of seasonal labor have included people who 
did not have the opportunity or desire for full -year employment. Some were 
marginal workers, some had limited alternative opportunities, and some were 
newly arrive immigrants anxious to get a start in the economy. Some, by fol- 
lowing a well organized pattern of migration and having members of the family 
work, were able to realize a family income higher than if the head of the 
family were employed on a year-round basis elsewhere. 

In general, there has been little continuing concern either by the 

employer or administrators in government regarding the welfare of the workers. 

Of course, many labor unions, social welfare groups, some government people, 

and some politicians were deeply concerned. However, during the decade of 

the 60 's both government and society have become concerned about the poverty 

problem. For example, committees of both Houses of Congress and of many 

State Legislatures have held hearings and issued reports on migratory farm 

labor incomes and working conditions. One of the most recent reports [2] 

states: 

Despite their vital role in modern agriculture, particularly in 
filling the crucial needs at harvest time, our migrant citizens 
have been grossly neglected by society. More often than not, in 
addition to especially low living standards, the influx of migrants 
to supplement the local labor force creates problems in areas 
of health, education, sanitation, and housing which the community 
is not equipped to meet. 

... low wages, unemployment, lack of education, poor housing, 
malnutrition, disease, and lack of adequate medical and dental 
care tell only part of the story of the shocking degree of 
impoverishment of the migrant. 

The limited employment and earnings of migratory farm workers were evi- 
dent in the survey referred to previously, The. HiAe.d fanm WonkinQ ToA.cz oi 
1966. The distribution of employment and -earnings of migratory workers was 
as follows: 



66 



4365 









0) 






















1 — 


3 


1 «S- 00 


CO 


LO O <d- .— 


LO CSJ cn .— CO to ^ 


•s 










ID 


o 


1 <3- -a- 


o 


CSJ p^ cji ro 


LO CSJ t^ o LO LO r-» 


o 








c 




SZ 


I «d- cn 


•3- 


LO LO LO LO 


LO LO LO LO "^ *;1- CO 


csi 








lO 


0) 


H- 


















-C 


Li- 














"O 






1— 0) s- 
















OJ 






O) (0 














o 


-fj 






to lO <U'-- 














z 


LO 






U1 3 >- 1/) 
















3 






OJ S. 














-IJ 


•I-J 






_l E <U <U 














i- 


-o 






i. J= ^ 














o 


ID 






-o US +J s- 


eu 




•* o 


n 


CSI CSJ cn o 


LO 00 LO LO i — r^ LO 


CL 






UD 


•r- U- O 




3 


I 1 — 1^ 


CTl 


r^ cji cn 00 


LO r^ p^ CO 1 — Ol to 


OJ 


cn 




^D 


Q 0)3 


ID 


o 


t 1J3 U3 


LO 


CTl C3 1— 00 


cn cn cn 1 — o» r*«. r^ 


cc 


c: 






M- C 


S 


-C 
















LD 


O O -r- .— 




1— 






r~ f— 


, 


(J 


OJ 




»«• 


^ s. nj 
















J3 




cn 


3 </> 3 3 














'i 






■" 


>»0 1/1 
CO ro (0 














o 

c 


+-> 

3 




« 


t. Q -:^ O 














o 


O 




X 


<U S- — 














u 


.CL 




01 


^ LD O 














LlJ 


■P 




t/5 


S-CVJ 3 


r^ 




00 00 


^ 


r^ CSJ CO CSJ 


i — O LO LO Ol ^ O 










o 


ID 


3 


> .— O 


o 


Ol LO cn 1— 


CO O LO CO LO LO <n 




s 




>> 


3 


■•-' 


O 


! ""iSx 




•a- p~- 00 >* 


LO LO LO r~ CO CSJ f— 








XI 




O 

1— 


JZ. 




, 






L/1 






















cL 


■o 




s- 


















c 




(O 
















LlI 


(O 




OJ 


















to 




>- 
















^ 


3 
O 




Ol 
















•a: 


-C 




-C 




Ol 














+J 




+J 






3 


I CO >* 


<3- 


LO r^ 1 — LO 


CO r— CSJ CSI •* t^ cn 


cj 










ID 


O 


k ro r— 


LO 


CSJ CSJ ro i-~ 


LO CSJ cn 00 .— LO CO 




+J 




o> 




E 


-C 


» -a- <;}• 


CO 


LO LO LO >;r 


«a- >* «d- CO to ^ CO 


U~i 


1/1 




c 




0) 


1— 












OJ 




• r— 


10 


Ll. 












13 


S- 




s- 


>1 
















fO 




3 


ro <U l-'-^ 














«^ 


OJ 




Q 


<0 OJ S- 
















c 




-^ 


in 3 >- tu 














o 


OJ 




S- 


csi .:<; 














CL 


-C 




o 


E (U s- 














01 


+J 




3 


-o s- ^ o 














cc 








•.- ro +J 3 


OJ 




CO 00 


'S- 


CO ro CO o 


00 CO LO o 1^ r^ LO 




o 




01 


Q Ll. 


r— 


3 


\ r— Ln 


"* 


LO r^ CO cn 


cn LO r^ 00 00 o cn 


r— 


■(-> 




D1 


o>.— 


ID 


O 


I r^ in 


LO 


LO LO r^ LO 


lD «* to >* >* -^ CSJ 


<o 






>o 


O >t- C ID 


e: 


-C 


\ » #. 


* 






o 


-o 




3 


3 S- 00 




(— 


■" ■" 


■" 


,— ,— r- ,— 




■IJ 


OJ 
T3 




E 


01 3 (D 














to 


c 




s_ 


1/1 S- Q U 
















3 




ID 


S- O E 














■i-i 


O 




LI. 


Ol s: ^ O 














ID 


s. 




>l 


i. S- 0-— 














i>o 


OJ 




C 


O O 3 
















s- 




<« 


3 


r— 




lO CO 


00 


00 o cn LD 


CSJ cn r^ CSJ .— «a- •=i- 


■a: 


lO 








ID 


3 


► LO l~^ 


o 


r~ o ■— LO 


LO 00 LO LO O LO CO 








■o 




+-> 


O 


\ 1— Ol 


CTl 


CD CSI CO 1— 


r— CO O CO C3 00 lD 




Irt 




*f— 




O 


-C 






•v .\ •« .^ 




_ 


s_ 




Q 




1— 


1— 


CSJ r— 


■" 


CSJ CSJ OJ CSJ 


CSJ 1— CSJ r— CSJ r— 1— 


LO 


ID 
QJ 




O 
















LO 


>1 




^ 
















cn 






3 
















■" 


cn 




10 
















n- 






c: 
















o 


■o 




o 




OJ 




.— Cvl CO 


CSJ 


<3 r^ LO r-^ 


cn CO 1— CO CSJ CO CSI 




OJ 




iA 






3 


Cvl 00 lO 


r-~ 


LO cn CSI o 


CSI ^ r-^ 00 r^ CSJ r— 


OJ • 


OJ 




i. 




ID 


o 


1— CO r-~ 


r-~ 


O r- CSJ O 


o o cz> en Ol cn r-~ 


O 00 


u 




<u 




E 


-C 










s_ 


u 




Q. 




OJ 


1— 


■— 




<— <- T— r- 


•—'—'— 


o • 

u. o- 


3 




4- 






















O 


0) 
Ol 
















cn - 






i. 


m 
















•r- LO 


ID 




(U 


3 lO 
















-iS cn 






-Q 


s- 
















S- r— 


Ol 




E 


E 0) 




0) 




.— <NJ CO 


r-. 


lo LO r^ o 


«3- LO r— LO 00 LO r- 


o 


to 




3 


s_ ^ 






3 


CSJ cri 1— 


n 


CSJ LO 00 r^ 


LO ^ LO . — cn CD LO 


3 - 


cn 




iz. 


<o 1. 
u- o 






O 


CSJ ro CM 


CSJ 


LO r^ en LO 


LO «a- LO LO CO CSJ o 


E cj 


■" 






3 






1— 


ro CSJ CSJ 


CSI 


CSJ CSJ CSI CSI 


CSJ CSl CSJ CSJ CSJ CSJ CSJ 


i. • 


s. 






















ID O 


o 




1^ 


5 
















Ll_ 


M- 




(U 
















-o C 






















OJ O 


S_ '-~. 




J3 
















S- +J 


0) • 




lO 




r— 




CSJ "d- O 


Ol 


LO CSJ CSJ r^ 


CO 00 CSJ r^ o CO CO 


•r- Ol 


_^ 1/1 




1— 




ID 


3 


■<d- r-~ 00 


o 


f^ LO .— r^ 


cn 00 CSJ cn r^ CSJ LO 


ZH c 


S- 1— 








+J 


o 


n CSJ C71 


o 


LO Ol CSJ to 


LO «^ LO LO CO 1 — r^ 




O ID 








O 


x: 








«. <t M «\ r> <N «> 


O) jr 


S +-> 








1— 


1— 


«3- ro CSJ 


ro 


ro ro «d- CO 


CO CO CO CO CO CO CSJ 


x: irt 

1— ID 

= 3 

01 
LJ 


O 
O 

a. 

to 3 
^ P 

0) s- 
XI C7> 






s_ 






O •— CSJ 


'J- 


LO r^ 00 cn 


O r— CSJ CO ';t LO LO 


s. 


E 






(O 






LO LO LO 


LO 


LO to LO LO 


LO LO LO LO LO LO LO 


3 


3 O 






0) 






o^ <T> cr> 


CXI 


cn cn en cn 


Cn cn Ol cn cn cn cn 


o 


z +J 






>- 







1 — 1 — 1 — 




1 — ( — 1 — 1 — 




oo 


"^ — 



67 



4366 



Farm and Nonfarm Wages 
Number of Workers Number of Days Worked E arned Per Year Per Worker 

(Farm and Nonfarm) 

76,000 Fewer than 25 $ 863 

114,000 25-74 1,033 

73,000 75-149 1,784 

87,000 150 Days or More 2,739 

Little information is available on migratory workers who are able to 
earn reasonably good incomes. It is clear, however, that a relatively large 
proportion of migratory farm workers earn incomes that leave them in poverty. 
It is also clear that the extent of poverty in this group raises important 
social questions. 

Government programs such as the War on Poverty are aimed at improving 
the incomes of low-income workers. The training of seasonal workers for high- 
er income jobs will have a tendency to take workers out of agriculture. It 
seems evident that farmers who produce fruits and vegetables can expect in the 
decade or so ahead: (1) farm wage rates will increase substantially; (2) the 
supply of workers to perform seasonal labor will decrease; (3) housing and 
working conditions will have to improve; and (4) uncertainty about the avail- 
ability of workers and wage rates will increase. 

Alternatives 

A 100-year era in which commercial fruit and vegetable producers de- 
pended upon new immigrants, migrant workers, and foreign contract workers to 
perform many of the peak seasonal farm labor tasks is seemingly coming to an 
end. The end of the era will require significant changes if consumers are 
to continue having an abundant supply of a large variety of fruits and vege- 
tables at relatively low prices. 

The alternatives available to the fruit and vegetable industry can be 
divided into four major groupings. 

1. Develop technology that will greatly reduce or eliminate the need 
of hand labor. 

2. Increase wages and improve working conditions to a point where 
annual incomes and social status of the seasonal farm worker will 
be equal to the incomes and status of nonfarm workers. 

3. Diversify farming in the fruit and vegetable areas so as to create 
year-round or nearly year-round employment for farm workers. 

4. Divide the present commercial fruit and vegetable farms into thou- 
sands of small family-plot operations so that the farmer and his 
family can do most of the work. 

Of these only the first alternative offers a practical solution to the sea- 
sonal farm labor problem. All the other alternatives would result in rather 
substantial increases in the cost of food and would adversely affect a much 
larger number of people than it would help. Low income people are more 

burdened by higher food prices than middle and high income people. 

68 



4367 



In addition, an increase in the cost of producing fruits and vegetables 
would adversely affect the competitive position of the U.S. producers and 
reduce U.S. sales in foreign markets. This would encourage imports of fruits 
and vegetables into the U.S. domestic market. A reduction in the volume of 
fruits and vegetables produced and processed in the U.S. would affect those 
workers employed in industries associated with fruits and vegetables such as 
those that have jobs in canneries and other processing plants in the manufac- 
ture of containers and materials, in transportation, in selling, in financ- 
ing, etc. 

Mechanization and Social Problems 

Mechanization of production and harvest of fruits and vegetables is not 
going to be simple and it won't occur without problems. Mechanization could 
actually make it more difficult to obtain seasonal labor than it is at pres- 
ent. For example, if research reduced the need for farm workers in some 
tasks without reducing peak requirements, there might no- be enough days of 
employment in a community to attract the number of workers needed at peak. 
To avoid this prc^' , researchers must identify the crops and operations 
that contribute most heavily to seasonal peaks of employment in each produc- 
ing area be.'^ore undertaking full-scale labor elimination. A comprehensive 
research program could be formulated to develop new labor-saving technology 
that would reduce peak employment before full mechanization is undertaken. 

The impact of farm mechanization will be felt in the increased need for 
skilled labor on the farm and a decrease in need for unskilled labor. It 
will stimulate the economy far from the farm, in the factories that make farm 
machinery, in the agencies that sell and service machines, and in the banking 
industry that finances the machines and their operation. 

It may, however, have a high cost in human suffering if we do not recog- 
nize that it could greatly reduce employment opportunities for the unskilled 
workers. Experience has shown that unskilled workers seldom move up to the 
skilled jobs of operating equipment. 

Community leaders and policy makers should recognize that mechanization 
of agriculture will probably reduce the number of workers employed in the pro- 
duction and harvest process. In those areas where mechanization might cause 
substantial unemployment among farm workers, public measures should be 
initiated to increase employment opportunities for those who are being dis- 
placed by machines. Without a unified effort on the part of businessmen, 
churchmen, labor unions, farm workers, farmers, and government officials, 
the mechanization of agriculture can bring tears and heartache to thousands 
of unskilled workers and their families who cannot by themselves solve their 
economic problem. Failure on the part of government and community leaders to 
resolve the problem in the rural areas will tend to force the unemployed farm 
worker to migrate to the large cities. 

69 



4368 



In the long run, a completely systematized, mechanized agricultural 
industry will benefit all of the people of the nation. It will provide an 
abundant supply of food at relatively lower consumer prices and increased 
incomes to those who remain in agriculture and in the associated industries. 



REFERENCES CITED 

[1] Fuller, V. "The Supply of Agricultural Labor as a Factor in the 

Evolution of Farm Organizations in California." Ph.D. Dissertation, 
Univ. of Calif., 1934. 

[2] U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. "The 
Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the United States.' S. Rpt. No. 1006, 
90th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1968. 

[3] U.S'. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Employment Security. 'Farm Labor 
Developments." Wash., D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967. 



70 



4369 

HORTICULTURAL AND ENGINEERING OUTLOOK OF FRUIT AND 
VEGETABLE HARVESTING MECHANIZATION 
INTRODUCTION 
Carl W. Hall 

The English novelist, John Galsworthy, said, "If you do not think 
about the future, you cannot have one." Likewise, we must look into the 
future and our projections must be based on present knowledge, trends, and 
anticipated developments. These must be considered from many viewpoints. 
The following four papers present the viewpoints of horticulturists, an 
engineer, and a processor. 

Growers of fruits and vegetables no longer are concerned with produc- 
ing products for their immediate surrounding community. The development of 
horticultural crops production near cities to serve primarily those cities, 
as originally practiced, has been only one stage in the development of the 
industry. Centers of production are developing to serve many areas of the 
country. With two-thirds of the population living east of the Mississippi 
River and two-thirds of the production west of the Mississippi River, it is 
obvious that methods of transportation and storage have greatly changed the 
industry. 

National boundaries no longer offer the anticipated protection once 
available to the producer. Products move into and out of the United States 
on a large scale. As we look ahead we must consider the flow of products 
into and out of the United States not only to adjacent countries, not only 
within this hemisphere, but throughout the world. Many factors are involved 
in these international trade situations. Some of the factors will be dis- 
cussed in these Proceedings. The product, climate, manpower, economics and 
mechanization aspects in particular will be discussed in more detail. With 
so many factors involved in the production, transportation, marketing, and 
processing of fruit and vegetable products, it is also obvious that many 
disciplines have been, must be, and will continue to be involved in the de- 
velopment of the fruit and vegetable industry. 

In the production of fruits and vegetables the plant and its products 
are the main focal points for the horticulturists and the cooperating dis- 
ciplines. Basically, the objective is to gain control over the growth and 
production of the plant: new plant varieties, new plants, the control of the 
environment where there be climatic conditions, control of competitive plants, 
eliminating plant predators, and manipulating the plant for maximizing pro- 
duction and for accommodating efficient harvesting. The horticulturist and 
the plant breeders have made tremendous strides in developing new varieties 
to compete or produce in the environment and to assist in efficient labor 
utilization during production and harvesting. With continued support the 

75 



4370 



advances in the fruit and vegetable industry will match those which we hear 
so much about in grain production throughout the world. 

The agricultural engineer is called upon to work with the horticul- 
turist in providing the environment and environmental control which will 
maximize production and maintain quality of the produced product. Also, as 
a result of the unavailability of labor with the proper training at the time, 
place, or price based on present and future situations, equipment will be 
demanded which will permit carrying out recommended cultural practices. 
These include efficient and uniform distribution of chemicals, application of 
fertilizer at the location and the quantity specified, and to harvest, handle 
and store the products of the fruit and vegetable industry. Nearly all of 
these operations require more precise equipment and controls than are now 
generally available. 

A major contribution of the engineer is to reduce or eliminate the 
stoop labor or drudgery involved in all industries, and the fruit and vege- 
table industry is no exception. Mechanical aids are needed to assist labor; 
mechanical aids or machines are needed to make labor more productive or which 
will replace needed but often unavailable labor. A properly mechanized opera- 
tion will provide employment on a year-round basis to people with proper 
skills and adequate training and provide them with enough income to live well 
in our society. 

The engineer may be a part of the several developmental systems. One 
might be classed a vertical improvement where increased skill's and less drud- 
gery are required on the part of the workers in the industry. The other might 
be called a horizontal development where the engineer works with the horti- 
culturist in the specifications for the plant and for the system of produc- 
tion. The engineer also works with the economist and sociologist in analyzing 
the impacts of these prospective changes. 

There has been a 30% increase in production of fruits, vegetables and 
nuts during the past 20 years with decreasing labor. Without mechanization 
the industry could not have expanded to supply the demand, and more labor is 
needed in the future to produce the increasing production; but it appears this 
labor will not be available based on present pay and working conditions. 

The 15 to 34% increase in yield during the past 20 years took place on 
a decrease in acreage, with improved varieties, more intense cultivation and 
less losses--much associated with horticultural -engineering aspects of the 
industry. 

There are 100 kinds of fruits and vegetables produced in the United 
States but four-fifths of the production is represented by five leading 
vegetables and five leading fruits. The food habits of the consumer have 
much to do about which fruits and vegetables are in demand. Even though po- 
tato production is widely mechanized, potato consumption has decreased. 

76 



4371 



If the increase in demand for fruits and vegetables continues and rate 
of production does not increase accordingly, there will be a need to reclaim 
or put into cultivation acres for fruit and vegetables not now used. Con- 
sidering the great advances being made in varieties and cultural practices it 
will be more economical and advantageous to increase production on present 
land rather than reclaiming large areas. Some reclamation will take place 
as a result of urban areas pushing agricultural areas out of production. 

During the past 30 years there has been a rapid increase in the amount 
and percentage of fruits and vegetables going into the processed market as 
contrasted to the fresh market. Today (1968) 48% of all fruits and vegetables 
are produced for the fresh market and this amounts to 71% of the farm value 
of fruits and vegetables. There is not total agreement as to whether the 
trend will continue as it is. Some authorities feel that the trend away from 
fresh fruits and vegetables has nearly stopped. Some people feel there is a 
financial advantage to marketing fresh fruits and vegetables, but in order 
to obtain this advantage there must be a market. The markets are often not 
close to the areas of production, so that processing must become a means 
whereby these products can be transported, stored, and held until time of 
consumption. 

Very few of the fruits and vegetables for the fresh market are har- 
vested mechanically. It is believed that those crops now harvested mechani- 
cally for the processed market will be the crops first mechanized for the 
fresh market. The knowledge in varieties, the mechanical equipment available, 
and information pertaining to this equipment can be applied to provide prod- 
ucts for the fresh market. Although many of us who are the buyers of today 
base our purchases on the "fresh" image, this may not be an important factor 
in merchandising fruits and vegetables in the future. 

There has been an increase in canned and frozen vegetables and fruits. 
Dried products have decreased in importance. Fresh products have decreased 
in importance. The increase in fresh vegetable production and consumption 
in the future will probably be for salads and those other items not cooked 
before serving. 

The processing industry has changed greatly and has accommodated mech- 
anical harvesting on the one side and provided built-in services for the 
consumer on the other side. The possibility of doing many of the separations 
of products according to color, or other quality factors, in the field or 
orchard instead of the plant provides many opportunities. Thus, some of the 
products may go into the fresh market and others into the processing market 
from the same harvesting operation. Dirt, rejects, leaves, stems, etc. can 
remain in the field. 

The consumer is the final element in the sequence of events after 
production of fruits, vegetables and nuts. The consumer will act or change 

77 



4372 



depending upon: 

1. Economic conditions. 

2. Nutrients and energy needed, desired, or demanded. 

3. Education and training. 

4. Background and personal preference. 

5. Type of work. 

The consumer may not know or care whether the product is grown in a 
particular area of the United States, wiiether or not the product is grown 
outside of the United States, or whether the product looks like the fresh 
product. We must be prepared to provide several alternatives depending upon 
the future situation so that our growers, producers, and processors continue 
to provide gainful employment, profits to stockholders, and nutritious prod- 
ucts to our consuming population. The external factors may override the in- 
ternal factors in our industry in determining changes and future developments. 



78 



4373 

THE PROSPECTS FOR FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MECHANIZATION: 
HORTICULTURE OUTLOOK 
John Carew 

Any discussion of the future for fruit and vegetable production in the 
United States and of the prospects for their harvest mechanization must be 
made from an international point of view. Scientific, technoloqical , economic, 
and political developments in other countries are beginning to have an apprecia- 
ble impact on the horticulture industries of this nation. Their influence is 
likely to increase. The development of IR 8 rice in the Philippines and 
superior wheat varieties in Mexico will certainly alter the future export and 
production of these crops in our country. Similar far reaching advances in 
fruits and vegetables are always possible with corresponding influences in 
U.S. production. 

Witness the shock waves sent around the world by little Taiwan with her 
expanded production of pineapple, asparagus, and mushrooms. To illustrate: 
the increase in Taiwan white asparagus exports from 30,000 cases in 1964 to 
2.4 million cases in 1967 was accompanied by a decrease in California exports 
from 1.6 million cases to 387,000 cases over the same period. Harvested 
acreage in California during this same period declined approximately 15,000 
acres. 

In an attempt to duplicate the records of achievement at the rice and 
the wheat research institutes, similar establishments are now under construction 
in Colombia, Nigeria, Taiwan, and on a smaller scale in other developing 
countries. Inevitably, fruits and vegetables will receive the same massive 
attention as grain crops, and we can anticipate similar results. 

Assuming that we can agree on the need for an international point of 
view, I should like to focus on developments in the field of horticulture that 
I believe will most likely influence the prospects for fruit and vegetable 
mechanization. I shall place emphasis on the plant science phases of horti- 
culture with no implication that they are more important than engineering, 
insect and disease control, or economics. 

The broad goal of horticulture technology and research is to gain greater 
control over the growth and development of plants and over the maturity, 
ripening, and senescence of plant products. Horticulturists approach this goal 
across several distinct but related fields of research: (1) by improving the 
plant--specifically through plant breeding and rootstock/scion combinations; 

(2) by controlling the plant environment--primarily light, temperature, nutri- 
ents, moisture, and the atmosphere of both the growing medium and the air; 

(3) by controlling plant competitors and predators--with emphasis on weeds, 
insects, diseases, and other pests; (4) by manipulating plant grow1;h--either 
by means of cultural practices and/or the use of biologically active chemicals 

79 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 22 



4374 



A brief description of recent and current developments in each of these 
fields will serve as a basis for predicting their potential influence on 
harvest mechanization. 

Improved Cultivars and Rootstock/scion Combinations 

Without detracting from the recent accomplishments of rice and wheat 
breeding teams, we must recognize that our breeders of fruits and vegetables 
have done essentially as well, albeit with less publicity. The common pickle 
would be far less common without the development of disease resistant and 
gynoecious cultivars. Peach breeders have not only improved fruit quality 
but, by releasing cultivars of varying maturities, have doubled or tripled 
the length of the peach season in many production areas. Dwarfing rootstocks 
in combination with apple cultivars have made possible the size control of 
apple trees. Hundreds of other plant breeding accomplishments could be cited 
to illustrate the impact of plant improvement on crop characteristics and on 
the introduction of mechanical harvesting. 

Looking to the future we can anticipate an accelerated development of 
new cultivars adapted to harvest mechanization; improved biochemical techniques 
will permit the early identification of genetic traits; seed production will 
be facilitated by the chemical induction of male sterility; advances in 
statistics and computer science will streamline evaluation procedures; and, 
breeders will make use of cooperators in both hemispheres to duplicate selec- 
tion and evaluation environments. 

We can also predict greater attention being paid to breeding for certain 
biological characteristics which have actually been the basis for most im- 
provements in yield and quality: in other words, breeding for photosynthetic 
efficiency, amino acid content, fruit abscission, delayed senescence, etc. 

Controlling Plant Environment 

Many of the major problems of horticulture relate to our inability to 
regulate certain environmental factors that influence the growth and develop- 
ment of plants and pests that affect them. Unlike many "manufacturing" 
processes we have been unable to economically control temperature, light, and 
atmospheric conditions, which frequently cause wide fluctuations in yield and 
quality of our major fruits and vegetables. 

Some^rogress has been made. We have learned to apply supplemental 
light at certain growth stages in tomato seedlings; synthetic soil mixes have 
improved the production of vegetable transplants; carbon dioxide is used 
commercially to prolong the storage life of apples and to increase the growth 
of glass house tomatoes and lettuce; ethylene stimulates the ripening of pears 
and bananas; mist irrigation will "air-condition" strawberry fields; plastic 
mulches not only control weeds and decrease moisture loss but also increase 
soil temperature; developments in plant nutrition have made nutrient deficien- 
cies no longer a major cause for low yields and quality. 

80 



4375 



Nevertheless, a major portion of our fruit and vegetable production is 
still subject to injury from extremes of temperature. As we plan for the 
future, we can expect increasing interest in system of protected cultivation, 
under structures of glass or plastic, where temperature, humidity, light, 
nutrients, and pests will be controlled; we can look for the development of 
improved air temperature modification techniques using electricity, fuels, 
or water; and we can anticipate interesting atmosphere modifications for the 
transporting and holding of plant products. 

Controlling Plant Competitors and Predators 

The current controversy over pesticide residues does not detract from 
the excellent progress made by entomologists and plant pathologists in con- 
trolling insects and diseases. The abundance of blemish-free fruits and 
vegetables in the marketplace is a tribute to their achievements. In like 
manner, horticulture weed control specialists have developed a wide array 
of chemicals that permit virtually cultivation free production and that have 
eliminated the need for wide row spacing; for example, asparagus, carrots, 
sweet corn, apples, and cherries. We can assuredly look forward to the day 
when selective, non-toxic herbicides will be available for every fruit and 
vegetable and when unwanted plant competitors will no longer inhibit crop 
growth nor interfere with harvest mechanization. 

Manipulating Plant Growth and Development 

The recorded history of horticulture documents the ingenuity of fruit 
and vegetable growers in developing cultural practices to direct the growth 
of plants. Skill in grafting, pruning, and training were the major arts of 
horticulture and formed the basis for our modern technology. More recently, 
under the dual influences of labor unavi labil ity and technological advances, 
these and other cultural practices have been modified or discontinued. The 
pruning saw is fast being replaced by set-level "mowing" of apples, pears, 
cherries, and blueberries. The staking or trellising of tomatoes and snap 
beans is dying out at the same time that fruit tree walls are coming in; 
both trends are aimed at facilitating harvest mechanization. A new look is 
being taken at the optimum plant population and spacing for each crop as we 
become freed of the constraints imposed by cultivation, pest control, or 
hand harvesting. Wide row spacings are giving way to markedly higher plant 
populations per unit area. Single harvests of dense plantings of tomatoes 
and pickles can achieve a concentration of maturity not possible with multiple 
harvests of more widely spaced plants. Cabbage, cauliflower, and tomatoes 
are being direct seeded in the field eliminating the plant growing and trans- 
planting operations. Still in the exploratory stage is the practice of 
harvesting immature or unripe fruits and vegetables and completing their matura- 
tion or ripening under controlled conditions; we do it with pears, bananas, 
and tomatoes, why not for strawberries and other fruits? 

81 



4376 



Manipulating plant growth and development through biologically active 
chemicals is a relatively modern approach. The effects of growth regulators 
on plants have excited the imagination of scientists and growers alike. Liter- 
ally thousands of chemicals have been evaluated on a wide range of crop species 
and weeds. To paraphrase a biblical quotation, "many are tested but few are 
chosen." For a high percentage of materials desirable effects are outweighed 
by problems of phy to toxicity, residues, unwanted growth influences, or cost. 

Nevertheless, from this intensive research on growth regulators we have 
chemicals that will accelerate seed germination and the rooting of cuttings; 
control the shape of apple trees; induce or break dormancy in onions and 
potatoes; induce flower formation in young apple trees; promote the fruit set 
of grapes and figs; chemically thin apples, peaches, and pears; inhibit abscis- 
sion in apples or induce it in cherries; retard the maturity of apples or hasten 
it for cherries; delay the ripening of pears and tomatoes and retard the sen- 
escence of broccoli; and increase the protein content in beans. 

Most of the chemicals in use today will fade from our memory like this 
year's football stars; they will soon be replaced by more selective, less toxic 
materials still in the laboratory. But as fleeting as their glory may be, Alar, 
TIBA, Ethrel , simazine, maleic hydrazide and their chemical companions foretell 
a bright future for the use of biologically active materials in the control of 
plant growth and the adapting of crop production to harvest mechanization. 

Conclusion 

Many major changes in agricultural technology are more a result of 
external pressures than internal desires for change. To illustrate: numerous 
developments in fruit and vegetable marketing, packaging, and transportation 
are the result of dynamic changes in mass merchandising, specifically, the 
demands of chain stores, rather than a natural desire by growers to sell large 
volumes of uniformly graded and packaged products. Similarly, changes in food 
processing technology have dictated the adoption of many adjustments on those 
farms raising fruits and vegetables for canning and freezing. In my opinion, 
the rapidity of adoption of harvest mechanization is most closely tied to the 
availability of labor--either because labor prefers alternative employment 
(or unemployment) or because our government restricts its use. 

In other words, I believe we horticulturists will really have less of 
an influence on the prospects for fruit and vegetable mechanization than will 
certain external, social, and economic forces over which few of us have control. 
And, may I repeat that many of these forces will originate outside the country. 
Look at the record: giving a major share of credit to the engineers, we now 
have extensive mechanical harvesting of cherries, plums, blueberries, cran- 
berries, cling peaches, nut crops, sweet corn, pickling cucumbers, onions, 
peas, spinach, and tomatoes. We have made substantial progress in the devel- 
opment of mechanical harvesters for apples, grapes, strawberries, brambles, 

82 



4377 



citrus, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, cucumbers, melons, 
lettuce, and peppers. 

If the supply of labor to harvest this last list of crops were to be 
drastically reduced in the next few years, we could be mechanically harvesting 
them almost immediately. To do this, however, there would have to be a 
willingness by buyers and consumers to alter their standards of quality and 
modify their handling and processing procedures, and--if they wish to continue 
purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables--to pay a price commensurate with the 
increased costs of production. 

No one needs mystic powers to predict that: 

1. A larger proportion of our fruits and vegetables will be harvested 
mechanically. 

2. Growers will increasingly substitute chemical, genetic, and equip- 
ment inputs for human labor. 

3. A smaller proportion of fruits and vegetables will be consumed in 
the fresh or unprocessed state. 

4. Areas of crop production in the United States will be determined 
more by climatic conditions than by nearness to market or avail- 
ability of labor. 

5. Buyers and/or processors as well as the consumers of fruits and 
vegetables will adjust to the influence of mechanization. 

Advances in the science and technology of horticulture clearly have 
played a significant role in the development of harvest mechanization proce- 
dures. They will play an ever greater role if the development of both biologi- 
cal systems and engineering systems are closely coordinated. The importance 
of fruits and vegetables in our diets, from both a nutritional and an enjoyment 
point of view, dictates a continued strong research effort on the interrelated 
problems of production, harvesting, handling, and distribution. Our record of 
achievement in harvest mechanization is great and our potential for contribu- 
tion is just as bright. 



83 



4378 

THE PROSPECTS FOR FRUIT AND VEGETABLE 

MECHANIZATION: ENGINEERING OUTLOOK 

Jordan H. Levin 

Are Machines Needed?--Yes . Fruit and vegetable production is increas- 
ing and will continue to increase. At the same time, harvest labor has de- 
creased to the point where all producing areas are now having difficulty in 
recruiting satisfactory help. The only practical long range answer to the 
labor problem is to develop mechanical aids and/or macklnu which will make 
the available labor more efficient or will replace needed but unavailable 
labor. 

Can the Engineers Develop the Machines?--Yes . People have come to 
expect miracles from engineers. "The difficult we do today-'the impossible 
takes a little longer." This is true. Engineering, and especially agricul- 
tural engineering, has come a long way in the past few years. Technology has 
advanced to where almost anything can be done. With instrumentation now avail- 
able, we can see things we never could see. For example, with light trans- 
mittance equipment we can see inside apples, tomatoes, and other commodities. 
With present instrumentation we can feel things which we could not feel 
before. Strain gauges, electron microscopes, accelerometers, oscilloscopes, 
radioactive materials, LDTs and many other instruments and techniques have 
become standard tools for engineers. With modern computers, we can make cal- 
culations quickly and accurately. For instance, the multiplication of two 
3-digit numbers can be made at the rate of 2 per minute with a pencil, 10 per 
minute with a desk calculator, and 100,000 per minute with a computer. A 
great many new materials are now available which can be used to satisfy almost 
any condition of weight, strength, abrasion resistance, corrosion resistance, 
etc. Whole new families of components are now available which make design 
more flexible and compact. These range from micro switches to fasteners and 
from light weight electric motors to complete hydraulic systems. Today's 
agricultural engineers have the know-how and the facilities to build practi- 
cally any type of machine. 

Do Engineers Have Complete Freedom in What They Develop?--No . Although 
the engineers can produce sophisticated machines which can perform almost any 
function, they must limit their development to harvesting machines and sys- 
tems which enable the grower to not only get the job done but make a profit 
on his operation. If the grower makes a profit, it means that the system is 
efficient--and we must be efficient. The problem of feeding over 200 million 
Americans and the billions of people in the world is of utmost importance. 
We can grow only the crops which can be grown efficiently. Crops which can- 
not be mechanized effectively will have to be replaced by crops for which we 
can develop efficient machines. This means that the initial and operating 

85 



4379 



machine costs must be such that the per unit cost of harvesting will be com- 
petitive with our present or future cost of harvesting. Therefore, many 
techniques and designs cannot be used because they would result in too high 
a cost. Most of us take it for granted that we will have a man on the moon 
in 1969 or 1970. If the engineers on the moon project only had 3 to 4 mil- 
lion dollars per year to spend, instead of billions, we would not have a man 
on the moon for a long, long time. The engineers cannot divorce machine 
development from economics. However, agricultural engineers have always had 
to produce low cost machines and will find designs and principles which will 
result in economical equipment. 

Do Engineers Need the Help of Others?--Yeg . Engineers study the present 
varieties, present growing methods, and market system, then try to design 
harvesting machines for these conditions. Engineers also consider possible 
changes in shapes and forms of fruits and vegetables which might make it 
easier to develop machines. Changes in cultural and other production prac- 
tices are also evaluated as to their effect on mechanization. The engineers, 
therefore, must be familiar with the horticultural phases of the problem and 
must work closely with the horticul turalist. It is not a question of which 
came first, the egg or the chicken. It is a question of deciding what changes 
in the production practices are needed and then, simultaneously, the engineer 
building the machines and the horticulturalist producing desirable changes. 
An example is the tomato harvester. Coby Lorenzen developed the principle of 
once-over tomato harvesting in the early 1950's. As he was working on equip- 
ment plant breeders began to develop varieties suitable for mechanical har- 
vesting. The basic principles and components for the tomato harvester were 
quickly developed but it took several years to produce a sound, practical 
machine. Engineers at the University of Illinois developed the idea of 
stripping strawberries several years ago. Since then, engineers of various 
universities have been trying to develop machines while plant breeders, at 
the same time, have been trying to develop varieties suitable for this type 
of mechanical harvesting. 

Will the Engineer Produce Machines for Harvesting Fruits and Vegetables? 
--Yes . A number of crops have already been mechanized, and experimental 
machines are being developed for practically all fruit and vegetable crops. 
When the need becomes great enough someone usually comes up with the answer-- 
and the need for machines to harvest fruits and vegetables is great. Engi- 
neering is doing and creating something new. In the USDA fruit and vegetable 
harvesting group we always ask ourselves, "How can the operation be different 
so it is more efficient?" and then ask ourselves, "Is it worth doing?" If 
the answer is "yes" then we do it, for there is always a way. 

The machines which are being built and which will be built in the 
future are not and will not be science fiction types but will be relatively 



4380 



simple and practical. They will perform the simple tasks of cutting, lifting, 
twisting, shaking, sorting, etc. I do not predict we will have "super" 
machines which fly over the crop or move automatically through the fields with 
someone sitting in a central office pushing buttons for harvesting fruit and 
vegetables. I leave these predictions to others for I do not think such ab- 
stract thinking solves our present problem. What we need are practical 
machines which are imaginative, productive, easy to operate and trouble free. 
These machines will be part of an overall system which gets the job done at 
substantially reduced labor requirements and at equal and probably much lower 
costs than present ones. The systems may involve new crops, new cultivating, 
or preharvest practices, and may result in new methods of maintaining quality 
and new packaging and processing techniques. Therefore, other disciplines 
will be involved. Such systems have already been developed for some crops. 
Radishes is an example. They are planted, harvested, transported, packaged, 
sent to market, and reach the consumer never touched by human hands. Tart 
cherries is another example. They are removed from the tree, cooled, trans- 
ported to the processing plant, destemmed, sorted, pitted and processed 
never touched by human hands. 

Prospects for mechanizing fruit and vegetable harvesting are very good. 
Agricultural engineers have the know-how and the interest and will certainly 
do their part in mechanizing fruit and vegetable harvesting. 



87 



4381 

THE FUTURE WORLD OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MECHANIZATION 
Carl W. Hall 

The fruit and vegetable industry was originally characterized by areas 
of production close to consumption. The fruit and vegetable industries de- 
veloped arpund the cities. People from the cities were available to work in 
the gardens and orchards. The products were moved into the cities and sold 
on an almost daily basis, depending upon the availability and perishability 
of the products. This same pattern exists in most of the world today. 

In this country, as the cities grew and in many cases forced out the 
areas of production for fruits and vegetables, the areas of production have 
not been close to centers of population. In the United States two-thirds 
of the production of fruits and vegetables is west of the Mississippi River, 
while two-thirds of the consumers are east of the Mississippi River. 

Associated with the urbanization of the United States have been: 

1. Development of large areas of production. 

2. Production areas away or remote from the consuming population. 

3. Production areas not adjacent to manpower resources so that 
help often is not available when needed. 

4. Industrialization of horticultural crop production has developed 
similar to but slower than industrialization of the cities. 

5. Utilization of irrigation to control moisture in soil and/or 
air environment. 

6. Purchase of fruits and vegetables is now in the hands of a very 
few people as contrasted to previously when practically everyone 
was a purchaser. 

7. Increase in the consumption of processed fruits and vegetables. 

8. Large quantities of products of uniform quality is demanded, not 
on a seasonal but on a year-round basis, by the consumer. 

Thus, considerable changes have occurred in producing, transporting, 
handling, storing, processing, and marketing of fruits and vegetables. In- 
volved throughout are the establishment of quality standards including 
grading, sorting, sizing, color evaluation, etc. In addition to these 
variables must also be considered the working, purchasing, and eating habits 
of the consuming public. Jobs with long hours involving much drudgery are 
not tolerated, almost regardless of the amount of pay. People will now 
spend much of their money for built-in services of food with their purchases. 
Many millions of women now work. The eating habits have shifted from high 
calorie to low calorie foods which has great implications on the consumption 
of fruits and vegetables. 

Plant Blueprints 

In the future we'll develop blueprints for particular plants as we now 

825 



4382 



develop blueprints for machines, devices, and processes. For example, the 
blueprint will specify the design requirements with the example given for 
upright fruits and vegetables somewhat like the following: 

1. Upright, strong plants which will not lodge and be of a height 
for providing proper cultural practices and management. 

2. A sturdy root system to support the plant and to provide the 
proper nutrients and moisture. 

3. Leaves at an angle and size to absorb maximum sunlight. 

4. A plant canopy to retain carbon dioxide. 

5. Fruit placed at the top or outside ends of the supporting branches 
for easy harvest. 

6. Fruit with a skin to withstand bruising and abrasions either from 
environmental conditions such as wind, rain and sleet, and from 
mechanical cultivation, harvest, and handling. 

7. Fruit with a color and appearance with consumer appeal. 

8. Fruit which will hang tightly on the plant until ripe, then 
remove easily without loss. 

9. Fruit which can be stored for longer times. 

From our present knowledge it would appear that we'd move to smaller 
fruits on the plants to obtain some of the fruit characteristics desired for 
mechanical harvesting and handling. Strawberries and tomatoes will become 
smaller in diameter and perhaps be used in different types of food servings 
than presently. We may not be so concerned with maintaining the shape and 
appearance of the fruit as presently constituted. For example, it isn't 
necessary to think in terms of clusters of grapes, but single grapes may 
become common. If this happens the possibility of substituting cherries 
chemically treated for grapes to obtain blue, red, or green appearance 
without seeds may develop. 

Field Physical Environment 

The plant characteristics and the related cultural practices have much 
to do with respect to the area available to each plant in its root zone, the 
spacing of plants in the row and the spacing of rows, the control of plant 
competitors, the size of plant and size of fruit or vegetable produced by 
the plant. Entire changes in cultural practices may be required in order to 
utilize or enhance mechanization. The mechanization will involve placement 
of the seed, metering and placement of fertilizer and other plant nutrients, 
placement of weed control chemicals or mechanical cultivation for removal 
of the undesirable plants, and removal of the products from the plants. 

Plants may need to be protected from freezing either in the early 
spring or late fall. Water spray provides one means of providing heat to 
the plant thereby protecting the plant, at least for short intervals, for 
temperatures in the twenties. Plastic covers which go over the row provides 

826 



4383 



another means of temperature control. Or, a plastic dome may be placed over 
large areas in which temperature, relative humidity, light, and other varia- 
bles may be controlled. Plastics can be selected in such a manner to pro- 
vide transmission of certain wavelengths and filtering of others. The 
plastic permits short wavelengths to go through after which the energy turns 
to long wavelengths; thus retaining heat and energy under the plastic canopy. 

Certain plants may respond favorably to a shot of light at night. Par- 
ticular wavelengths of radiation may encourage flower setting or some other 
desirable phenomena for increasing production. 

Additional attention must be given to maintaining a desirable seed bed 
and root bed for the plant. With excessive travel of workers and mechanical 
equipment over the land, soil compaction may develop in some soils. Soil 
compaction may be reduced by: (1) low pressure large diameter tires and 
wheels for moving over soils; (2) straddle highways over the orchards and 
fields with paved paths for the power units and equipment; (3) use of a 
hovercraft which moves over the field or orchard for field operations. 

Although progress to date on breeding plants has provided a freezing 
point only 1/2 to 1°F. lower than freezing, there is a possibility that new 
varieties or new products may be developed which will withstand low tempera- 
tures. 

Chemical Relationships 

Chemicals will continue to play a major role in production. Specific 
chemicals with properties for specific tasks without toxic or undesirable 
effects on the products or other members of the environment will continue to 
be developed. Chemicals will play a role in: (1) fertilization; (2) coated 
and treated seeds for control of disease, for timing of germination, for 
desirable growth relationships, and for production of seedless fruits; 
(3) plant response to get shape, growth, and development of particular ele- 
ments of the plant, (chemical pruning); (4) stomata closing to conserve 
moisture; (5) weed control and response; (6) abscission chemicals either to 
strengthen the attachment during growing or before harvest, to weaken the 
attachment for harvest, or to remove leaves before harvest; (7) reduce 
respiration of the product; (8) control of diseases, insects and microorga- 
nisms which would otherwise reduce yield; (9) coloring, whitening, or matur- 
ing of the product in storage; and (10) toughening of skin so that the 
product will withstand handling. 

Field and Orchard Operations 

Land preparation, planting, cultivating, harvest, and handling will 
continue to be mechanized and to an even greater extent. These operations 
through cultivating are now well mechanized. The mechanization of harvest 
and handling is developing rapidly. It is predicted that within ten years, 

827 



4384 



nearly 90 to 100% of the fruit and vegetable crops will be mechanically 
harvested. Those crops which are now mechanically harvested and used 
primarily for the processing industry will be the first to have improved 
methods whereby the products will be suitable for the fresh market. 

Regardless of the operation, precision will be a key word; seed, fer- 
tilizer, and chemicals will be metered and placed at a high speed at the 
proper location in the soil. This is necessary to economically utilize the 
various inputs for fruit and vegetable production. The amount of transplant- 
ing will be reduced. Direct seeding with new varieties and new cultural 
practices will be used. No-row or close-row spacing will be utilized. The 
amount of cultivation with its affect on additional moisture losses will be 
reduced or eliminated. Chemicals will take the place of mechanical cultiva- 
tion. These chemicals must be applied at the proper time and place, and the 
quantity applied with precision. New equipment will be required. 

Today most harvesters have been developed for specific crops. In the 
future there will be more machines or combines developed which will handle 
several crops--perhaps a universal vegetable combine. Likewise, a universal 
fruit combine with a wide range of adjustments may be used in the fruit 
industry. We have shaking or vibrating equipment for the cherries, blue- 
berries, coffee, and nuts; and as we learn how to handle all of these 
products, a universal shaker can be developed for a wide variety of crops. 
With the harvesters we will pre-sense the product for color, density, and 
quality, and leave the product if it does not meet the standards. The 
timing of the harvest operation as related to the environment and cultural 
practices will be even more critical than today. Cracking of cherries, 
tomatoes, and similar products needs to be reduced or eliminated. We will 
attempt to find ways to remove the products without touching them. The use 
of air or radiation signals to search, find, and remove the fruit in place 
of handling the fruit or handling the tree on which the fruit is placed 
will be attempted. There will be more decision making in the picking of the 
fruit and in separation of the fruit in the field rather than at the proces- 
sing plant. A tree-wall will provide a means of utilizing labor more uni- 
formly throughout the year, and perhaps a more uniform cultural practice for 
utilization of the harvester. 

Man-Machine Relationships 

Agricultural labor discussions involve the term "hand labor". There are 
many gradations of hand labor. All hand labor is not equivalent. It is 
necessary that tasks in agriculture be improved and be made more comparable 
with similar tasks in industry. Otherwise, the labor cannot be attracted 
to these operations. Machines are necessary to reduce the drudgery on 
mankind which would otherwise take place. Machines can be used to increase 
the safety of the workers, particularily from the standpoint of undesirable 

828 



4385 



working conditions. Better working conditions can be provided in terms of 
temperature, relative humidity, light, dust, air movement, chemicals in air, 
etc. Machines must be designed considering the man-machine relationship so 
as to provide excellent working conditions. Although not used at present, 
but available on experimental basis, the hovercraft provides an example. 
The hovercraft may be used for fertilization, spraying, and inspection by 
the pilot, and offers the following advantages: (1) less drift of chemicals; 
(2) no soil compaction; (3) more complete coverage of the trees; and (4) the 
workers are out of the chemical environment. 

More cabs on tractors and on self-propelled units will be used. These 
cabs will protect the workers from injury, from trees, from roll -over of the 
unit, and at the same time will incorporate features to provide air-condi- 
tioning and filtered air for the operator. Controls and mechanical aids will 
be provided so that older workers can continue to perform and earn their 
livelihood. All of these examples point to the necessity of a person with 
more training than for previous occupations. At the same time, there will 
be more uniform labor needs throughout the year. Thus, a more stable job 
will result with benefit to the worker, grower, processor, and community. 
Growers and processors, individually or through their organizations, or with 
government help and support, will need to provide training to workers to 
assist them in qualifying for these new jobs. 

Marketing 

The transportation, grading, sorting, processing, packaging, and 
merchandising of fruits and vegetables must undergo a radical change. The 
drudgery and expense of handling from the field to the family is presently 
excessive as compared to other costs. Product "damage" must be defined. 
Other terminology is needed. Product "damage" should be defined in terms of 
the final product. A cut on a fruit, if handled quickly under proper en- 
vironmental conditions may have no effect on the product. On the other hand, 
certain distinct desirable flaws may be enhanced. The possibility of piggy- 
back movement of trucks from the field or orchards from centers of produc- 
tion to areas of consumption or processing will undoubtedly occur using 
airlines for perishable products as we are now using the railroads for the 
industrial products. There are national and international implications in- 
volving export and import of fruits and vegetables. 

A complete study involving the systemization of computerization from 
field to family is needed. This will involve not only present products, but 
new products or change in products based upon requirements for efficient 
production and mechanical harvesting. Storages have improved greatly over 
the past ten years. Controlled atmosphere storage, use of radiation, and 
application of chemicals are procedures which have been adopted in a few 
industries. Many new innovations will become available for other products. 

829 



4386 



These innovations will provide a marked change in the movement of products 
from the field to the family. Many of the products of tomorrow may bear no 
resemblance, even for fresh products, to our products of today. Certain 
treatments may become acceptable or might actually improve the product, but 
in many cases may not improve its relationship to the fresh quality, though 
improve its relationship to the consuming public. As fewer and fewer people 
have a direct connection with agriculture production, there will be less 
demand and need to provide products which the consumer remembers as having 
a certain form, shape, or color. 

The consumer will make many of the final decisions with respect to the 
growth and development of the industry as a whole or of segments of the 
industry. The consumer will make these decisions on the basis of the choices 
offered. If not enough choices are offered the industry will decline; if 
sufficient choices are made, those items which are most attractive will grow 
and help the industry expand. In the final analysis the consumer is the 
"boss". The consumer will determine to a large extent whether the consump- 
tion of any or several products per capita will increase or decrease. The 
products must compete in the marketplace. The competition will be based on 
many factors, several of which have not been mentioned or yet conceived. 
The consumer may shop by catalog or from her kitchen after viewing various 
products on the television screen and as the result of two-way conversation 
with the seller. More likely, the consumer will purchase more ready-for-the- 
table products which have been partially or fully processed. Also the con- 
sumer will purchase more of the fruit and vegetables and other foods through 
institutional organizations. These institutional organizations will demand 
a large quantity of uniform quality product. 

Technological and Economic Factors 

The following are significant technological and economic factors which 
will influence greatly the development of the next decade: (1) nearly 
universal use of the computor in research, business, and marketing which 
will be used in comparing various man-machine production relationships from 
the production to the consumer of fruits, vegetables, and nuts operations; 
(2) a continued explosive growth of knowledge with information in the fruit 
and vegetable industry to be used by others and information in other fields 
to be applied to the fruit and vegetable industry--synergistic effects will 
abound; (3) a more educated society with more affluence and thus greater 
independence will be involved in the consumption of the products of the 
fruit, vegetable, and nut industry; (4) there will be new uses for present 
products, new processes, and combinations of products used in new industries; 
thus, treated cherries may substitute for the grape industry, or the grape 
may substitute for the olive, and small tomatoes for cherries, etc.; 
(5) there will be additional means of and more rapid communications; (6) more 

830 



4387 



rapid transportation of our products under controlled environmental condi- 
tions; (7) greater mobility of population whether the unskilled or skilled 
worker, the grower, the processor, or the consumer; (8) greater concern for 
society as a whole, in which segments of the society which gained from an 
advance will put part of their gain into the disadvantaged segments of the 
system of society. Concern for the worker might include food, safety, en- 
vironmental pollution of air, water, waste and soil, housing and quality 
factors of our living; (9) greater involvement of the government at all 
levels will influence labor, consumer, producer and processor. 

Looking Ahead--Manpower Relationships 

As we look ahead we must consider the following: In an expanding 
national economy there will continue to be a pull of workers from agriculture 
to other industries--usually urban based unless jobs can be more attractive 
from the standpoint of working conditions and year-round salary. There will 
be an increase in wages in agriculture but probably not equal to the wages 
in industry nor with as good working conditions as found in industry. Addi- 
tional benefits in the way of workmans compensation, occupational hazard 
insurance, etc., will be provided. Organization will be a part of workers 
of agriculture in the future. The employers will need to provide additional 
services such as medical, school, improved housing, recreational opportuni- 
ties, better working conditions, and increased pay. There is a need to 
reduce the drudgery of farming operations. If the increase in pay and 
services becomes too great, but possibly still at a level below urban in- 
dustry wages. United States produced products will be replaced by foreign 
infports which if excessive would be a great disadvantage to workers, growers, 
processors, and related United States groups. Entire industries (like the 
mushroom industry) might disappear, perhaps preceded by internal shifts in 
centers of production in the United States because of a variance in state 
laws. At some stage in the process, where there is a lack of availability 
of workers for the conditions provided, growers and processors will press 
for increased mechanization for the commodity involved. The interrelation- 
ships of workers for two or more crops in one geographical area must be 
considered. If one of these crops is forced to become mechanized, the other 
must follow. Mechanization will assist in industry and the economy of a 
nation as a whole to get a job done. If workers are not available, which 
is often the case for a short period of time, such as harvesting, mechaniza- 
tion will be needed to maintain an economical production in a competitive 
economy. To operate the more sophisticated equipment, to follow the more 
involved practices, to utilize the more complicated and interrelated prac- 
tices involving cultural practices, use of chemicals, machines and mechanisms, 
genetics, etc., workers will need more training. Workers undoubtedly have 
the intelligence to do these tasks but will need special training. Through 

831 



4388 



resulting increased productivity they will receive more pay and be even more 
mobile in the labor market. The additional training will provide for in- 
creasing the skills of workers. Many may move into industry jobs, serving 
a diffused rural industry or into the urban industry. These developments 
and the trends which will inevitably follow probably justifies government 
assistance in training and educational programs. We can anticipate an 
upward movement in the skill development and the related wage in the market- 
place where agriculture serves as the first rung on the ladder. One of 
our jobs is to help provide, as we have many times in the past, training 
and education for the workers for their improvement and the benefit of 
society. 

Summary 

It is a necessary but not sufficient condition to build or have basic 
information to build harvesters for mechanization of many fruit, vegetable 
and nut products. The knowledge and information must be available when the 
need is present and the industry demands mechanical harvesters. The major 
part of the production of fruit and vegetables, which is not mechanized, is 
that of harvesting and handling. Other aspects of production--varieties, 
chemicals, cultural practices, environmental conditions, manpower, cost, 
skill, and economics are all very important. But it must be emphasized that 
we look at the whole system from production to consumption considering not 
only those factors internal to the industry but external as well. The in- 
ternational situation plays a major role in considering future developments. 
In fact, the external factors over which we have little control may have 
greater influence on the future developments in the fruit and vegetable 
industry, particularly mechanization, than the internal factors over which 
we have some control . 



832 



4389 



FRUIT AND VEGETABLE 
HARVEST MECHANIZATION 

Manpower Implications 

B. F. CARGILL and G. E. ROSSMILLER, Editors 



Published by 

RURAL MANPOWER CENTER 

Michigan State University 
East Lansing, Michigan 

Supported by 

OFFICE OF MANPOWER RESEARCH 

Manpower Administration 
U. S. Department of Labor 
Washington, D. C. 



1969 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 23 



4390 



Copyright 1969 by the Board of Trustees 
Michigan State University 

Reproduction in whole or in part permitted for 
any purpose of the United States government. 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 79-629326 



Additional copies of this report, ManpoweA lmpU.cjauU.oni,, Rural Manpower 
Report No. 17 and Policy ImptidatiorUi , Rural Manpower Report No. 18, are 
available for $2.50 and $2.00 respectively from Bulletin Office, Agriculture 
Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823. Copies of 
Te.c.h.notoQ.icaJi Impticatiom , Rural Manpower Report No. 16, are available for 
$3.50 from either the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,^ 
Michigan 49085, or Bulletin Office, Agriculture Hall, Michigan State* 
University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823. 



4391 



PREFACE 

This is the second in a series of three publications emanating from a 
nationwide project on the Manpower Implications of Mechanization in Fruit 
and Vegetable Harvesting. The project, designed in three phases, has the 
Following general objectives: 

I. To present technological information on all aspects of fruit 
and vegetable harvesting. 
II. To assess the implications fruit and vegetable mechanization 
will have on manpower, the industry, the consumer, and the 
public. 
III. To assimilate and analyze material presented in fulfillment 
of the first two objectives and to present conclusions and 
recommendations dealing with the nature and priority of 
policies, programs, and research. 
Each of the above objectives are dealt with in the respective project phase 
ind culminate with the appropriate publication as follows: 

p/uuxt and VzQdXabl?. Hcuive^t Mzcka.n^zcution, T^chnolog-icat 
lmpticcuUon6. Rural Manpower Center Report No. 16. 

FkuuX and VdQeJtable. Ha/ivut Uzchanizaixon , MawpoweA lmptic.atA.OYib. 
Rural Manpower Center Report No. 17. 

TnuyUt and [/zgzXabte. Ha/tvut Me.chanizatLon , PoLLcy Jmptication&. 
Rural Manpower Center Report No. 18. 

The editors wish to acknowledge the U.S. Department of Labor for financial 
support, and the Rural Manpower Center, Departments of Agricultural Engineering 
and Agricultural Economics, aTl of Michigan State University, for providing 
jersonnel and services for the project. The views expressed by the authors 
contributing to this publication do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint or 
policy of the above named institutions. 

The editors also wish to express their sincere appreciation to Daniel 
jsturt. Director, Rural Manpower Center, for his council and guidance. 

The basis for this publication was a Colloquium on the Manpower Implica- 
tions of Mechanization in the Fruit and Vegetable Industry held in July, 1969, 
at Michigan State University. At this Colloquium a highly interdisciplinary 
group composed of agricultural economists, rural sociologists, agricultural 
engineers, horticulturists, manpower specialists, and industry and labor 
representatives presented the papers contained in this volume. 

To provide continuity between Phase I, the technology phase, and Phase II, 
the manpower phase, a Task Force on Technology was established. This Task 
Force met and presented papers in Phase I and II. To provide similar continuity 
[between Phase II and III a Task Force on Manpower was established. This Task 
Force on Manpower met for the first time during the Manpower Colloquium and 
will be instrumental in assessing the Colloquium and extending the evaluation 



4392 



of Phase II into Phase III, the policy phase. The Task Force on Manpower 
includes Nicolaas Luykx, Robert McElroy, James Nix, Daniel Sturt and Maurice 
Vol and. 

To our old friends who worked with us during Phase I and II and our new 
friends who joined us at Phase II, we wish to express our appreciation. It 
has been a distinct pleasure and privilege to work with the well-rounded, 
knowledgeable and interested group of individuals who contributed to the 
success of this project. 

Michigan State University B. F. Cargill 

December, 1969 G. E. Rossmiller 



4393 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PREFACE ill 

I. INTRODUCTION G. E. Rossmiller 3 

II. TECHNOLOGY IN PERSPECTIVE 

Horticultural Technology in Vegetable Production 

William L. Sims 9 

Horticultural Technology in Fruit Production 

R. Paul Larsen 15 

Potentials in Horticulture Technology John Carew 35 

Engineering Technology in Vegetable Production. .B. A. Stout 41 

Engineering Technology in Fruit Production 

E. S. Shepardson 53 

Handling and Containerization Technology Michael O'Brien 61 

Potentials in Engineering Technology Carl W. Hall 69 

III. THE ECONOMICS OF IT ALL 

The Industrialization Process J. N. Uhl 83 

The Numbers Game Earle E. Gavett 99 

Labor or Capital - The Road Ahead Velmar W. Davis 113 

The International Angle Kenneth R. Farrell 153 

The Resource Mix - A Michigan Case Study 

A. Frank Bordeaux, Jr. 163 

IV. THE MANPOWER DIMENSION 

The Rural Manpower Scene Daniel W. Sturt 179 

People and Machines - Labor Implications of Developing 

Technology John R. Wildermuth and William E. Martin 197 

Labor Market Behavior James S. Holt 209 

The Agricultural Labor Market in Arizona Alan F. Vincent 223 

Agricultural Labor Mobility Paul B. Miller 245 

Agricultural Labor Skills - Past, Present, Future 

James W. Becket 257 

V. POLITICS. PEOPLE AND POLICY 

Sociology of Rural Deprivation Myrtle R. Reul 269 

Social and Structural Change in Rural America 

J. Allan Beegle 289 

The Producers' Labor: A Processor's View G. C. Henry 303 



4394 



Agricultural Labor Unionization: An Organizer's View 

William L. Kircher 311 

Social Considerations Calvin L. Beale 319 

Political Implications Richard E. Lyng 325 

Mechanization and Farm Labor: Inequities and Social 

Consequences Isao Fujimoto 331 

Manpower Policies and Programs John W. Mamer 341 

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 359 



4395 

CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION 
G. E. Rossmiller 

The authors of the papers in Volume I, TfuUt and \JzQeJM.blz HaA.v<u>t 
MzchcLiUzcLtion, J e.c\mologlcaJi ImpticjotLovii, , leave little doubt that the fruit 
and vegetable industry will be well on its way toward mechanical harvest of 
all but a very few specific commodities by 1975. Shortly thereafter, it 
appears that many of those crops which are not mechanized will no longer be 
grown commercially in the United States, 

This technological revolution in the fruit and vegetable industry is a 
part of the larger phenomenon pervading all of U.S. agriculture, particularly 
during the past three decades. The result has yielded an agricultural sector 
more productive than any other in history with today's farmer producing enough 
food and fiber for 42.5 persons. It has also contributed to a loss of 1.2 
million farms and a decrease of 2.8 million farm workers in U.S. agriculture 
during the past decade. 

Some would contend that if this is true it must be proper and just, 
because the rules of the economic system will have been followed as they 
ultimately must be followed. They would contend that technological innovation 
means progress, and progress is a most important goal to be achieved. 

But others hesitate and wonder if the blind pursuit of progress through 
the most rapid possible technological advance without a sensitivity to its 
multidimensional consequences is really in the best interest of society. Is 
it really progress after all? 

Changes in the economic-organization and structure of American agri- 
culture have resulted in low returns for both human and physical resources 
and a relatively low level of living for many rural residents. The dwindling 
rural population, both absolutely and relatively, has left those who remain 
with a much reduced base of political power. The absolute population decline 
also has an adverse effect upon the per capita cost of public services, while 
at the same time it erodes the tax base for providing them. Unless new 
opportunities are developed the rural communities supporting agriculture 
stagnate and wither. 

Farm workers who attempt to remain in agriculture compete for fewer and 
fewer jobs. And the jobs which are left on the farms require higher skill 
levels for operating and maintaining the sophisticated mechanical means of 
production on today's farms. Skill level requirements in the future will be 
even higher. 

But for those who leave agriculture and the rural areas the road many 

times Is no less rocky. Many of those who migrate to the city find they do 

not have the training and skills necessary to hold a job in an industrialized 

economy. Thus, they trade rural unemployment for urban unemployment and Vend 

credence to the oft made charge that rural America is the spawning place for 

the unrest and violence in urban America. 

3 



4396 



It would be naive and irresponsible to advocate a moratorium or a 
choking off of the tap of technological advance. It is equally as irrespon- 
sible to ignore the consequences--including the unfavorable ones--of that 
technological advance which our research and development institutions both 
public and private are capable of producing. We are hopefully at an era in 
our history when social and economic justice and equality, freedom, and 
stability have become equally as important as efficiency and progress among 
our societal goals. The problem becomes one of achieving orderly and 
equitable social and human adjustment to the conditions created by technologi- 
cal advance. 

What are the human consequences of technological change in the fruit 
and vegetable industry? What kinds of social adjustments are needed to 
counteract these consequences? What actions and what kinds of institutions 
and programs are necessary to insure that these social adjustments are 
carried out? In their broadest sense, what are the manpower implications of 
fruit and vegetable harvest mechanization? This is the subject to which this 
volume turns its attention. 

Chapter II, "Technology in Perspective," summarizes the detailed re- 
porting of the state of the arts and future prospects in mechanical harvesting 
in the fruit and vegetable industry. The papers in this chapter draw heavily 
from the material presented by nationally recognized agricultural engineers 
and horticulturists and reported in Volume I of this series, FhxjJJ: and 
1/zgeXa.blz HoAvut MzchanizcUxon, TtcknoZog-Lccui Jmptiaationi . The present 
state of the arts in horticultural technology is reported separately for 
vegetable production and fruit production followed by a look toward the 
horticultural prospects for the future. The same format is followed for the 
agricultural engineering aspects, the state of the arts, and the future 
prospects In the latter part of Chapter II. 

Chapter III, "The Economics of It All," details the process of indus- 
trialization in agriculture with special reference to the fruit and vegetable 
industry. It goes on to specify the supply, demand, and input level situation 
in the fruit and vegetable sector. The conditions leading toward substitution 
of capital for labor are discussed, and the international relationships in 
both production and consumption are detailed. This chapter closes with a 
report on research done on a sample of Michigan fruit farms concerning the 
relationship of costs, returns, size, and the input mix. 

Chapter IV, "The Manpower Dimension," describes the manpower related 
problems created In part by advancing technology and mechanization. It also 
discusses the structure and operation of the labor market, the factors 
important in labor mobility, and the changing scene related to labor skills 
in the agricultural work force. 

Chapter V, "Politics, People, and Policy," presents the social and 
political considerations important In any discussion of problems surrounding 

4 



4397 



agricultural manpower. It includes manpower situation viewpoints by a union 
organizer and a food processor. Also included are discussions of the 
conditions under which the migrant worker toils and a more general discussion 
of the changing rural scene with respect to the social structure and institu- 
tions. The political implications are drawn and present and prospective 
manpower policies and programs are discussed. 

Thus this volume attempts to present interesting observations on acute 
problems and some new ideas on how to cope with them. Hopefully it will 
stimulate additional interest, research, and policy development in the 
important, complex, and problem ladened area of rural manpower. 



4398 

LABOR OR CAPITAL - THE ROAD AHEAD 
Velmar W. Davis 

The future technologies in the production of fruits and vegetables 
described by Hall and Carew may seem unattainable. But, when we consider the 
accomplishments in space and medicine, future farm possibilities seem well 
within reach and merely a matter of time, effort, and economics. There is 
the desire of farmers to maximize profits. There is also a profit motive on 
the part of the industries that develop, manufacture, and distribute the 
inputs associated with these technologies. The desires of farm workers will 
also influence the development and adoption of technology to the extent that 
they may choose between working on the farm, for nonfarm industries, or not 
to work at all. I would be remiss if I did not recognize the significant 
contribution of Federal and State research and extension services. 

My purpose is to present the economic implications of future horticultural 
and engineering technology in the production of fruits and vegetables with 
emphasis on mechanization. These implications and relationships for manpower, 
the grower, and the consumer are discussed in a framework of economic principles 
or concepts. Static economic theory provides a simplified view of a complex 
set of relationships. By looking at the real world through the selective lenses 
of theory, we are often able to recognize relationships that are obscured by 
the flow of unsorted details. 

The discussion that follows relies mainly on the concepts of capital -labor 
substitution and supply and demand. Finally, the demand for labor in the 
production of fruits and vegetables is projected for 1975. 

Capital -Labor Substitution 

Under the concept of capital -labor substitution, I will discuss three 
related topics: (1) potential for capital-labor substitution; (2) trends in 
prices and consumption of inputs; and (3) capital-labor substitution in the 
production of fruits and vegetables as viewed by the fanner. 

Potential for Capital-Labor Substitution 

We are primarily concerned with fruits and vegetables, but it is useful 
to examine the capital-labor substitution potential of these two major crop 
categories along with that of other major crops and livestock. By looking 
back for a moment at the characteristics and progress in mechanization of 
other commodities, I believe that we can gain some perspective of what the 
future may hold for fruits and vegetables. 

In examining the potential for capital-labor substitution, it is helpful 
to divide farm production into two broad categories: (1) those crops for which 
there is substitution of machines for machines, and (2) those crops for which 
there is substitution of machines for hand labor. 

113 



4399 



For the first category of products, technology is now available which 
permits nearly all functions to be done by machine. Labor productivity is 
already high. Future labor substitution possibilities and improvements in 
labor productivity will consist of substituting larger machines for smaller 
ones or for substituting chemical or biological forms of inputs for mechanical 
forms. Included here are the grains, hay, soybeans, cotton, and potatoes. 
Peas, snap beans, corn, and tomatoes for processing also come under this 
category. Livestock production is rapidly coming under the same heading. 
Technology in the form of materials-handling equipment and housing is available, 
or is becoming available, to permit substitution of capital for labor. 

The second type of production includes fruits, fresh vegetables, nuts, 
and many specialty crops. At present levels of technology, machine methods 
are substituting for hand methods rather than larger, more efficient machines 
for smaller machines. For some jobs mechanization possibilities are currently 
limited. Further mechanization depends upon development of machines that are 
both technically and economically feasible along with the development of 
varieties and cultural practices better adapted to machine operations. 
Trends in Prices and Consumption of Inputs 

Technology changes the productivity of farm inputs and coupled with changes 
in their prices cause the economic relationships to change. The aggregate 
substitution of capital for labor--machinery for labor— can be illustrated by 
examining the trends in prices and consumption of these two inputs. 

First, let us examine prices of labor and machinery (Fig. 1 and Appendix 
Table 1). The indexes of prices of the two inputs are moving in the same 
direction, but the rate of price increase for labor is about 50% faster than 
that for farm machinery. This price relationship has provided the economic 
environment to substitute machinery as well as other inputs for labor. 

The effect of substitution is clearly shown by the trend in quantities 
of labor, machinery, and other inputs used (Fig. 2 and Appendix Table 2). Since 
1950 labor has declined more than one-half while inputs of power and machinery 
have increased more than one-third. With a declining labor base and roughly 
a constant land base, we have substituted farm machinery, fertilizer, pesticides, 
and many off-farm services to obtain an increasing total farm production. Since 
1950 total production has increased 42% while total inputs have increased only 
11% (Fig, 3 and Appendix Table 3), 

We have looked at some indicators of capital-labor substitution in the 
production of all farm products as a group. However, I am certain that if 
the data were available for fruits and vegetables over this period of time we 
would find that the capital-labor substitution has lagged. This is particularly 
true for fresh vegetables and fruits and nuts. This lag has been caused by a 
number of factors including: (1) the natural characteristics of the crops--a 
number of which are not amenable to mechanization; and (2) the availability of 

114 



I 



4400 




115 



4401 




116 



4402 

















u 








< 




a: 


1 


r^ 


I 


1 




^ 1 1 






1 


1 ~ 


V 






% 1 








t)? 








X 








\ 


- 






X 








X 








\ 








< 








N 






\ 








^ 








/ 






\ 




•o 




UJ 


%^ 






/ 








\ 








ij 

2 
O 






\ 








1 




3 






\ 




M 


1 




" 




z 
o 
u 


z 






I 












o 

GO 










\ 




\ 






.o 


^^ 








\ 




o 1 - 








X 








\ 




o 

1— 


1 
1 ~ 

■ 


o 




to 

UJ 

d 


H- 








l_ 








\ 


0^ 




UJ 

z 








\ 






1 


^D 








_ \ 




1 




>- 




^k 






D ^1 




\ -^ 




< 

2 




H- 






%^ 


V 










5 
3 




S 






3 '^ 
O 


s 


^ 




1 




UJ 

a: 




o 






"o 




> 


t 




< 




S 






o 

1— 




/ 


\ -, 








fi^ 












\ 


i 


f 


»o 


















_\ 


\ 








UJ 












V 


L ! 














% 1 








o: 


^j 














1 1 








3 


^ 














1 f 








—J 

u 


h" 














\ 1 










o 














V ■ 








< 




o 
m 

- 1 


1 


1 


1 




1 


\ 




o 




o 
CO - 

UJ 

0) ^ 




o o o o o 


o i ^ 




*- < 

— ' UJ 

O^ Q 




^ Ul -^t CO CN 


'" o 







117 



4403 



an adequate supply of labor at a price that encouraged the use of substantial 
quantities of hand and stoop labor. Tke. mackim-iabon. coit leMttionihlpi kavz 
not piov-idzd the. -incentive to imckcLnczz many of, thuz cAopi. 

Capital-Labor Substitution as 
Viewed by the Farmer [3] 

It is technically feasible to produce a commodity with a variety of 
combinations of inputs. However, the lowest cost combinations depend upon the 
relative prices of the inputs and the rates at which they can be substituted 
for one another in the production process. The price relationships may vary 
considerably depending on the size and type of farm. For example, labor costs 
and machine costs are quite different per unit of production on a small vege- 
table farm where all labor is furnished by the family versus one which relies 
fully on regular and seasonal hired labor. Larger farm units usually have an 
advantage in more efficient use of inputs and lower costs per unit purchased. 

The substitution of capital for labor is, or should be, an economic 
decision by the farmer. For illustration, let us examine the alternatives 
faced by a potato farmer under different levels of production and capital- 
labor ratios. Here we are using capital as a summary category for all types 
of harvesting equipment. Several techniques exist on a potato farm to harvest 
a specified acreage or volume of potatoes. Each technique is represented by 
a distinct combination of machine capital and labor. For example, potatoes 
may be harvested by: (1) a 2-row harvester with X number of workers; (2) a 
1-row harvester with Y number of workers; and (3) a 2-row digger with potatoes 
picked up by hand and Z number of workers. 

Within the limits of potato acreage and output on a single farm, machine 
capital and labor can be substituted for one another largely in discrete jumps. 
Such inflexibility means that possible resource combinations are not numerous 
enough to form a smooth continuous isoproduct curve but consist of a few points 
as represented by the contour GHI (Figure 4). The existence of such relation- 
ships facilitates farmers' decisions because the number of alternative 
possibilities tends to be limited. 

According to the principle of resource substitution, optimum combination 
for given conditions can only be obtained by equating the marginal rate of 
substitution to the inverse ratio of the input prices. The change in capital 
divided by the change in labor inputs should equal the price of labor inputs 
divided by the price of capital (a C/a L = P|_/P(;) (Figure 4), Thus, maximizing 
net farm returns includes as a basic step the accomplishment of the least cost 
combination of resources. 

The slope of an isoproduct curve at any point represents the marginal 
rate of substitution between the two inputs. Under price ratios indicated by 
lines AD, BE, and CF, minimum costs are indicated by tangency of the isoproduct 
and isocost lines at points I, H-j , I^, and G^. Points at H^ and I^ are equally 
acceptable as minimum cost techniques for the 125 acres of potatoes. 

118 



4404 



INPUTS OF 
MACHINE CAPITAL 




G Gi Go - TWO-ROW HARVESTER AND 
X WORKERS 

H Hi Ho - ONE-ROW HARVESTER AND 
Y WORKERS 

WO-ROW DIG 

BY HAND AND Z WORKERS . 

= ISO-COST LINES 
= ISO-PRODUCT LINES 

I. 

250 ACRES 



E-^ E 
INPUTS OF LABOR 



FIG. 4. —HYPOTHETICAL LINEAR ISO-PRODUCT AND ISO-COST 

CONTOURS ILLUSTRATING MACHINE CAPITAL AND LABOR 
SUBSTITUTION FOR POTATO HARVESTING 



119 



4405 



The choice of the least-cost alternative is directly related to the size 
of enterprise. This is because machines have high overhead cost while labor- 
using techniques do not. Under price ratios indicated by lines AD, BE, and 
CF, the 2-row harvester is the most economical method of harvesting at the 
250 acre level while a 2-row digger with potatoes picked up by hand is the 
least-cost practice for the small farm at 60 acres (Figure 4). 

A nonproportional change in the input prices will change the slope or 
actual cost line and thus change the choice of least-cost technique. If we 
assume that wages increase and that machinery costs do not increase propor- 
tionately, new isocost lines might be indicated by A' D' and B' E'. Such a 
condition would cause a shift in the least-cost position and change the choice 
of techniques. When such a change occurs in the cost of inputs, the optimum 
combination for various levels of output will rotate toward the input that 
has become least expensive and in this case toward capital. The change in 
location is the combined influence of both substitution and scale factors. 

It should be noted that the input-input relationship illustrated applies 
to the initial choice of the production or harvesting technique (Figure 4). 
At this point the farmer is concerned with both fixed and operating costs. 
However, after he has adopted a particular production technique, he is con- 
cerned in the short run only with operating costs, and thus wage rates would 
have to increase considerably to force him to shift to a more capital-intensive 
technique. This has the same effect as rotating the isocost line toward labor 
and accounts for some of the lag in adoption of mechanized practices. It may 
not be economical to make the change until the older model equipment becomes 
obsolete or has been substantially depreciated. 

Supply and Demand 

No one concept is adequate to insure complete understanding of the 
economic relationships involved in farm production. The substitution of 
capital for labor is probably the most commonly used concept when discussing 
new technologies and in particular, mechanization technology. However, the 
concepts of supply and demand as applied to both farm inputs and output can 
also be useful in explaining some of the past and in depicting some of the 
future relationships in the production of fruits and vegetables. 

First, I will discuss some of the relevant propositions concerned with 
the supply and demand of farm inputs with emphasis on labor and machinery. 
Seconct-, I will try to show the implications of higher labor costs and subse- 
quent mechanization on the supply (farmers' cost of production) and the 
demand for fruits and vegetables. 

Supply of Farm Inputs [2] 

The supply of farm inputs such as labor and machinery refers to the 
relationship between the prices of these inputs and the quuvvtUleJi offered 

120 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 24 



4406 



for sale at each kypotheX^cal pnlco.. For most farm inputs the supply-price- 
quantity relationship is usually a direct relationship in which a greater 
quantity of a particular kind of input is called forth at a high price than 
at a low price. The quantity of inputs that will be supplied at various 
increments of price is a function of the elasticity of supply.* If we are 
concerned with an elastic supply curve such as S S (Figure 5), an increase 
in price from OA to OB will bring forth a more than proportionate increase in 

quantity, from OC to OD. In contrast, if the supply of an input is represented 

2 2 
by an inelastic supply curve, S S , then an increase in price will bring forth 

a relatively small increase in quantity. 

A phenomenon which is common to all supply curves is that the longer the 
period which the curve represents the more elastic it will be. A temporary 
rise in wages, for example, may attract few workers; but a rise in wages over 
a number of years may attract considerably larger numbers. This is particularly 
true of jobs which require higher skills and longer training. This concept 
is also important for specialized harvesting machines which require a number 
of years to develop, test, and manufacture. In the short run, the supply 
will be inelastic. However, once the prototype is designed and tested, the 
number that are built are probably subject to decreasing costs and therefore 
possible lower prices per unit. The supply of the same kind of machine should 
then be elastic. 

Another way of looking at the elasticity of supply for labor is in terms 
of the mobility and skill level of labor. The elasticity of supply of farm 
labor depends almost entirely on its mobility. If the work is one which is 
easy to enter and which does not require much skill or unusual ability, then 
its supply will tend to be more elastic. For example, much of the hand and 
stoop labor in agriculture could be described as of this type. This could be 
represented by the supply curve S S (Figure 5). A small rise in wages will 
normally attract large numbers of workers while a small decline will drive 
large numbers of workers away. 

If, on the other hand, the work requires a great deal of skill which is 

not easily acquired or abandoned, then the supply of labor will be inelastic. 

2 2 
Such a supply curve could be represented by S S (Figure 5). The higher wage 

will not tempt many newcomers in. 

Thus, with the development and adoption of new, sophisticated technology 

with the accompanying increased skill requirements and reduced mobility of 



*A11 references to elasticity in this discussion imply the coefficients 
of price elasticity of supply or demand. The coefficient of elasticity is 
defined as the percentage change in the dependent variable divided by the 
percentage change in the independent variable. Thus, the coefficient of price 
elasticity of supply is defined as the percentage change in quantity supplied 
divided by the percentage change in price where quantity supplied is the 

dependent variable, or e = , 9(3 = — . -i-. The definition of coefficient of 
A P/P q aP 

price elasticity of demand is the same as supply except the word "demanded" 

must be substituted for the word "supplied". 

121 



4407 




FIG. 5. —HYPOTHETICAL SUPPLY FOR FARM INPUTS (LABOR AND FARM MACHINERY) 



1. ELASTICITY 

2. TIME PERIOD 

3. SKILL OF LABOR 

4. MOBILITY 

5. MACHINE TECHNOLOGY 



sisi 


S2s2 


ELASTIC 


INELASTIC 


LONG-RUN 


SHORT-RUN 


UNSKILLED 


SKILLED 


MOBILE 


IMMOBILE 


SIMPLE, LOW 


SOPHISTICATED, 


COST TOOLS 


REQUIRES SHIFT 


AND HARVEST 


IN ENTIRE 


AIDS 


SYSTEM 



122 



4408 



farm workers, we are probably facing an inelastic supply schedule for both 
labor and machinery. Over time, this suggests a more stable farm work force 
and a slowing down in the rate of decline in number of farm workers. It 
also suggests an increasing cost for both technology and the remaining labor. 

Demand for Farm Inputs [2] 

In considering the causes affecting the dzmand for any production input, 
we need to recognize that it is a derived demand. For example, a farmer buys 
a machine or hires labor to produce tomatoes because there is a demand for the 
product. There are at least four important propositions concerned with the 
demand for farm inputs, and in discussing these propositions we will be 
primarily concerned with labor and machinery in the production of vegetables. 

First Proposition . --Using labor as an example, the first proposition 
follows from the fact that the demand for labor is derived. It is that an 
ZKp^ctzd fuJie. in ihz demand (Jo^ a product mZt cmue a tvUt In demand ^on. the. 
typz o{j taboi Mkich pA.odu.cej, the pfiodacX. If it is expected, for instance, 
that at each price of a vegetable more will be demanded than before, then at 
each wage level of farm workers, more hours of work can be sold or needed than 

before. This proposition represents a shift in the demand and is illustrated 

11 2 2 
by the shift from D D to D D (Figure 6). Unless the supply of the vegetable 

is perfectly inelastic, its production will also increase. An increased 

production of the vegetable will necessitate an increase in employment of 

workers even at the old rates. The demand for farm work will have increased 

as illustrated by an increase from OE to OF at wage OA (Figure 6). 

Uncertainty of Future Demand . --It should be observed that it is the 
expected demand for vegetables, for example, that helps to determine the demand 
for inputs producing them. When labor is employed and machinery is purchased, 
the product which justifies the employment is not yet produced. The farmer 
may be right or wrong, but it is his opinion and not the accuracy of that 
opinion that determines the demand for farm workers and machinery in the 
production of vegetables. 

Second Propositi on . --The next three propositions concern the elasticity 
of demand for farm labor. The second proposition is as follows: The ta/igeA 
the paJit playe.d by any inpuX -in the. pfiodacJu.on oi a commodity, thz mote eZaitic 
■ii the demand {^oK iZ tikeJiy to be. This proposition is particularly important 
in the production of fruits and vegetables where labor normally represents a 
significant part of the cost of production. An increase in the price of labor 
will cause a significant change in the cost or output of the final production 
and, therefore, a significant reduction in the quantity of labor hired. With 
an elastic demand such as D D , an increase in price from OA to OB reduces 
labor demand from OE to OC (Figure 6). However, as fruits and vegetables be- 
come more mechanized and labor represents a smaller proportion of total costs, 
the demand for labor will become more inelastic. 

123 



4409 




FIG. 6.— HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND FOR FARM INPUTS (LABOR AND FARM MACHINERY) 



dIdI 



d3d3 



1. ELASTICITY 

2. EFFECT OF PRICE CHANGE ON QUANTITY 

3. DEGREE OF MECHANIZATION 

4. SKILL LEVEL OF WORKERS 



ELASTIC 


INELASTIC 


LARGE 


SMALL 


LOW 


HIGH 


LOW 


HIGH 



124 



» 



4410 



Third Proposition . — The. moiz Inelxutlc tkz demand {^on. a pn.odac^, thz 
mone. indicLbtic 4J> tikeJiy to be thz dejmand {,01 tht type o{i lahoi that qou to 
make, the pKoduct. For example, if the demand for a vegetable is inelastic, 
the decrease in quantity demanded caused by the increase in wages will have 

little effect on the output and on the amount of employment. This can be 

3 3 
illustrated by demand curve D D where an increase in wages from OA to OB 

reduces the demand for labor relatively little, from OE to OD (Figure 6). 

Fourth Proposition . — The mon.e. evpzmvje. the iubititatej, ($oa. an input, 

the mofie tikeJiy U: -ii, to have an ineloitic demand. A raising of the wage 

will result in a relatively small decrease in employment, for the high priced 

labor will be facing high priced machines and fewer are likely to be replaced. 

3 3 
In this case the demand for labor is inelastic as shown by D D (Figure 6). 

In the near term, demand for labor will probably be more elastic in 

vegetable production than for fruit production because of the greater potential 

with vegetables for substituting machines for labor. As we approach complete 

mechanization of a crop or the industry, or where mechanization is not feasible, 

demand for both labor and machinery will become more inelastic. Changes in 

price will have relatively little effect on demand because the degree of 

substitutability will have declined. 

Supply and Demand for Farm Products [1] 

The demand for most farm products is inelastic as illustrated by the 
demand function D D (Figure 7). This means that as the total supply or 
quantity of a farm product increases, prices will decline and total consumer 
expenditures and farmers' income will also decline. The demand function shows 
the quantities of farm products that will be purchased at alternative prices. 
The aggregate demand for farm products, in the near term, remains relatively 
constant even though quantities and prices may change. In the long run, the 
demand schedule will shift to the left or right depending on changes in 
population, income, tastes, and preferences. With population the major factor, 
the demand schedule for most farm products will shift to the right. Products 
will be affected differently by changes in income, tastes, and preferences. 

To illustrate the effect of increased mechanization on production, let 
us assume that demand is given. We also assume that adoption of mechanization 
and other labor reducing technologies is stimulated by the necessary cost of 
labor and farmers' desire to minimize costs. For the individual farmer, 
demand is usually independent of his cost of production. However, supply is 
directly related to producer costs, perhaps with some lags. The industry will 

be willing to produce smaller quantities at low prices and larger amounts at 

11 ? ? 3 3 
higher prices as shown by lines S S-, S S , and S S (Figure 7). 

The intersection of the supply and demand functions is the equilibrium 

point. For example, at equilibrium point G, producers are willing to furnish 

quantity B at price A and at this price consumers will clear the market. A 

125 



4411 




FIG. 7.— HYPOTHETICAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR FARM PRODUCTS 
STAGES OF MECHANIZATION 

I. BEFORE INCREASE IN WAGES. 

II. ADOPTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY— MECHANIZATION WITH REDUCED 
LABOR INPUTS, HIGHER COST PER UNIT OF LABOR. TOTAL 
LABOR COSTS MAY BE LOWER BUT NOT NECESSARILY. 

LABOR REDUCING TECHNOLOGY NOT AVAILABLE; TOTAL AND UNIT 
LABOR COSTS INCREASED. 

III. FINAL STAGE OF MECHANIZATION AFTER INDUSTRY ADJUSTMENT 
TO WAVE EFFECT OF NEW MECHANIZED TECHNOLOGY— INCREASED 
SPECIALIZATION OF PRODUCTION, FEWER PRODUCERS, LARGER 
PRODUCTION PER PRODUCER, CHANGE IN ENTIRE SYSTEM OF 
PRODUCTION DUE TO ADOPTION OF OTHER LABOR REDUCING AND 
OUTPUT INCREASING TECHNOLOGIES— IRRIGATION, PESTICIDES, 
ADAPTED VARIETIES, ETC. 



126 



4412 



higher price would call forth a greater supply but induce consumers to purchase 
less. The surplus would tend to drive the price down to equilibrium point G. 
A lower price would make consumers wish to purchase more while producers 
furnished less. Competition for the available produce would tend to drive 
the price back up to equilibrium point G. 

As the price of labor rises each farmer's cost function per unit of 

output will rise and the industry supply function will shift upward and to 

2 2 
the left. The new supply function is shown as S S (Figure 7). Costs will 

rise even though farmers shift to a new method of production by substituting 
machinery for labor. If this were not so, they might have shifted to the new 
method before the increase in wages. This supply function could represent 
the second stage of mechanization--the adoption of a capital-intensive 
technology. It also may represent the relatively fixed equilibrium situation 
for crops such as fresh peaches or strawberries that cannot be mechanized in 
the near future. However, higher labor costs will stimulate the search for 
new labor-reducing technology. With an inelastic demand, the new equilibrium 
point H will represent a higher price, smaller quantity sold, and larger gross 
incomes to farmers. Consumers will be less well off. There will be fewer 
farm jobs and for those commodities that can be effectively mechanized, the 
total wages will likely be less. For those crops that cannot be mechanized, 
the number of jobs will decline slightly because of reduced production, but 
total wages will increase. If producers do not have alternative labor-saving 
methods of production available, labor may push for higher wages without 
sacrificing a great number of jobs. 

The effect of continuing increases in farm labor costs will vary con- 
siderably by commodities depending on the potential for complete or partial 
mechanization. From past experience we can expect the adoption of other 
labor-reducing and output-increasing technologies. In the early stages of 
change, producers frequently adopt technologies that are not economical. 
However, over time these producers increase the size of their production units, 
engage in cost sharing arrangements or custom work to the extent that the new 
technology is economical. Within a few years after the adoption of a new 

technology, unit costs are lowered and the cost function may drop to or below 

3 3 
the original level. This is illustrated by Stage III, S S (Figure 7). The 

mechanization of processing tomatoes is an example where the time span for the 

various stages of mechanization has been unusually short. The current supply 

3 3 
function for producers of processing tomatoes could be represented by S S . 

2 2 
For producers of fresh tomatoes. Stage II, S S is more appropriate. The 

time span to complete the adjustment and the level of the supply function 

after the adjustment will vary considerably by commodities. 

In the preceding discussion we have assumed that the demand was constant. 

But for the industry over time, as pointed out earlier, the demand function 

will change. The major factors that influence demand are changes in population, 

127 



4413 



income, tastes, and preference. In the near future the major change will 
result from population increases. The population of the United States is 
projected to reach 219 million in 1975. This implies an average annual growth 
rate of ^.3%. The effect of changes in real income on per capita consumption 
of food is relatively small. For every 1% increase in money income, per capita 
purchases of food for use at home increases at only 1/3 this rate. 

If we follow mechanization through to some new adjustment or equilibrium 
point, we cannot assume that demand will remain constant. Rather, we can more 

realistically assume that the demand schedule for farm products will shift to 

2 2 
the right as shown by D D (Figure 7). 

At any one time, we will likely find specific farm products at each of 

2 2 

the equilibrium points shown along D D . For example, by 1975 point K might 

represent fresh tomatoes and peaches since it is probable that mechanization 
of these commodities for the fresh market will be relatively slow. Cling 
peaches, wine grapes, lettuce, and cabbage, for example, could be depicted by 
point J where mechanization will be well underway and the industries are 
adjusting toward lower supply costs. Potatoes, peas, snap beans, and processing 
tomatoes are probably at point I today and could be expected to shift to 
point L by 1975. Thus, the 1975 supply and demand equilibrium point for total 
fruits and vegetables may be more nearly represented by point J. This suggests 
that total production, unit prices, and total farm income from fruits and 
vegetables will increase. The effect on workers will be a reduced total number 
of farm jobs but an increased number of higher skilled and higher paid jobs. 
The status of the remaining workers should be substantially improved through 
better working conditions, continuous employment, and health and unemployment 
benefits. Unfortunately, those workers who are displaced will tend to be the 
poorer quality, unskilled who are least able to make the adjustment to alterna- 
tive employment. Over a longer period our experience suggests that the 
dynamics of mechanization and associated changes in varieties and cultural 
practices will increase output and lower costs as illustrated by equilibrium 
point L at the intersection of D D and S S (Figure 7). 

Unfortunately for labor, alternative labor-reducing technologies are 
being developed rapidly. Some have already been developed and will become 
economical as the cost of labor increases. While rising wage rates will not 
cause large production cutbacks, they will result in large cuts in the amount 
of labor required. Labor's power to raise wages without losing jobs will 
return only after mechanization is complete and the industry has adjusted as 
shown by S^S^ (Figure 7). At that time, the few unskilled and semiskilled 
workers will find union help in raising wages and improving working conditions 
beneficial to their cause. For example, unionization of semiskilled workers 
hired to sort tomatoes mechanically harvested for processing would probably 
be a net gain to the workers. However, if we assume that this crop is not 
approaching the final stage of mechanization, then additional improvements in 

128 



ft 



4414 



the machine, with increased investment, could further reduce the number of 
jobs. The present practice of sorting tomatoes on the machine might shift to 
central sorting sheds. The number of jobs would decline but the wages and 
working conditions of the new jobs at the central station would be improved. 

Demand for Labor in the Production of Fruits and Vegetables, 1975 

Once we move from the static economic to the real world concepts of the 
supply and demand for fruits and vegetables, we are faced with the need to 
quantify our inputs and outputs. Our major concern at this colloquium is the 
effect of continued mechanization of the production of fruits and vegetables 
on manpower. And, here we are particularly concerned about the demand for 
labor. 

The demand for farm labor in 1975 in the production of fruits and 
vegetables is primarily a function of the demand for and supply of the products 
as modified by changing technology. As indicated earlier, the industry supply 
schedule is essentially a summation of producers' cost of production. Thus, 
the degree of mechanization and the associated labor requirements are key factors 
in the production and supply of fruits and vegetables. 

To show the effect of increased mechanization on labor requirements for 
fruit and vegetables for 1975, the extent of harvest mechanization for 1968 
and 1975 were estimated. These estimates were used to update labor coefficients 
for individual crops for 1964-68 and to project labor coefficients for 1975. 
A 5-year average of current production was used to avoid the problem of abnormal 
production by an individual crop in any specific year. Then, the production 
of individual fruit and vegetable commodities was estimated for 1975 through 
a series of projection approximations. Lastly, using man-hours per acre and 
production for individual fruits and nuts, total man-hours were determined for 
1964-68 and 1975. 

First, we will examine the extent of harvest mechanization in the produc- 
tion of fruits and vegetables. Then, we will evaluate the effect of projected 
production and increased productivity on the total labor requirements for each 
of the two major categories of fruits and vegetables. And lastly, we will show 
the effect of increased productivity through mechanization and the changes in 
production on labor requirements for the total fruit and vegetable industries. 

Extent of Mechanization 

The mechanization of fruits and nuts is currently at a relatively low 
level compared with vegetables, and the outlook for 1975 is not nearly as 
optimistic as that for vegetables. When we look at the total U.S. production 
of fruits and nuts, we find only 2% harvested mechanically in 1968, and we 
expect it to increase to only 17% by 1975 (Figure 8 and Appendix Table 4). For 
example, in 1968 the harvest of only one crop--tart cherries--was as high as 
50% mechanized. No other major fruit or nut showed more than S% of the crop 
mechanically harvested. Most of the gain in mechanization by 1975 will come 

129 



4415 



80 



70 



60 



50 



40 



30 



20 



10 



- n 



PROCESSING 



59% 



35% 

17 



17% 



i=L 



LESS 

PC lATo: ;s 



z 



'68 '75 
FRUITS 



75% 



56% / 

17 



VE( ETAB LES 



^ 



'68 '75 '68 '75 
VEGETABLES 



Fig. 8 . —PERCENTAGE OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES MACHINE HARVESTED, 1968 AND 1975 



130 



I 



4416 



from substantial improvement in the mechanization of wine grapes, cling peaches, 
and both tart and sweet cherries. 

In contrast, mechanization has proceeded more rapidly in the production 
of vegetables. Mechanization of the total U.S. vegetable harvest is currently 
56% complete with the expectation that it will increase to 75% by 1975 (Figure 8 
and Appendix Table 5). The processing portions of most of the major vegetables 
are already approaching complete mechanization of the harvest. We expect only 
the harvest of fresh tomatoes and a category of all other vegetables to be 
less than 50% mechanized in 1975. Some of the vegetables such as potatoes, 
carrots, snap beans, and peas are approaching that stage of mechanization where 
improvements in labor productivity can be obtained only through more efficient 
and possibly larger machines. 

Fruits and Nuts 

As we view the prospects of mechanization of fruits and nuts along with 
a substantial increase in production, we realize that we are facing a situation 
where total labor requirements for these crops will decline relatively little. 
By 1975, total acreage of fruits and nuts is expected to increase 19% while 
total production will increase even more, to the extent of 27% (Figure 9 and 
Appendix Table 6). 

Even though the outlook for mechanization of fruits and nuts is not as 
optimistic as that for vegetables, we do find a projected decline in the harvest 
labor per acre of 23% (Figure 10 and Appendix Table 7). Preharvest labor 
productivity is not expected to improve as much as harvest technology; and, 
thus, the total labor used per acre of fruits and nuts is expected to decline 
only 19%. 

What will the substantial increases in production of fruits and nuts and 
only moderate improvement in productivity mean in terms of total man-hours? 
Total man-hours for harvest are projected to decline only 8%, from 249 million 
hours to 229 million hours (Figure 11 and Appendix Table 8^. Total man-hours 
for all production of fruits and nuts are expected to decline only 3% from 
418 million hours to 404 million hours. 

When the projections for individual fruit and nut crops are examined, it 
is clear that the citrus crops will be facing supply and demand problems in 
the near future. Production of oranges is projected to increase 41%, but only 
a moderate improvement is expected in labor efficiency. Thus, labor require- 
ments are expected to increase 24% (Appendix Tables 6, 7, and 8). Total labor 
requirements are expected to increase substantially for all other citrus crops 
with moderate increases for apples and pears. We find major reductions in 
labor requirements only for cherries and grapes, but small reductions are 
projected for strawberries and pecans. 

Vegetables 

We projected an aggregate increase of 80 million cwt. of vegetables 

tSl 



4417 




'64- '68 



•64- '68 



ACREAGE 



PRODUCTION 



FIG. 9.— ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION OF FRUITS AND NUTS, UNITED STATES 
1964-68 AND 1975 



132 



441,8 



40 



\ - 19% 
\ 

\ 

\ 



102 



^ < 



<r ^ ^ 

LI 11 



75 



S 



237. 



58 



^ < 



< < 



LI a 



•64- '68 



'75 



TOTAL 



'64-'68 



'75 



FIG. 10.— MAN-HOURS PER ACRE TO PRODUCE FRUITS AND NUTS, 
UNITED STATES, 1964-68 AND 1975 



133 



4419 



MIL 
HOURS 






— 


418 


400 


— 




350 


— 




300 


— 




250 


— 




200 







^ 


J 


<r 



- 3Z 



'64- '68 



^ ^ 



'75 



249 



229 



^. <* 



<( ^ 



( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( f 



'64-'68 '75 

HARVEST 



FIG. 11.— TOTAL MAN-HOURS TO PRODUCE FRUITS AND NUTS, 
UNITED STATES, 1964-68 AND 1975 



134 



I 



4420 



including potatoes from 1964-68 to 1975 (Figure 12 and Appendix Table 9). When 
we apply our projected technology to projected production of vegetables for 
1975, we find a substantial improvement in the productivity of labor. By 1975 
the average man-hours per acre for harvesting vegetables will drop almost half 
from 38 to 21 hours (Figure 13 and Appendix Table 10). The increase in the 
productivity of the preharvest labor is not as great; and, thus, the average 
total hours per acre for the production of vegetables will decline about one- 
third from 62 to 42 hours. 

With an expected 11% increase in the production of vegetables from 
1964-68 to 1975, man-hours for harvest will decline 40% from 163 million hours 
to 98 million hours (Figure 14 and Appendix Table 11). Substantial decreases 
in labor used for the harvest are projected for potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, 
cucumbers, onions, and snap beans. Total labor will decline from 265 million 
hours to 194 million hours or about 21%, These are substantial decreases in 
the labor used in the production of vegetables and will affect, primarily, the 
migrant and unskilled categories of farm labor. 

Effect on Total Fruits and Vegetables 

As we examine the aggregate effect of mechanization on the future demand 
for labor in the fruit and vegetable industries, we note unequal changes in 
productivity as well as production. Thus, we will find surplus labor in some 
areas for some crops and at the same time shortages for others. For example, 
by individual crops we are projecting a decline of 67% in total labor require- 
ments for the production of snap beans but an increase of 24% in labor 
requirements for oranges (Appendix Tables 8 and 11). Overall, for both fruits 
and vegetables we are expecting only a moderate decline in total labor require- 
ments of 85 million hours or a decline of about 12% (Figure 15). 
Summary and Conclusions 

As we look to the future, the farmer, or more appropriately the farm 
business manager, will be challenged to keep pace with technology. To expand 
or even to stay in business he must have the courage to change. With new 
technology the organization of farming will change, worker opportunities will 
change, and products will change. 

Within a framework of static economic concepts I have drawn some inferences 
concerning the implications of future technology in the production of fruits 
and vegetables. Mainly, I have been concerned about the effect of rising costs 
of farm labor and resulting mechanization. 

The rather simplified examination of the capital-labor substitution con- 
cept suggests that: (1) throughout agriculture in recent decades the substitu- 
tion of machinery, chemicals, and other farm inputs for labor and land has 
been a dominant force in substantially increasing total production with a 
relatively small increase in total inputs; (2) when we consider the potential 
for future harvest mechanization, we find that fruits and nuts and fresh 

135 



4421 



MIL. 
ACRES 



MIL. 
CWT. 



+ 9% ^■ 



4.6 



4.2 



793 



+ 117. 



713 




800 



400 



200 



'64- '68 



'64- "68 



ACREAGE 



PRODUCTION 



.FIG. 12. —ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION OF VEGETABLES, UNITED STATES, 
1964-68 AND 1975 



136 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 25 



4422 



62 



60 



50 



40 



30 



20 



^ - 327. 

\ 



42 



/ / 



^ ^ /: 

,aj LI 



38 



45% 



21 



/ I 



a LI 



'64- '68 '75 

TOTAL 



•64- "68 '75 

HARVEST 



FIG. 13. —MAN-HOURS PER ACRE JO PRODUCE VEGETABLES, 
UNITED STATES, 1964-68 AND 1975 



137 



4423 



MIL. 
HOURS 

300 »_ 



250 



200 



150 



100 



265 



< ^ 



\ 



221 



\ 



\194 



oLli LI 



163 



V 



\ - 40% 
\ 



n 

LI U. 



•64- '68 '75 

TOTAL 



•64- '68 '75 

HARVEST 



FIG. 14. —TOTAL MAN-HOURS TO PRODUCE VEGETABLES, UNITED STATES, 
1964-68 AND 1975 



138 



4424 



MILLION 
HOURS 



D 



VEGETABLES 



750 



FRUIT 



600 



450 



300 



150 



683 




^ 



\ - 12% 



V 598 



All 



K _ 2l''' 



327 



Id 



'6A-'68 



'75 



•6A-'68 



'75 



FIG. 15. — TOTAL MAN-HOURS TO PRODUCE FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, 
UNITED STATES, 1964-68 AND 1975 



139 



4425 



vegetables will benefit from technology in which machines are substituted for 
hand labor. In contrast, future improvements in labor productivity in the 
harvesting of processing vegetables will come mainly from substituting larger 
for smaller machines and biological or chemical means for mechanical forms of 
capital; and (3) either an increase in the size of enterprise or a nonpropor- 
tional change in the price of inputs, such as higher wage rates, will cause 
farmers to examine their mix of inputs. Once they adopt a particular mechanized 
technology, they are concerned in the short run only with operating costs; and 
labor costs must increase considerably to force them to shift to a more capital- 
intensive technique. This accounts for some of the lag in the adoption of new 
mechanized practices. 

We also looked at the implications of technology on the production of 
fruits and vegetables through the lens of supply and demand. In the future, 
we should be facing a more inelastic supply schedule for both labor and 
machinery. The more completely crops are mechanized, with the accompanying 
higher skill requirements and reduced mobility of farm workers, the more in- 
elastic the labor supply schedule should become. This means that wage rates 
can increase in the future with relatively smaller increases in workers 
available. 

Demand for an input is affected by demand for the final product, the 
proportion which a particular input represents of total inputs, and the degree 
of substitutability for other inputs. In the near term, demand for labor and 
machinery will be more elastic in vegetable production than for fruit production 
because of the greater potential, for substituting machinery for labor. In the 
longer run, as we approach complete mechanization of a crop or an industry, 
demand for both labor and machinery will become more inelastic. Then, changes 
in prices of inputs will have relatively little effect on demand because the 
degree of substitutability will have declined. 

As we look at the supply and demand relationship in the production of 
fruits and vegetables, we find the growing population is the major factor that 
will increase demand. The immediate effect of rising labor costs and the 
adoption of new machine technology is to increase farmers' cost per unit of 
output and shift the industry supply function upward and to the left. The 
situation represents the interim stage for a mechanized crop or the equilibrium 
situation for a crop which cannot be greatlymechanized. With an inelastic 
demand for the comnodity, the new equilibrium point of supply and demand will 
result in a higher price and smaller quantity of the product sold and larger 
gross income to the farmer. Consumers will be less well off. Farm jobs will 
be fewer, and for those jobs that can be mechanized total wages will be less. 
For those jobs that cannot be mechanized the number of jobs will decline 
slightly because of reduced production, but total wages will increase. In the 
final stage of mechanization producers' cost function and the industry supply 
curve may shift to the right or below the original level. 

140 



4426 



The supply and demand situation for fruits and vegetables through 1975 
suggests that production, total farm income, and unit prices will increase. 
Total number of jobs will decrease but the number of higher skilled and higher 
paid jobs will increase. Unfortunately, those workers who are displaced will 
tend to be the unskilled who are least able to make the adjustment. The power 
of labor to raise wages without losing jobs will return only after the potential 
mechanization is completed. 

Future labor inputs for 1975 differ considerably between vegetables and 
fruits. The differences are caused primarily by larger expected increases in 
production and lower potential, at least in the near future, for mechanization 
of fruits than for vegetables. The production of fruits and nuts is expected 
to increase 27% from 1968 to 1975. During the same period, the extent of 
harvest mechanization is expected to increase from 2% to 17%. As a result, 
total man-hours are expected to decrease only 3%. In contrast, vegetables are 
already more completely mechanized and harvest mechanization is expected to 
increase further from 56% in 1968 to 75% by 1975. With an 11% increase in 
production by 1975 total man-hours are expected to decline 27%. The total 
effect of projected mechanization and changes in production of fruits and vege- 
tables is only a moderate decline in total man-hours of 85 million hours or 
12% by 1975, 



REFERENCES CITED 

[1] Boulding, Kenneth E. 3rd ed. Economic Analyili. New York: Harpers 
and Brothers, 1955. 

[2] Padfield, Harland; and Martin, William E. Fa/une/tA, UoikeAJ, and Mackine^-- 
TtchnotoglcaZ and SociaJL CifumgeM aji FoAm Inda^tfUu oi AfUzona. Tucson: 
The University of Arizona Press, 1965. 

[3] U.S. Department of Agriculture. KgKlojJUjuJuxl CkwU, 196S. A. H. No. 359. 
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, November, 1968. 

[4] . Ag^cuttuAjxl Si£uti&t<.c& , 1966. Washington, D.C.: Government 
Printing Office. 



141 



4427 

THE RURAL MANPOWER SCENE 
D. W. Sturt 
Introduction 

The rapid growth of the U.S. economy, the increasing disparities between 
the income level of living of the majority and that of the disadvantaged, and 
the rising public concern for the disadvantaged bring more clearly into focus 
the problems of rural poverty and rural manpower in general, and more specifi- 
cally, the problems of farm labor. Although rural poverty has not shared in 
the limelight afforded riot prone urban poverty areas, the emerging awareness 
of the significant relationship between rural poverty and rural manpower 
problems and urban social and economic ills is causing some rethinking as to 
the necessity for tackling the causes of poverty as manifested in rural areas 
rather than the symptoms of poverty as manifested after rural people migrate 
to and congregate in urban ghetto complexes. 

At the outset a comment is in order relative to the U.S. agricultural 
policy as developed and implemented by the agricultural establishment over 
the past century and centered around the USDA and its land grant affiliates. 
Programs and policies have been predicated upon the family farm myth with 
production efficiency and cheap food being its prime objective. The success 
of agricultural technology in providing better and cheaper food and fiber is 
difficult to challenge in and of itself. Agriculture has been a major innovator 
in economic growth and a major creator of the social pathology associated with 
that growth. Much of the human factor in rural areas, the masses of people 
released from agriculture, and the plight of many in agriculture who did not 
fit the family farm prototype and were unpropertied have been ignored. Indeed, 
programs and policies with a product rather than people orientation have 
served to generate rural poverty at levels higher than those in urban areas. 

Further, nonagricultural establishment agencies and organizations have, 
out of deference to the agricultural establishment, avoided entering the 
service fray on grounds of preemption. Farm labor and rural manpower in 
general are the categories that have suffered. Unpropertied and unorganized, 
their political voice and their ability to attract services has been minimal. 

Fortunately, there are signs of change. The nonagricultural agencies 
and organizations are moving in to fill Ihe void. One such move is the recent 
establishment of a rural manpower service within the U.S. Department of Labor 
The conscience of the agricultural establishment has been disturbed to the 
extent that somewhat more concern for rural people is in evidence, including 
the farm worker, the low income farmer, and the minority group farmer. The 
real pressure for these changes have come from society at large--in step with 
the poverty syndrome--that questions the validity of macro decisions made on 
the basis of micro analysis, that questions policy decisions with large-sea In- 
human consequences that are made in ignorance of those consequences. 

179 



b 



4428 



Certain basic underlying assumptions have been made relative to farm 
labor in the U.S. in the preparation of this paper. They include the following: 

1. The human factor in agricultural production and marketing 

is critical to the future growth and development of the agri- 
cultural industry. 

2. Agriculture has lost much of its distinctiveness relative to 
nonagriculture, both economically, socially, and politically. 

3. The hired farm labor component is a separate factor of produc- 
tion, responsive to a different set of forces, and should be 
viewed apart from operator and family farm labor. 

The Structure of the Farm Labor Force 

The size and structure of the farm labor force is complicated, among 
other things, by the differences between numbers of workers and man-hours of 
input, the quality differentiation among workers, and the wide seasonal 
variation in employment. 

In addition, there are statistical disparities apparent in the various 
farm labor data series; i.e., the data from the Statistical Reporting Service 
of the USDA, the Farm Labor Service of the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. 
Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Economic Research Service of 
the USDA. In the interest of consistency, I have elected to use the data 
supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service and the Economic Research Service 
of the USDA coupled with selected data from the U.S. Department of Labor. 

The farm labor force is composed of farm operators and their families 
and hired farm workers, both year-round and seasonal. The average monthly 
employment on U.S. farms in 1968 was 4,749,000 of which 3,550,000 were operator 
and family workers and 1,199,000 were hired workers [6]. Based on the monthly 
averages for 1968, hired labor made up 25% of the total workers on farms. The 
decline in total farm employment from 1965 to 1968 was 15%, the decline in 
operator and family workers being 14%, and the decline in hired workers being 
19%. The decline in labor input on U.S. farms has been continuous as capital 
substitution for labor and further mechanization has stepped up the output 
per worker. According to USDA preliminary estimates, the farm output index 
(1957-59=100) indicates that per man-hour output increased from 169 in 1967 
to 176 in 1968, furthering a continuous trend in this direction. 

While the total labor inputs in farming have been declining, the relative 
importance of the hired component has remained relatively unchanged. Approxi- 
mately one-fourth of the labor employed on farms is hired. The decline in the 
relative importance of the seasonal hired component has been offset by an 
increase in the relative importance of the year-round hired component, maintain- 
ing the position of all hired workers in total farm employment. For example, 
comparing yearly averages from 1963-65 with 1966-68, the data indicates that 
the average number of farm workers who worked 250 days or more declined only 

180 



I 



4429 



1%. The number of workers working 75 to 249 days declined 19% and those 
working less than 75 days declined 13% [5]. 

Monthly averages tend to be misleading in discussing farm labor numbers. 
Actually, about 2.9 million different people did some work on farms as hired 
workers in 1968 (Table 1). Of these 1.3 million or 44% were casual workers 
working less than 25 days in farm wage work, and 1.0 million or 36% worked from 
25 to 150 days in farm wage work with only 0.6 million or 20% engaged in farm 
wage work for 150 days or more. The number of year-round hired workers, those 
working more than 250 days per year in farm wage work, was 324,000 in 1968. 

The large numbers of casual and seasonal workers in agriculture is, of 
course, associated with the biological nature of agriculture and the seasonality 
in its labor requirements. In addition to the highly seasonal demand for farm 
workers there are supply considerations as well that contribute to the large 
numbers of short-time workers. The poor image of farm work, the low skill 
requirements, and the comparatively low wages are conducive to high labor turn- 
over for some. For others, farm work is a temporary activity and not their 
major source of income. In 1968, only 27% of the hired farm work force listed 
farm work as their chief activity. Some 59% of the work force, composed mostly 
of housewives and students, were not in the work force most of the year. 

Farm work is a young white man's game and increasingly involves those 
with nonfarm residences [5]. The median age of farm workers in 1968 was 24 
years. Three-fourths of these workers were white and male, with 32% of the 
workers between 14 and 17 years old, mostly male, and mostly living in nonfarm 
residences. A comparison of residence among hired farm workers shows 65% of 
farm workers in 1948-49 living on farms and only 27% of farm workers in 1967-68 
living on farms. 

Apart from the numbers of workers, man-hour requirements are worthy of 
some consideration. The number of hours worked has little relationship to the 
number of workers due to the variation in length of employment. Also, the 
man-hours needed and the man-hours involved are quite different. The under- 
employment of workers, in part due to the necessity of holding workers to 
assure availability when they are needed, tends to distort the actual manpower 
requireijients as calculated on a per farm unit basis. As such, the demand for 
labor calculated to fit actual hours of work needed understates the man-hours 
actually necessary. Again, this is associated with the nature of farm work 
and, in part, associated with farm labor supply considerations. 

Seasonal Workers 

Seasonal farm workers consist of unpaid family workers who enter the 
work force when they are needed as well as hired farm workers. Hired seasonal 
workers consist of migratory workers and nonmigratory workers, and the distinc- 
tion between these two categories is not always as clear cut as it may at first 
appear. Generally, workers that do not work in the same areas where they 

181 



4430 



usually reside are considered migrants. The degree of migrancy varies from 
the worker who moves into another county temporarily to harvest a particular 
crop to the worker who moves from state to state engaging in a variety of 
farm jobs and working in a variety of crops. Many migrant farm labor oriented 
groups have become frustrated in the semantics hasseling often associated with 
the determination of migrancy. Although some migrant workers are year-round 
hired farm workers, most of them work for less than 150 days per year in farm 
work and, as such, are classified as seasonal workers. 

The numbers of migrant workers are declining. For many years some 
400,000 migrant workers were included in the farm work force. In 1966. the 
USDA reported 351,000 migrant workers, and in 1968 they reported 279,000 migrant 
workers or 10% of the farm wage workers; and no doubt tl^e numbers are less 
than that at the present time (Table 1). 

Three migrant streams have been identified in studies of farm migrants, 
although there is considerable movement outside the traditional pattern as 
workers search for jobs. The east coast stream starts in Florida and flows 
up the coast line to New England (Figure 1). The west coast stream emanates 
in California and flows northward to Washington and Idaho. The midwest stream 
begins in Texas and fans out over the midwest with Michigan being the major 
receiving state. The most heavily traveled route would appear to be Texas 
through Arkansas, Missouri, and Illinois and into Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. 
There is a seemingly infinite variety in movement as the smaller streams shift 
from year to year. While half the migrants travel less than 75 miles from 
home, 20% travel a thousand miles or more [4]. 

Migrant workers are predominantly male and young, mostly 24 years old or 
less with an 8.5 median years of schooling [4]. The migrant streams consist 
of blacks, whites, and a heavy contingent of Spanish Americans. 

The education, health, housing, welfare, and other problems associated 
with farm migrants is well known. Most of these problems stem from the fact 
that our society, in spite of its mobility prone characteristic, is not geared 
to accommodate people on the move in the migrant worker "sense". Although 
migrancy in and of itself is not the only problem--other problems being those 
associated with disadvantaged minorities--it is the chief problem. The 
proliferation of programs designed to help migrant workers and their families 
are a well-meaning social response to help migrant farm workers and their 
families. The effectiveness of these programs appears to be limited, due 
largely to the recurring movement of these people. Solutions should be much 
more easily accomplished when migrant workers have established geographical 
community roots and become socially integrated into the ongoing pattern of 
American community life. 

Wages and Days Worked 

In general, hired farm workers worked 79 days in 1968 and earned $10.55 
per day or $834 (Table 1). The 1.6 million noncasual workers worked an average 

182 



4431 





^^^^^^ ft bQ 








■ 






■ 


H 


1 




^^^^^^ 6 ^ 






















^H^ ^ 








^^^^^^^H 






^^^^^^^^H 


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H 


^^^^H 




^fc^^ 








^^H 






^^^1 


^^^^^^H 


■ 




^^^^^^^^^E*' 








HJPH 






^^^^1 


^^^^^^^^1 








* 


2 


■*%, 








■ 


^^^s^^d^^l 


1 


•X 








\- 


s*^ 






^^777^ 


ffSJfiiL^ ^Qy^^^^^^H 




^ 








\t- 










tf^U^H 


^^H 










v-^ 


sS2 






M ^ 


r^^^^^^^^H 


^^^^H 


a> 








. \ 






CO ^V 


^^^^^^^^^^^H 


PH 


JC 








^> 


§ 






iH a) 


^^^^^^^^^^^1 




ki 








^1 








^y~-^ 






e 








>< 


■■^^^^k^ 


5* \ 




^S^ m 


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1 


, 


^^^^^^^^^^^^ 








K 




iV 


9^ . M 

fa #11 

2 • ■ 


4^1 


CM 


<5 










_^>— -^^^ 




»- \ 


•» # 1 


. 'JN^^^^^^^H 


• 


o 


^^L.^ 








^ 


^ 






•0 M 


V^^^^H 


a 


^ 




4^ 






/ 










^^^^^1 ^^ 


« ^^^^l^^^^l 


S 






l/ 




■a 


e 


1 2 


^^[^ 


|r^\VBHHI 


"^ 


bib 






V 




- 








^^^V x?*'* •"iSf-< 


J 








^^ 




1 












E 




/ i 


■A 




-^JH 






V . 


^^^^■^ '* ' 


t+H 


>« 




1 z 






;^c 
' 








^^^^^■ymi 









s^ 








<0 


^^^^* 


"^^^^^^^H 


■M 












^^^^^^ 




JC 


1 ^ 


^^P^^^^^^^^^^^HK 


C 


^g 










^^^ 




e 


j^^^p 


^2fl^9^IR^^ 


9i 


0> 
















— ^^^^\^ 


^P^9^\^V^^^ 


£ 


o 
o 


^^^^^^^1 








o 

£ 








<2{ 




Q 






^ 


k 


/ 




V 








^ 


<o 




x, 






n^"" 






/ 


^^^^^^^^k 




^ 




^^ 




"5 


If 


e 

4j 


M 

• 


/ 


^^^^^^M 


CO 


3 

S 


^Hi 


V 


Jf 




y- 


-. 


a: 


/^, 


^^H 


O 


f 




r — r— 


M 


kB 




^ 




- # 


_ / 


« 




1 1 


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H 


■M 


,e 








7^ 


~T--' 


" 




fll 1 


^^^^^^^^^^^H 


fi 


'co 

1 


^Fl 




i 


# 


& 

£ 


^ 


5' 




■ 


O 

& 
1 


• 






m 




^ 


/^ ^ 




^^^^^^^H 


^^^^^^^^^^^^^H 


c 


H 






O 

«««% 


«^ 


^ 


aS^^P^^ 




^^B 


^^^^H 


£ 


2 




^^^ 






^BSBSBSS^ 


^^ 




^^^1 


^^^^^^H 


ID 


:3 




^^H 


^^^ 




^ 






^^^^^^1 


^^^^^^^^^^^H 


(£> 


bO 




^^H 


^^1 




^^^^H 


^^^^^H 




^^^^^^1 


H^^^^^^^^^^l 


CT 


•H 




^^H 


^^1 




^^^^^1 


^^^^^H 




^^^^^^1 


^^^^^^^^^^^H 


H 


(M 




■ 


I 




■ 


■ 




HI 


HIHiil 


« 



183 






4432 



of 135 days and earned $1,434 or $10.60 per day doing farm work. When combined 
with nonfarm wage work, yearly earnings increased to $1,346 for all workers 
and $1,793 for all noncasual workers. Average daily earnings for farm work 
increased progressively with the number of days worked, with casual workers-- 
those working less than 25 days--earning $8.50 per day and workers working 
250 days or more earning $11.60 per day. With nonfarm wages for farm workers, 
the pattern was not so distinct; however, daily earnings in nonfarm work 
ranged from $12.85 per day for those workers working from 25 to 74 days in 
nonfarm work to $15.90 per day for those workers working from 75 to 149 days 
in nonfarm work. The spread in daily earnings for farm work was $3.10, and 
the spread in daily earnings from nonfarm work was about the same. 

Daily farm earnings were $1.75 higher for white farm workers than for 
nonwhite workers and $2.70 higher for male workers than female workers, the 
differential between white male workers and nonwhite female workers being 
$3.65 per day. Those workers who listed farm work as their chief activity 
showed daily average earnings of $11.60 compared to $15.65 for those who listed 
nonfarm work as their chief activity. Farm workers whose chief activity was 
keeping house or attending school showed daily average earnings of $7.90 and 
$7.20 per day, respectively. Migratory workers earned $1 more per day than 
nonmigratory workers from farm wage work and $1.10 more per day from both farm 
and nonfarm wage work combined. 

Farm vs. Nonfarm Wage Work 

Of the 2,919,000 workers who did farm wage work in 1968, 37% also did 
some nonfarm wage work. For those who did farm wage work only, the average 
daily pay was $10.65, and the average yearly pay was $1,025 for the 96 days 
worked [5]. 

The 1,060,000 workers who did some nonfarm wage work worked 50 days at 
farm work for which they received an average daily pay of $10.05 or $503 per 
year not including perquisites provided. These workers received $14 per day 
or $1,400 per year for their nonfarm work and worked 100 days. The total days 
worked was 150. 

When one considers perquisites, which are often provided in farm employ- 
ment and usually not provided in nonfarm employment, the relatively small 
differential between earnings in farm and nonfarm work is worthy of special 
note. The same workers with the same skills working in both farm and nonfarm 
work have apparently been unable to command the higher wages usually associated 
with nonfarm employment. It suggests the low earnings of these workers may 
well be determined by some factor not associated with the farm labor market 
alone. 

Unemployment rates for farm labor tend to run considerably higher than 
those for all workers. In 1968, for example, the unemployment rate for farm 
workers as shown by the U.S. Department of Labor was 6.3%, while the unemployment 

184 



I 



4433 



rate for all workers , was 3.6% [6]. Unemployment is closely associated with 
the seasonal nature of many agricultural jobs, of course. An unemployed 
worker becomes an unemployed farm worker if his last job was in farm work. 

Some Supply Considerations 

Supply or demand analysis relative to the farm work force, if it is to 
be meaningful, must consider: (1) the spectrum of skills required and available; 
(2) the seasonality of requirements and the availability of workers at specific 
times; and (3) the geographical location of workers and job opportunities. 

Perhaps one of the strangest paradoxes in agriculture today is the shortage 
of farm labor amidst the surpluses of people in agriculture and in rural areas. 
It is misleading to look at the farm labor supply (or demand) in the aggregate 
only. Most of the problems associated with farm labor supply today become 
apparent only when we disaggregate the farm labor supply. Disaggregation leads 
us to analyze what workers are available, at what time and for how long, what 
skills and attitudes they possess, as well as the complex of considerations 
which deter or encourage a worker or group of workers to reject or accept 
employment. 

Certainly farm labor supply is a function of wages (or the wage package) 
as well as nonfarm employment opportunities and unemployment levels in the 
nonfarm sector; however, this is not the whole story. Supply is also a function 
of employer recruitment practices, labor management, and the work environment 
coupled with the societal image of farm work; and farm employers would do well 
to recognize these factors in approaching the solution of farm labor supply 
problems. 

Recruitment and Planning 

Recruitment and planning are essential ingredients in obtaining an 
adequate labor force. Many farmers have not recognized the need for doing 
their own recruitment. Led by the hand for years by the Farm Labor Service 
and basking in the abundance of a seemingly unlimited supply of workers, 
including foreign workers, farm employers have felt little need for aggressive 
recruitment or recruitment at all. 

Planning is also a basic essential to obtaining an adequate supply of 
farm labor. An accurate assessment of needs with due recognition to the all 
important seasonality factor have proved most useful to farmers in general, 
particularly those who work in conjunction with various agencies to obtain 
their tabor supplies. A farm labor profile specifying needs by skills and 
days has proven a most useful approach for us in Michigan. Similarly, more 
effective planning at the community, county, and regional levels should result 
in fuller employment for the farm work force through a better distribution . 
of workers. 



185 



4434 







■o 


J3 




o 


in o 


in in o 


in un o 


o o o in o 


o o in o 


7 






<u 


S- > 




CM 


<n 00 


O 00 ID 


r^ ID .— 


in r^ o <— in 


00 O ID ID 








c= 


<U lO 


o 




















S- 


Q. Q 


o 


^ 


^ en 


in in ■— 


1^ CO "^ 


«3- >a- 1 «a- in ID i 


1^ 1^ ID «a- 








<a 
























LU 


















< 




£ 


0) 






















^ 


C7 


S- S- 




CM 


00 CD 


00 cn CO 


in CO CM 


^1- r^ 1 CTi ro m i 


r^ o o cn 






la 


<o 


0) UJ 






en ro 


«3- CM r— 


in r^ CM 


r^ «^ 1 ID o in 1 


■— r«. CM 1— 






>«- 


3 


Q. OJ 


o 


in 


in CM 


ID r~^ ro 




■— 1— r^ ro C3 


•— — CM 






sz 




>- 


a 
















" 


o 
















ro 






s- 




















o 






















3 




-D 






















(/) OJ 




kO 


o-* 


n vo r^ 


OOO 


CM o 1 m o in 1 


in o 00 in 




a> 




>,-^ 


o 


n 


«3- CM 


■=*■>* CM 


CM CM CM 


I— 1— 1 in CM 00 1 






a> 




10 t- 


















(0 




Q O 


















3 




3 








































lO 
























<+- 






JD 




LT) 


O IT) 


ooo 


o o in 


o o in m o o 


in in o o 




c 




TJ 


S- >, 




ID 


cn 1— 


cn ro in 


CM in ID 


«^ ^ ^ cn CM i~-. 


en 1— in ro 




Old 

Z 00 




0) 




o 
o 


















o 


o cn 


o — <n 


00 CO 1^ 


1— >— t— O CM <— 1 


p>. 00 f^ cn 




yo 




t. 




















-o en 




<o 




















C p— 




UJ 




















(O 




























lO 




















E i« 


^ 


OJ 


s_ 




«* 


ro 1^ 


r^ o 1— 


en >— (^ 


>:a- 00 in I— 00 >o 1 


^- o> ro ID 




J- o 


L- 


Dl 


$- <o 


i~- 


n 


CO I^ 


CM m ro 


CM ^ O 


r^ cn in ro o in i 


r^ ID ID CM 




(O -1- 


(0 


10 


OJ 0) 


o 


00 


00 ID 


o o cn 


ro CO ro 


CM in r^ cn r^ <* 


CM CM CM ro 




Ll. +J 


U- 


3 


a. >- 


o 
















(/> 














n— 1^ 




CM CM CM — 


































T3 ■1-' 




-o 


















OJ o 




M 0) 




en 


r- ^ 


^ ro 00 


ooo 


en 00 o ID CO en i 


«;!■ ro in in 




C fO 




>>-i^ 


o 


r>. 


CO r-~ 


CTi o o> 


«S- «!• ^ 


cn CM ^ r^ in ro i 


ro ro ro fo 




S- S- 




lO s- 


z 










■— CM CM 1— 






la ra 




Q O 


















Ui ^ 




3 


















o 






















to 
0) -a 












































O) O) 
























« +-> 






jQ 




o 


LT) o 


o o in 


o o in 


o o in o in LO 


in o o o 




3 u 




T3 


I- >i 


n- 


kO 


CM CM 


CM r~. cn 


I— ^D o 


ID in ^ p^ o lo 


p^ en CM cn 




a> 




OJ 

C 


512 


o 

Q 
















T3 <— 




>— 


CM en 


CM CM cn 


00 00 1-^ 


r— 1— r- r— CM m 1 


r~~ r~» p-> o 




C 0) 




i. 














1 — 1 — r— 1 — »— 1 — i 






<0 00 


E 


UJ 




















T3 >, 


lO 






















0} ^ 


<4- 


U1 




















.^ 


c 


Ol 




















S- " 


o 


cr 


i_ 




lO 


■— CO 


in o in 


in in o 


00 in in — — 1— 1 


00 cn ro in 




O in 


z 


(O 


I- <a 


r— 


<* 


00 — 


r^ CO 'S- 


00 1— ro 


•a- ^ in o 1— ■— i 


00 ro 00 'S- 




3 s- 




3 


(U <u 


o 


CO 


^ en 


vD r^ CM 


«a- in «^ 


«:r r-. p^ p^ o in 


ro ro ro in 




Ol 


T3 




a. >- 


Q 
















I/) .:>£ 


C 








1 — 


^— 


^ r— r— 




CM CM CM CM 1— ro 






>. 1- 


<o 






















ns o 

Q 3 
























lO 




















(i_ 0) 


T3 


















O O) 


Ll- 


I/I OJ 




lO 


•— en 


r- o in 


O O r— 


n- en o ■— 00 ^ 1 


o ro ro O 




, -2 




>>•?' 


O 

z 


^— 


CM en 


ro 'S- CM 


ID ID ID 


■— ro ^ ro r~» CM i 


in «^ in in 




i- 3 
OJ 

-'^ E 
E C 

3 lO 




<o S- 
Q O 

3 


< — 


*" 


1 — 1 — 1 — 




CM CM CM CM CM 






























































0) 1— 


l/l 


















cni— 


I- J- 




<J> 


in n 


— O — 


00 m CM 


«*enLn«a-«a-cop>.incnr>.o 




«j«a: 


0) <U 


lA 




CM cn 


— O 1— 


O CM 00 


oo^cMCMooi^rocM«s-or-~ 




i- 


^ If- ^ 


3 


CTl 


CM lO 


r- r-^ «a- 


00 in CM 


r^ vo m 1— — ro 


P^ «a- r- r- 




0) (- 


E O i- 


o 
















> o 


3 O 


^ 


CM 


CM 


CM r— 






^ ,^ 




«t u- 


Z 3 


1— 
















0} 














.^ 




















fc. 






^ 














o 






ro 


10 












3-^ 






1— 


u 

<U-r- 

+J I. 




00 
U3 








(O ^ 
-^ (f- E (- 
s. c $- o 

O O lO X 


03 r— 

ej o 

i- o 
o a> J= 






QJ +J 




CD 


X 






I Cl|- 


3 w> 






•— <J 






UJ 


01 


<u >- C E -^ 


i~ o 






Oi lO 






00 


■•J 


■•-> 1— 0) ■!-> o s. t--a 


O ^ Ol 






00 l- 




• 


0) 


•^ 




-1 cn 3 c lo o -o 


J3 C 






lO 




00 


Q +J 


<UJZ 


<u xz > ^mo <4-sai 


(O 0>'i- 




. 


J= 




a: 


Z •■- 


*^ 5 


(U+JX ►-• j.5J=^ >, 


•— c -o 




1 


o 




UI 


«* <U^ 




I— -r-C 1— O -tJ+Jt-EO 


•r- C t. 










:»: 


■»-> S 


<ux: o 


<a.co o SE •■-••- ajt-i— 


C ex CU 01 










a: 


oc: •.- c 


r-3Z 


E3Z ct C33j:<t>q. 


•1- a> •<-> ^ 










o 


o -c o 


lO 


0) 


Em 4J u_ c 


0) ■)-> ■!-> 










3 


—I 3 Z 

o 


£ 


u- u. t- u. o c <u 
UI lO o c 


■Ui^ < o 

o 










_J 


o 




<-• u. z ^ 


z 










—1 






3: 






1 






•=? 






<-> 







186 



4435 







-o 


X) 






LT) in o o Ln IT) 


LO O 


















(U 


I- >1 


r— 




vo CO ro CTi 00 OJ 


cn 00 


















c 


Q) <0 


o 
























s_ 


Q. O 


Q 




"* csj CO in «a- po 


^ ro 


















<a 




























UJ 




























CO 


























E 


0) 


s- 
























s- 


en 


J- fO 


1 — 




n ^- 00 n CT) 00 


<* t^ 
















lO 


ra 


01 0} 


O 




O OJ CTv CM 00 in 


^ cn 






' 










<4- 

c 
o 


3 


a. >- 


Q 




r-^ «a- LO c\j Ol 


lO "* 














0) 
en 




































n) 


























3 




•o 






















E 




W Q) 






CO n IT) ^ lo r«. 


oo vo 














S- 




>>-^ 


O 




^ n «:!- 1— OJ 


«a- Ol 














lO 




<o S- 


Z 




















vt- 




Q O 






















c 




3 






















o 
























CO 






















































T3 




























C 






J2 






o in o o o o 


ui in 












■o 


10 




■o 

0) 


S- >l 
Q) (O 


o 




in CO I— OJ lo lo 


<a-^ 


cn 










c 
ro 


ElO 




c 


X Q 


a 




CO 00 O O r— O 


1— o 


"io 












S. CO 




i- 












■4-> 












>0 U3 




<o 












o 










vo 


Ll_ (Ti 




UJ 












■M 








































■4-> 




l/t 












C^ 










•« 


nj » 


£ 


0) 


S- 


• 




in CO CTv «* vn «a- 


"^ bf! 


ZJ 










m 


I/) 




Ol 


i~ <a 






00 <?! 00 «* >— ro 


.— OJ 


o 












T3 O 


lO 


<o 


0) <u 


o 




CO o o ix> "d- 


(n CO 


s- 












a> -r- 


u. 


3 


X >- 


Q 








cn 












C +J 












1— CM ro I— 














CL 


S- W 

(O ■!- 
















o 

■4-> 










a. 












UJ i. 


























<u 




T3 










•o 










"* 


M ■!-> 




to dl 






o in 00 o OJ in 


o en 


a> 










lO 


O) U 




>>-!i^ 


O 




.— «d- O O 1— oo 


CO r^ 


4J 












C7> lO 




(O S- 


z: 




1— csj ro .— 




CO 












<o S- 




Q O 










3 










• 


3 10 




3 










•ro 










o 


■o o 














■o 

(O 










z 


























e: 




























lO T3 
















cn 










+J 


<U 






JD 






in in in o in in 


oo 


c 










o. 


-a ■(-> 




■o 


1- >l 


— 




ro in en in lo o 


lo in 


•^■ 










O:: 


OJ u 




Ol 


01 lO 


o 






• • 


0) 












^ OJ 




c 


a. Q 


Q 




oo o o c> >— >— 


CM I— 


Xi 










• 


I- 1— 




S- 






















c 


O 0) 


E 


<o 












+-> 










o 


3 «/> 


10 


UJ 












3 
o 










u 

UJ 


to >, 


M- 


w 












-C 








• 




>»-Q 


c 


<u 












■!-> 








C/) 




io 


o 


a 


$- 


• 




en Ol r^ CO in oo 


CM Ol 


•»— 








c 


i- 


C3 • 


z 


ta 


s- <o 






CO CM 00 lO O CTl 


lO CM 


3 








o 


cn 


to 




3 


OJ 0) 


O 




r>~ CO in CM r^ r>. 


in Ol 










</> 


<c 


<•- s- 


T3 




D. >- 


Q 








T3 








t- 




o <u 


c 










1— oo oo •— 




C 








OJ 




^ 


<0 














« 








o. 


< 


0) o 
















c« 

3 












p 
















t. 


o 


XI 3 


J_ 












O 






o 


o 


= 




lO 


T3 










x: 






X3 


o 




3 (U 


U- 


(O Ol 


• 




en 00 "* 'i- 00 CM 


^ in 


+J 






(0 


* 




Z C7) 




>>-i^ 


O 




in r«. in r- I— lO 


CM 1— 








r— 


o 


• 


n) 




io s- 


z 




r— CM oo >— 




-M 








m 


ttO 


0)3 




o o 










tn 






>> 




»o 


a> 




3 










OJ 






r— 


c 


o~ 


<a E 

i. i. 

01 lO 














(O 


cn 




E 
la 


re 

x: 


'^ 












OJ 


■M 




•p 


vo 


> Ll. 












c 


•^ 




••- 




o 


<c 


in 












I/) 






cn 






S. i- 






en r— 00 «3 «*• o 


cn o 


OJ 


'r— 




TJ 


cn 


o 


^ 


01 OJ 


u> 




CT> oo O in OJ CM 


t^>* 


x: 


3 




•^ 


OJ 


^ 


--^<: 


ja <«- jx: 


3 




CM r-. oo CM CO vo 


CM lO 


■f-> 


cr 




<a 




■o 


EOS. 


O 






*> 




L. 




tx 




o 


0) S- 


3 o 


i= 






OJ 


o 


0) 




c 


in 


u. 


3 o 


z 3 


^ 








4J 


£^ 


• 


3 


■^ 




c u. 












T3 


<♦- 


lO 


■o 


0) 


§■ 
























0) 

T3 


O 


c 

0) 


<o 


to 
ro 


:^ 


o t- 












C 


OJ 


o 




J^ 


*e 


o o 






^ 


, 




3 


3 




E 




o 


~-*3 






Of 






O 
S. 


"io 


in 


<o 




3 




(/I 










> 


+J 


<•- 


<u 


E 




(J 










OJ 




in 




.c 




,__ 






UJ 


l/l "O 




s- 


01 


OJ 


re 


s 


t3 


0) 


0) •«- 




i 


UJ -5 
■o 

O 0) 




n 
to 


x: 
OJ 


lO 
0) 

c 


cn 

c 


1 


U. 

"3 


(O 


O 0) 




s 


m s. f t. 




0) 


TJ 




4-> 


x: 


5S 


1- 


0) ■(-> 
1— o 
OJ (O 




u_ 


CM OJ 2 o 
> E 
in c o <A 


^ 




3 
U 


x: 

■M 


re 

1- 


m 




00 i. 






I. lO L. s- 


o 


2 


c 




o. 


o 




<Q 




u. 


o» J= en -u o» o 


>>+J 




•^ 


2 


o 


c 




.c 




o 


.^ 4J o> ^ c -^ 


i- ro 


M- 










CJ 






1. Tl- ^ CM lO t- to 


o s- 


O 


■»J 




CO 


CO. 










■z. 


o in o~ >— 1 o >> 


*i en 




o 


?. 










o 


2 1/) 1 1 O O 2 fO 


lO -r- 


<n 


c 


0> 


"O 


o» 












0) in in in in -o 


L. E 


\. 




"O 


3 


ro 


W 








i 


r- _J CM r>. «— CM 1— 

r— r^ in 


cn c 
•1- o 


0) 


c/> 
0) 


c 

3 


o 


Of 


it 








<: «a:oj 


z:z 


§ 


o 
o 


O 


c 


> 
< 


3 
O 












z 


lO 


XI 


u 


-o 


to 



187 



4436 



Better Use of Existing Farm Labor Supply 

Employers need to explore new avenues for making better use of the 
existing supply of farm workers--both year-round and seasonal workers. Young 
people, available during the summer, and women provide employment possibilities 
that have not been fully utilized. Further, a breakdown of jobs by specific 
tasks could lead to better labor use and broaden the employment horizons of 
some employers. It may mean that a worker formerly believed to be unemployable 
could be incorporated in the farm work force. A task breakdown also lends 
itself to more accurately matching the skills required for the time required 
with available workers. For example, a task analysis may lead to employing a 
highly skilled mechanic on vacation from his nonfarm job for 10 days during 
the harvesting season. 

Discrimination 

Our society assigns a low status to hired farm employment. Accordingly, 
reverse discrimination, or employer discrimination, influences the availability 
of labor to farm employers and is a vital supply consideration. Farmers from 
small or inefficient units, many of whom would earn more income by working for 
another farmer, seldom are willing to do so. In general, our land grant 
institutions and the agricultural establishment have tended to encourage young 
people to place a high value on farm ownership and operation--farm ownership 
representing the pinnacle of the tenure ladder. A forfeiture of the owner- 
operator role in favor of the employee role generally does not carry societal 
condonment. 

The image of the farm worker is often something less than desirable, and 
it is not entirely because of the arduous nature of the work or the long hours 
and low pay usually associated with such farm employment. Accordingly, employ- 
ment services often find it difficult to place a worker in a farm position 
although he may have had farm experience. A study of hired workers on Michigan 
dairy farms by Charles Given and James Hundley of the Rural Manpower Center 
points to the low status of the dairy farm employee and to the lack of community 
acceptance of these hired farm workers [2]. 

Although all farm employment tends to rank low on the status scale, the 
apparent hierarchy places farm employment by public institutions above farm 
employment on large private farms, which in turn is above employment on small 
private units. 

In an effort to change the image of farm work some employers refuse to 
use the term hired hand or even hired farm worker. Instead they use more 
socially acceptable terms like production associate or assistant manager. In 
spite of the best efforts to counteract this image reverse discrimination will, 
no doubt, plague agricultural employers long after other labor problems have 
been solved. 

188 



4437 



Demand for Farm Workers 

The substitution of capital for labor and the mechanization associated 
with this substitution has resulted in drastic reductions in total farm labor 
inputs. The reduction in the number of farm operators, family farm workers, 
and hired workers is well established. 

The impact of mechanization has been uneven with some activities being 
rapidly mechanized and others showing little progress in this direction. In 
fruit and vegetable harvesting the degree of mechanization is determined by a 
variety of factors, availability of workers, engineering and horticultural 
technology, various cost relationships, and the like. As mechanization has 
expanded the patterns of employment have been disrupted, particularly for 
seasonal workers who move from area to area and crop to crop. 

Present Demand for Seasonal Workers 

The harvesting of fruits and vegetables is the primary farm activity 
requiring large numbers of seasonal workers. The numbers of workers and the 
month of peak seasonal employment in 1968 is given in Table 2. Strawberry 



Table 2 




Estimated Peak Seasonal Employment by Major Crop, 
United States, 1968^ 


Crop 






Peak Seasonal Employment, 1968 


Number of Workers'^ Date 








Strawberries 




119,000 June 


Tomatoes 




84,900 September 


Beans 




77,900 August 


Bushberries 




57,500 July 


Apples 




57,300 October 


Grapes 




53,000 September 


Potatoes 




52,600 October 


Cucumbers 




46,900 August 


Citrus fruits 




42,100 December 


Peaches 




37,400 July 


Cherries 




31,700 July 


*Crops listed are 


those in which 30,000 or more seasonal hired workers 


were employed 


at 


midmonthly peak. 


Employment in 


all 


activities including planting, cultivating, and 


harvesting. 






Source: Bureau 


of 


Employment Security, In-Season Farm Labor Reports for 


the 15th of each month. 



harvesters lead the group with 119,000 workers employed in the peak month of 
June. Tomatoes, beans, bushberries, apples, grapes, potatoes, cucumbers, 
citrOs fruits, peaches, and cherries all required more than 30,000 workers 
during the month of peak employment. 

Migrant workers, both intrastate and Interstate, provide much of the 
harvest labor. The 10 states employing move than 10,000 migrants during the 

189 



4438 



month of peak employment are shown in Table 3, along with the periods of employ- 
ment and the month of peak employment. California leads with 62,000 workers 
employed in September of 1968, and Michigan was second with 40,000 workers 
employed in August of 1968. 



Table 3. 


States 


Employing More than 


10. 


OOO Domestic 


Migratory Workers 


at Peak Employment and Number of 


Workers Employed 


, Periods of 




Em 


ployment, and Month of Peak 


Employment, 


1968^ 




State 




Peak Number 




Periods of 






Peak 




Migrants Employed 




Employment 






Employment 


California 




62,500 




Jan. -Dec. 




September 


Michigan 




40,000 




Apr. -Nov. 




August 


Florida 




21 ,500 




Jan. -Dec. 




February 


Texas 




19,800 




Jan. -Dec. 




July 


Ohio 




18,500 




May -Oct. 




September 


New York 




14,800 




May -Nov. 




September 


Oregon 




13,300 




Jan. -Dec. 




August 


Oklahoma 




13,000 




Jan. -Dec. 




June 


Washington 




12,500 




Jan. -Dec. 




June 


New Jersey 




12,100 




Apr. -Nov. 




August 


^Migrants include 


intrastate and interstate workers. 






Source: Bureau of Employment Security 


, u 


.S. Dept. of 


Labor 





Future Demand for Seasonal Workers 

Worker requirements are rapidly changing under the impetus of mechaniza- 
tion. Beans, potatoes, processing tomatoes, pickling cucumbers, and many other 
vegetables are destined to be harvested almost entirely by machines within the 
next few years. Most of the cherries and bushberries will also be harvested 
mechanically by the early 1970's. Peaches, apples, and grapes show less 
likelihood of extensive machine harvesting, and strawberries and citrus fruits 
are the two crops showing the least promise in the application of machine 
harvesting. 

The replacement of workers by machines involves the creation of new jobs 
as it abolishes old ones. Let us not be misled by the mechanization myth. 
There will still be a need for seasonal workers; the human factor will still 
be important in agricultural harvesting. There will be changes in the demand 
requirements both in quantity as well as the skill requirements. 

The ratio of workers required with machine harvesting compared to workers 
required without machine harvesting varies. The cherry shaker involves the 
employment of approximately 5 workers where 150 were hired previously, a ratio 
of 1 to 33. It would appear that the pickling cucumber harvester involves a 
worker ratio of, perhaps, 1 to 70. When the various ratios are considered, 
the number of workers employed in the harvesting of various crops and other 
factors, a 50% decline in the man-hours required in harvesting fruits and 
vegetables does not appear to be unlikely during the next five years: However, 
this is somewhat misleading. 

190 



4439 



The effective demand for workers will remain relatively unchanged for 
some crops; i.e., strawberries. There will be far less complementarity of 
employment in agricultural harvesting activities from state to state and crop 
to crop, and the demand for workers will involve fewer days of work. In short, 
the total seasonality of work will be accentuated. For example, most of the 
workers who were traditionally needed in Michigan to work in strawberries, 
and subsequently cherries and cucumbers, will with mechanization only be 
needed for work in strawberries. 

New jobs will be created which require some degree of mechanical skill. 
For a small percentage of seasonal workers who possess these skills there will 
be work opportunities. 

In addition to reducing the number of workers required mechanization, 
through its disruption of employment patterns, will increase the demand for 
seasonal workers residing in local areas as these jobs become less attractive 
to migrant workers. School youth and housewives who reside in the communities 
where they are employed have traditionally provided a large part--perhaps half— 
of the work force. The demand for these local workers will increase. 

For some migrant workers, where complementary work opportunities can be 
devised or where special skills are required, limited job opportunities will 
remain. The changes in the demand pattern for all seasonal workers, both in 
terms of numbers and skill requirements, suggest the need for further explora- 
tion of farm and nonfarm work combinations to overcome the serious agricultural 
employment problem due to seasonality. 

Mechanization will also increase the demand for more highly skilled year- 
round workers on all farms. The hired hand of the past will find fewer job 
opportunities unless he is capable of coping with the more sophisticated 
machines and methods employed on all modern and increasingly industrialized 
farms . 

In short, the demand for workers in fruit and vegetable harvesting 
appears to be strong for skilled year-round hired workers, local seasonal 
workers both skilled and unskilled, and semi-skilled migrant workers, recog- 
nizing that the overall demand for all workers in agriculture other than year- 
round hired workers will decline significantly. 

Skills and Training 

Many different skills are required in farm work; yet the generic term 
"farm work" is applied to most workers. The Vlctiomny oi Ocaxpational TiXlu 
has classified agricultural jobs, but. this has not proven very helpful where 
less specificity is needed. The lack of any meaningful and useful classification 
of farm jobs has inhibited the development of training programs designed to 
teach appropriate skills. As mechanization increases the need for workers with 
these skills will increase. Recruitment has also been hampered by the lack of 
adequate job descriptions. 

191 



4440 



A classification should be developed that includes the basic job require- 
ments without losing its meaning in detail. Training programs could be 
developed around this classification. Three basic points around which a 
classification might be developed are: (1) the worker in relation to machines; 
(2) the worker in relation to animals; and (3) the worker in relation to people. 
Using this simple framework job descriptions and titles within each category 
might be developed, and training courses of varying intensity might be devised. 

New jobs for farm workers will emerge as mechanization is increased, not 
only in machinery operation but also in machinery maintenance and repair. 
There will be additional jobs in sorting, culling, and various packing operations 
that will be required as a result of using machines for harvesting in lieu of 
human hands. 

Training, both on the job and off the job, is essential for most farm 
workers. While some workers will continue in farm work and perform better 
because of the training, others will use these newly acquired skills in nonfarm 
jobs. Accordingly, the transferability of skills is an important consideration 
in farm worker training programs. 

A basic problem in training is the low level of education among farm 
workers. In 1967 farm workers had a median of 9 years of schooling compared 
to 12.3 years of schooling for all workers. Further, it would appear that 
there has been little change in the level of education of farm workers over 
the years, a fact which is attributed in part to the shift of those workers 
with higher levels of education out of farm work. Basic education becomes a 
parallel challenge to those who would develop programs to upgrade worker skills. 

The Farm Labor Market 

In general, wage rates in the farm sector have been less than half those 
in the nonfarm sector. The average factory production worker wage in the U.S. 
in 1968 was $3.01 per hour compared to the average farm wage of $1.43 per 
hour [6]. 

The relatively lower wages in the farm sector of the economy as compared 
to wages in the industrial sector is attributed by many agricultural economists 
to the dynamic disequilibrium in the farm labor market. If this were the case, 
as workers leave the farm sector and the labor force is reduced, the returns 
to those workers should increase relative to the returns of workers in the 
nonfarm sector. However, large movements of workers out of the farm sector 
have not increased the relative wage position of farm and nonfarm workers. 
Indeed, the gap between the returns to the workers in these two groups continues 
to widen, both absolutely and relatively. 

Galloway suggests that there is a permanent relative income disparity 
between farm and nonfarm workers; and as such, there is dynamic equilibrium in 
the farm labor market [1]. He suggests that there is a two-sector labor market 
with essentially an inelastic supply. 

192 



4441 



It would appear that there is, in effect, a split labor market to the 
extent that there are barriers that tend to separate the two. The economic 
costs involved in moving as well as the many social and psychological barriers 
to shifting into the industrial labor market are major considerations for the 
would-be migrator. The shadow price of industrial wages, when discounted for 
these costs involved in moving, makes industrial wages far less attractive. 

More significantly, the quality of the farm work force is such that it 
cannot conmand higher wages. Actually, the wage worker in farm work possesses 
a different skill level than the wage worker in nonfarm work, and it is 
increasingly evident that the skill level is an important ingredient in deter- 
mining wages. Unskilled workers command less— in both farm and nonfarm work-- 
than do those workers who have more to offer. The skill dimension is, in part, 
the answer to the wage differential between farm and nonfarm work. It is 
supported by the fact that farm wage workers doing both farm and nonfarm work 
earned relatively less in nonfarm work than might have been anticipated from 
sectorial wage comparisons. Further evidence, among others, is provided in 
Hathaway's study of mobility where it was indicated that unskilled workers who 
migrated to nonfarm work earned less than they had earned before migration [3]. 

Farm Workers and Rural to Urban Migration 

Any consideration of the manpower implications of agricultural technology 
must take into account the impact of this technology upon rural to urban 
migration. From 1960-66 the average annual net outmigration of the farm popula- 
tion in the U.S. was 804,000. Many of these were farm laborers. 

The hidden element in migration is the back-movement of people who, for 
a variety of reasons, find adjustment difficult. The large back-movement of 
rural people suggests a high expenditure of economic and emotional energies as 
those who migrate continue to search for a way of life that is acceptable. 

Mobility is highest among the young, the healthy, the better educated 
and skilled, and the unencumbered, without families or vested interests. 
These workers are most likely to be able to afford the risk of failure- 
economical ly, socially, or psychologically. 

Rural-urban migration has two forces operating simultaneously, the puZi 
of nonfarm opportunities and industrial employment with its ancillary changes 
in mode of living, the attraction of the cities, and higher wages, either real 
or imaginary. It is this seemingly positive force, voluntary migration, that 
has received most attention in the past from students of migration. More 
recently it has been recognized that much of the migration is indeed involuntary 
and that many workers have been dispossessed; they have been pushed out of 
agricultural employment. This force is recognized as the ptt&h in migration, 
and it appears to be most forceful in highly developed economies where large 
numbers of workers are displaced as a result of rapid agricultural mechaniza- 
tion. This is the case in the U.S. today; many workers migrate to the cities 

193 



4442 



not because it is an attractive alternative but merely because it is the only 
alternative for employment. It is hypothesized that the pmh force becomes 
increasingly greater as societies become more highly industrialized and more 
highly developed. 

Farm Labor Management 

It would appear that considerable progress has been made during recent 
years in sensitizing farm employers to the needs of workers and the importance 
of a positive work environment in recruiting and maintaining a productive farm 
work force; however, a comparative look at employee-employer relations in the 
nonfarm sector indicates the massive effort needed in order to upgrade the 
quality of farm labor management on many farms. The industrialization of 
agriculture may well bring greater managerial expertise in this area and create 
a labor management environment more nearly alike and more competitive with the 
nonfarm sector. 

The importance of good employee-employer relations on fruit and vegetable 
farms is well documented by the study Human Relatlom on Hich^^an FtuUt and 
Ve^eXablz FoAm by Maurice Vol and, Charles Given, and William Vredevoogd, in 
which the authors point out that the quality of human relations is oftentimes 
more important to workers than wages or fringe benefits [7]. 

The productivity of labor is partially a function of the existing work 
environment as perceived by the laborer. A successful working arrangement 
between management and labor takes cognizance of certain needs which must be 
fulfilled if labor is to be highly motivated and productive. 

1. Every worker wants to be respected as a human being and 
someone with dignity. 

2. Most workers want to accept responsibility. It builds their 
confidence and enhances their self-esteem. While the situation 
may vary from worker to worker, the lack of willingness to 
assign greater responsibility to workers is a problem in obtain- 
ing and keeping high quality labor in agriculture. Every worker 
has capacity for accepting responsibility for certain tasks and 
assignments. It is management's job to seek out those areas 
where responsibility might be appropriately assigned. 

3. Many workers want an opportunity to grow. This is particularly 
true of the more highly motivated individual. If farm employers 
expect workers with growth potential to remain in their employ- 
ment, they must provide opportunities for learning and growth. 
Growth has many dimensions; among them are job title, comnunity 
acceptance, and wages. The means and measure of growth are 
manifold. 

4. Workers need to feel that they belong. Psychologists tell us 
that everyone has a basic desire to be accepted as a member of 

194 



4443 



a group. Translated in the agricultural worker-management 
relationship, this means creating the kind of social 
atmosphere in which the worker does feel that he is a 
member of the team, an important member of the team, 
and an important member of the community where he lives. 
Management Sharing . --As agricultural operators seek new arrangements in order 
to interest and hold higher quality workers, meaningful arrangements to involve 
workers and help them grow and develop, some type of management-sharing may 
well be considered. In the continuum of decisions made by the farm operator 
there is considerable variation in the consequences which each decision sets 
in motion. By careful analysis of the worker and his ability to contribute, 
workers could be effectively linked into the decision-making processes. Such 
involvement would, obviously, vary greatly with the worker and the farm 
situation; but such an approach is a step in the direction of satisfying some 
of the basic needs of labor. 

Conclusion 

Increasingly the sanctity of resource ownership and absolute authority 
in employment is being questioned by those who would contend that ownership is, 
in fact, a trusteeship and that employment includes certain rights and privi- 
leges for employees as well as employers. In line with this employers, both 
public and private, no longer operate in a vacuum. Indeed, they operate in a 
glass house with public forces dramatically influencing the decisions which 
are made. 

The application of the industrial rules to agriculture is increasing in 
momentum. Legislative exemptions for farm employers are fewer than a decade 
ago with minimum wages and workmen's compensation applying in many employment 
situations. The social pressure for removal of special exemptions for agri- 
cultural operators is apparent. Along with extended legislative coverage for 
farm workers both at the state and federal levels, union participation is 
becoming a reality. The impact of these developments in terms of public welfare, 
equity, and social justice needs further analysis. 

The close interrelationship between farm workers and rural manpower and 
rural poverty provides a complicated backdrop against which new legislation 
and farm labor developments must be analyzed. While most farm workers earn 
less than $3,000 per year, so do many small operators. Further, as the skill 
requirements and the wage requirements rule out the employment of the residual 
element in the farm work force, extensive welfare problems will be created. 

This colloquium is singly significant in that it brings a human resource 
dimension to agricultural technology, a dimension heretofore absent. The 
marvels of technology open the door to a host of human problems. Inadequate 
planning and a lack of coordination at all levels of government have left 
serious human adjustment problems in their wake. It is these human adjustment 

195 



I 



4444 



problems, the manpower implications of mechanization in the harvesting of 
fruit and vegetables, that command our attention at this colloquium. 



REFERENCES CITED 

[1] Galloway, Lowell E. "Mobility of Hired Agricultural Labor: 1957-60." 
JouA.. Fam Econ., 49:32-52, February, 1967. 

[2] Given, C. W.; and Hundley, James R., Jr. Human Tlelatloyii, on VauAy ToAjm. 
Mich. State Univ. RMC Rpt. No. 2, November, 1966. 

[3] Hathaway, Dale E. "Occupational Mobility from the Farm Labor Force." 
Fam LaboK In tht UniXzd Stautnii. Edited by C. E. Bishop. New York: 
Columbia University Press, 1967. 

[4] U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Vomutic and UlQKotoKy Fam WofikeAi: 

PiAionaZ and EconoirU.c ChcuuxcXeAAJtticJt , and The. H-OieA Fanm (iloiklng Foficz 
o{i 1966: A Statlitical R&po^. Economic Research Service, Wash., D.C.: 
Government Printing Office, 1967. 

[5] . The. HiAtd Fanm WoKkLng Fon.cz oi T96S. Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 164, 
Wash., D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969. 

[6] U.S. Dept. of Labor. FoAm LaboA. VzveZopme.nt6 . Wash., D.C.: Government 
Printing Office, March, 1969. 

[7] Voland, Maurice; Given, Charles; and Vredevoogd, William. Human RzZatiom 
on Ulckigan FkuaX and Ve.gtta.blz Fanmi. Mich. State Univ. RMC Special 
Paper No. 7, October, 1968. 



196 



4445 

PEOPLE AND MACHINES - LABOR IMPLICATIONS 

OF DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGY* 

John R. Wildermuth and William E. Martin 

Can it be that labor, like potatoes, has become an inferior good? 

--Anonymous 

The objectives of this paper--to indicate the process by which labor is 
displaced by machines and to highlight the important features of the resultant 
operator-worker-machine continuum--open the doors for a good deal of discretion 
in subject matter development. 

It would be possible, for example, to "rally round the flag" and play 
the emotional themes of the importance of a healthy atomistic agriculture, of 
the necessity of an abundant supply of fruits and vegetables, and of the 
impending doom to be brought about by an underfed overpopulation. The follow- 
ing statements, extracted from the report on Phase I of this project, are 
offered as witness to the popularity of such appeals: 

Increased costs and lack of availability of harvesting labor 
will restrict expansion of production of some fruit or vegetable 
crops if mechanical harvesting techniques are not available. In 
some cases, the restrictions will be so severe as to reduce the 
acreage or even eliminate the crop. [2, p. 5]. 

High costs of handpi eking, difficulties in labor procure- 
ment, minimum wage and minimum age legislation, social and medical 
benefit programs, housing--all of these add to the cost-price 
squeeze which has forced fruit growers to grasp every opportunity 
to reduce growing, harvesting, and handling costs. [4, p. 687]. 

If the grower makes a profit, it means that the system is 
efficient— and we must be efficient. The problem of feeding over 
200 million Americans and the billions of people in the world is 
of utmost importance. [5, p. 85]. 

These are only a few of the statements and but from one source which 
could have been selected as representing one chain of thought relating to 
mechanization in the fruit and vegetable industry. 

Alternatively, this paper could converge on the even more emotional but 
less popular theme (at least among the technologically oriented) inherent in 
the following statement: 

... the mechanization of agriculture can bring tears and heart- 
ache to thousands of unskilled workers and their families who 
cannot by themselves solve their economic problem. [11, p. 69]. 

We (the authors) have a great deal more sympathy for the second line of 
reasoning. Certainly the consequences of the worker's plight are currently 
far more important and perplexing than the consequences of relative changes 
in the availability and cost of selected fruits and vegetables. For those who 
question the validity of this assertion, we ask that you recall Watts, tfetroit. 



♦Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series No. 1523. 

197 



4446 



the Poor People's March on Washington, and the many other recent indications 
that, notwithstanding aggregate welfare increases, the greatest labor implica- 
tion of all is the problem of the widening gap between "those that have" and 
the "have nots." 

In the past the institutions fostering agricultural research, extension, 
and education have always sought to answer agricultural problems with the 
"two blades of grass" philosophy--increases in technology and economic efficien- 
cies of production. To us it is painfully obvious that the old "two blades of 
grass" philosophy provides an insufficient if not totally outmoded basis for 
preparing for the future. "Agricultural research and education including 
agricultural economists must recognize that galloping knowledge and technology 
of production efficiency aided and abetted by them are no longer sufficient 
solutions--may, in fact, be exacerbating the problems of agricultural and 
rural life." [3, pp. 8-9]. 

Our discussion will show why that statement by Kelso and Hillman is 
particularly relevant to the theme of this conference. A theoretical treatment 
of the character of capital intensive technological change will bring out the 
major reasons for and consequences of labor's inevitable displacement by 
machinery. We will point out that by the very nature of the mechanization 
process traditional approaches to the improvement of "labor's lot" are doomed 
to fail. Finally we will close with a plea for policies and institutions 
designed to combat social problems not just in the light of yesterday's innova- 
tions but simultaneously with tomorrow's inventions. 

The Nature and Significance of Labor-Saving Technologies 

Salter [8] distinguishes between inventions and innovations as follows. 
Inventions alter the state of our technical knowledge; but it is only when 
they become a "best-practice technique," (i.e., the technique which with 
regard to both economic and technical conditions yields minimum costs in terms 
of the production function and relative-factor prices at each date) and are 
put into use that they should be referred to as an innovation. Innovations, 
then, are the vehicles of technical progress. 

Innovations may be classified as labor-saving, capital-saving, or 
neutral, depending upon whether they raise, lower, or leave unchanged the 
capital-labor ratio. These three classifications can best be conceptualized 
in terms of the familiar two factor unit isoquant diagram (Figure 1). Assuming 
constant relative prices, the most efficient combination of capital and labor 
is at point Aq for the old technology (Iq) and at point a,, ^2^ ''"'' ^3 
respectively, after the introduction of a labor-saving (I,), capital-saving 
{I2), and neutral (I,) innovation. 

We will concentrate on innovations which involve the direct substitution 
of capital for labor and not discuss in detail the implications of type I2 
(capital -saving) or type I, (neutral) innovations. However, it should be noted 

198 



4447 



Figure 1: An Illustration of the Various Types of Technological 
Change 




Labor per unit of output 



199 



4448 



that these two types of technological change can also lead to reductions in 
labor use. For example, since neutral innovation leads to unit savings in 
both factors, the induced output response, especially in the face of a 
relatively inelastic demand, could hardly be expected to result in the level 
of labor use associated with operation at ap on Iq. 

In reality, of course, prices do not remain constant as we have assumed 
in Figure 1. As in the case of the fruit and vegetable industry, the advent 
of labor-saving innovations is induced not only by inventions which lower the 
price of capital goods relative to labor but also by absolute increases in 
the wage rate which increase the price of labor relative to existing mechanical 
devices. 

We present Figure 2 to illustrate capital -labor substitution induced by 
rising wage rates. The curves Q, through Q^g show alternative ways of producing 
given quantities of a hypothetical fruit from a given acreage. Assume that 
the going wage for labor is $1 per hour. Thus, the line between 100 and 100 
in Figure 2 represents the various combinations of machinery and man-hours 
which could be employed by an operator who had $100 to spend on production. 
The operator bent on profit maximization would select in this case to employ 
55 man-hours of labor and $45 of capital machinery. No other capital -labor 
combination totaling $100 will yield as high an output level as Q^q. 

The line connecting 100 (capital) and 50 (labor)' is drawn to illustrate 
the reaction of the profit maximizing entrepreneur, still with only $100 to 
spend on production, as the price of labor rises to $2 an hour. The maximum 
profit position now involves $50 of capital, 25 man-hours of labor and output 
level Qg. Note that output and labor use have decreased while investment in 
machinery has increased. 

In fact there is no reason for the total production expenditure to 
remain constant (e.g., at $100) in the face of rising wages. As depicted, 
higher production costs will cause operators to reduce production. But, as 
total production falls the product price will tend to rise and induce some 
re-expansion in output. It is highly unlikely, however, that the wage increase 
could be absorbed by the industry without a reduction in the original labor 
force of 55 man-hours. For the wage increase to be absorbed at the 55 man-hour 
labor force, product demand would have to increase enough to require a maximum 
profit output of Qcp. This implies that consumers would be willing to buy larger 
quantities of the product at a much higher price--an obvious contradiction. 

Consumer demand will increase slowly over time for most fruits and 
vegetables due to population increases, rising standards of living, etc. 
Eventually the higher wages for an equal size work force would be possible— 
but not for some time after the wage hike [7, p. 110]. A more likely 
eventuality is that production will rebound but labor use will not. A rise 
in wage rates not only causes a shift towards existing capital intensive 
technologies but also hastens the search for new labor reducing technologies. 

200 



4449 



Figure 2: 



An Illustration of Capital-Labor Substitution Induced by 
Rising Wage Rates 



200 



180 



160 



140 - 



120 - 



100 




10 



20 



30 40 50 60 70 80 
Quantity of Labor (Man Hours) 



201 



4450 



Returning again to Figure 2, assume that the demands of farmers and legislators 
for relief from the infamous "cost-price squeeze" leads agricultural experiment 
station researchers to develop a more efficient form of capital. The price of 
labor remains at $2 per man-hour but $1 of the "new capital" is equivalent to 
$2 of the old capital. For his same $100 the farmer is now able to buy 200 
units of the old capital, or any equivalent combination of the new machinery 
and man-hours (i.e., the line connecting 50 (labor) and 200 (capital) is now 
appropriate). Our profit-minded man now expands his production back to the 
original Q^q level and employs 25 man-hours of labor and the equivalent of 
100 units of the old capital. Surely 30 man-hours of on-farm employment are 
now gone forever. There is no reason not to expect this process to be repeated 
over and over again. 

How are the Costs and Benefits Divided? 

This tendency to use more capital and less labor in agricultural 
production will not be reversed as long as agricultural businessmen 
tend to attempt to maximize profits— the social results of this 
tendency are both good and bad. A cost-efficient agriculture 
produces inexpensive abundant food. A labor-efficient agriculture 
frees our labor force to produce the many other nonfood items that 
we desire. [7, p. 111]. 

Virtually everyone would acknowledge that the general consuming public 
is the prime beneficiary of increased food and fiber production efficiencies. 
But, how about effects on particular sectors of society? What does mechaniza- 
tion mean to the farmer and his relationship to labor? 

The impact on the farm operator is dependent upon his ability to make 
economic adjustments which in turn is increasingly associated with access to 
capital. Under the best of circumstances mechanization results in opportunities 
for higher per unit profits (at least in the short run), expansion of farm 
size, less drudgery, and, perhaps most noteworthy here, liM dependenci/ on 
lahoK. But whereas on the one hand mechanization enables the operator to avoid 
raising the wages of his unskilled workers, at the same time mechanization 
dictates a more highly skilled work force that can commandeer a higher wage. 

For the operator who is unable or unwilling to make the necessary adjust- 
ments there has been and can be only one outcome--his Inevitable demise. We 
may hypothesize that the individual either: (1) retires on his realized capital 
gains; (2) uses his managerial knowledge and skills to find gainful employment 
elsewhere, which combined with his realized capital gains yields a satisfactory 
If not a high level of Income; or (3) becomes a member of the disadvantaged 
working classes to which we now turn. 

But certain unsophisticated segments of our population need 
opportunities for simple, often seasonal, labor that agriculture 
has provided in the past. The only other alternative for many 
of these people in our modern, complicated society is a subsistence 
on welfare. [7, p. 111]. 

202 



4451 



While the aggregate impact of mechanization on the demand for hired 
labor is undeniable, the effect on the individual worker is dependent upon his 
occupational class. For those possessing technical or supervisory skills, 
mechanization can mean opportunities for advancement in the form of higher 
pay or improved working conditions. At the same time it will undoubtedly lead 
to increased responsibilities and more complex work roles. But, even at best, 
it also means increased competition for a smaller number of available jobs as 
laborers whose work roles have been rendered obsolete try to sustain themselves 
within their environment. Technical or supervisory personnel may also find 
their work roles eliminated as the result of mechanization (e.g., labor 
contractors are a vanishing breed). 

What about the unskilled marginal or obsolete worker? Their situation 
may be improved substantially (i.e., they move up into the higher occupational 
classes mentioned above or more likely they are forced out; they go on 
welfare or find unskilled jobs elsewhere). 

If this all seems to present a pessimistic outlook it is because there 
is good reason for pessimism; and as we will now point out, improving on these 
prospects is not easy. 

The Ineffectiveness of Traditional Approaches 
to Improve the Farm Workers' Lot 

Three general approaches have traditionally been advocated by those 
interested in improving the lot of the farm worker. They are: (1) to eliminate 
foreign worker competition; (2) to provide bargaining power for domestic 
workers through some sort of union arrangement; and (3) to prosecute a vigorous 
federal manpower policy. Given the structure of our current social attitudes 
and institutions, each is doomed to ineffectiveness if not to failure. We will 
explain why. 

First, there is foreign worker competition. Before the termination of 
the Bracero Program (Public Law 78) in 1964, those people with the welfare of 
the farm worker at heart apparently believed that if only the foreign worker 
were eliminated jobs for domestics would be available in something close to a 
one-to-one substitution ratio. On the other hand, those people who were 
opposed to termination of the program talked as if crops would rot in the field 
no matter what wage rate was paid and that our consumers would be virtually 
without fruits and vegetables. 

The proponents of both views were obviously either extremely naive or 
they were using emotional appeals to further their own personal interests. We 
suspect that the former reason applied to the termination advocates, the latter 
reason to most of the opposition. 

The actual results should have been predictable— capital was substituted 
for labor on the farm and increased effort was exerted by the agricultural 
engineers in providing the farmers these capital alternatives. At the end of 

203 



4452 



the year following termination of the program, one of the present authors 
noted that "by the most liberal estimates, it took a reduction of 43,700 
foreign workers to increase our domestic labor use by 11 ,800--without signi- 
ficant reduction in production of most crops" [6, p. 1144], We note that in 
the next year (1966) employment of domestic migratory workers had fallen to 
the lowest level since 1949 [11, p. 58]. All of the political effort expended 
merely caused farmers some confusion for a year or so, hastened the trend 
toward mechanization and an all domestic farm labor force that was already 
under way, and provided further incentive for foreign producers to compete in 
United States markets. 

The second approach advocated is to increase the farm worker's bargaining 
power. Cesar Chavez and his United Farm Workers Organizing Committee are 
currently creating considerable confusion with this approach. It is obvious 
that unionization can bring advantages to certain people and particular groups 
of people. Yet this approach, too, has its inherent weaknesses. 

An intriguing example of the unexpected effects of an earlier experiment 
in farm worker unionization was described by Padfield and Martin [7]. The 
needed control over the harvesting process of the Western lettuce industry 
was achieved in the late 1940's and early 1950's through working agreements 
between management and organized labor. However, unsophisticated groups of 
workers such as Mexican-American migrant families, Filipinos, rural Negroes, 
and Indians did not (and probably still do not) revolve around institutions 
compatible with union institutions. Therefore the union movement tended to 
be ethnically selective. The more sophisticated classes of Anglos and Mexican- 
Americans built a labor monopoly out of their technological role. These 
developments created further effects on both labor and management. 

While an exclusive and tightly knit labor organization was 
of enormous benefit to certain groups of lettuce workers, it also 
served to keep rights to production, shipment, and marketing in 
the hands of certain ice companies and certain lumber and labeling 
companies. The shed technology became a monopoly of congeries of 
organized, cooperative interest groups. Thus the incentive for a 
technological breakthrough that would allow outsiders to side step 
the tremendous investments and costs of the shed complex became 
stronger and stronger. Simple labor-saving machinery was not the 
answer. It has to be something which would throw production 
completely outside the tightly integrated network of control of 
the shed system. [7, p. 284], 

In this case the technological breakthrough of portable vacuum cooling 
against a background of a high labor cost shed packing operation broke the 
whole system apart. The packing operation went to the fields using huge, 
cheap supplies of well controlled foreign labor. 

Social and economic ramifications unfolded in Inseparable 
order. The Mexicanization of a predominately Anglo occupation, 
a rapid acceleration of Importation of Mexican workers (both 
bracero and green carders), a boost to the bracero economy of 
Mexico, the rise of border commuter communities, the rapid 

204 



4453 



decline of Anglo communities centered around the shed economies, 
such as El Centro and Yuma, are some of these ramifications. 
Moreover, the industry was opened to unlimited acreages and 
production. Vast areas of desert and range land, previously 
locked out by a shed-centered technology, were opened up for 
lettuce cultivation. And finally, unforeseen by the innovators 
themselves, was the inevitable rise of government as a first 
party representative in labor grievances and negotiations. 

Especially important from a sociological standpoint is 
the fact that, on the whole, the shed workers, a technical 
elite class in the old technology, did not step down in the 
occupational status system of the new technology. They were 
cLiip-tcLce-d. A completely new occupational status system grew 
up in which their institutions had no place. [7, p. 285]. 

It is unlikely that we will again see the rise of a labor intensive 
technology in the face of growing unionism and rising labor costs--the 
elimination of our foreign labor program has seen to that--our point is that 
the effects of increased bargaining power are many and diverse. The group 
that initiated bargaining is by no means the necessary recipient of income 
gains. 

Finally, there has been much recent interest in government manpower 
policy--that is, retraining and general education activities. It is easy to 
recommend this policy because "the pursuit of knowledge is a noble activity in 
its own right" [10, p. 272]. It is still worthwhile even if it does not get 
the recipient a job. However, Sultan and Prasow have shown that "the value 
of labor is not simply determined by the position and elasticity of the labor 
supply schedule; and the individual's employability is not simply a function 
of the quality of service he offers potential employers" [10, p. 273], It is 
true that only marginal workers are unemployed, but it does not necessarily 
follow that because some workers are marginal they are unemployed. Of great 
importance is the level of labor demand and it -ca not necessary that tech- 
nological change raises this level in our developed economy [10]. 

What do you train people to do? Perhaps it need not be always true, 
but Brill [1, p. 30] alleges "that large numbers of technological left- 
behinds are often instructed in occupations which existed long before they 
did, require little if any training, and perhaps more to the point are not 
going bediging for applicants." 

Where to Now? 

We hope that we have been successful in leading you to the same conclu- 
sion that we and many others before us have reached: the problems created by 
mechanization may in fact be more complex than those it solves. Certainly 
they are more side sweeping than has traditionally been acknowledged in public 
supported teaching, research, and extension programs. 

Kelso and Hillman make their plea through reference to the cotton 
industry: 

205 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 27 



4454 



When the cotton picker was developed, agricultural 
intellectuals including agricultural economists should have 
studied the problems of adjustment forced on cotton field 
hands, should have assessed the social costs, should have 
devised institutional reforms to cushion the shock and the 
cost — a coit MlvLch ihouZd havz in iorm uiay been ihaned by 
cotton ptodaceAM , the. cotton pfiocej>i-Lng and meAchandiilng 
inda6t>u.eJ> and, o^ couAiz, by the. cotton comumeAi . Had we 
done so who can now say how much less frightening would be 
our civil rights, urban ghetto, and urban living problems? 
And partly because we failed to learn from that experience, 
we go blindly forward developing tomato harvesters, field 
lettuce cutters and field lettuce packing technologies, 
milk production factories, and the thousand and one other 
forms of technological efficiency. [3, p. 9], 

Or in the words of Shaffer: 

A system for anticipating the negative effects of a 
new technology is sorely needed. We cannot afford to wait 
for the problem before solving it. The ■iyiitltuutionaZ tnnova- 
tiom uuJUi have to be. dzveZoptd a& Jotnt pfiodacti uuXh the 
technology. [9, p. 265]. 

Such conclusions are sobering. They basically amount to an attack on our 
nation's entire value and rewards structure. They dictate that this nation 
publicly acknowledge the existence of those that lose as a result of advances 
in the general welfare. They imply that completely new institutions must be 
developed to attack the unsettled problems created by yesterday's and today's 
technological advances and that these institutions must in turn evolve into 
an appropriate form for combating the externalities of tomorrow's technological 
advances. 

We are not sure of the exact form that these institutional innovations 
should or will take. However, In developing them, it must be recognized that 
any solutions that attempt to solve the problems while accepting without 
question the objectives and methods of either management or labor can only be 
stop-gap measures shifting the burdens and costs of automation from one 
individual or group of individuals to another and from one area of a country 
to another. We assert that the implied final plea is self-evident: Whatever 
form they take, the needed institutional Innovations must be adapted not just 
to the progress of "economic men" In the competitive market but to the progress 
of "real men" in their social environment. 

REFERENCES CITED 

[1] Brill, Harry. "Can we Train Away the Unemployed?" LaboK Today. 
October-November, 1964. 

[2] Cargill, B. F. "Introduction." FaslU. and \/e.geXablz HaA.ve.&t Ucchancza- 
tion, Tzchnologlcal ImpticauUom . Mich. State Univ. RMC Rpt. No. 16, 
1969, 3-6. 

[3] Kelso, M. M.; and Hillman, J. S. "Social and Political Dilemma of the 
Agricultural Industry and Agricultural Institutions." Paper presented 
at the WAEA annual meeting, Corvallis, Oregon, July, 1969. 

206 



4455 



[4] Larsen, R. P. "Cultural Practices for Cherry Mechanization." F^uxt and 
Ve.geXabZz HoAvut M&chaju.zation, TzchnoZog-iaxt ImpticaXiom . Edited by 
B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossmiller. Mich. State Univ. RMC Rpt. No. 16, 
1969, 687-697. 

[5] Levin, J. H. "The Prospects for Fruit and Vegetable Mechanization: 
Engineering Outlook." Ffiult and \Je.gttablz Hatvut Uzchanlzation, 
Te.chnotogA.caZ Impticatiom . Edited by B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossmiller. 
Mich. State Univ. RMC Rpt. No. 16, 1969, 85-87. 

[6] Martin, William E. "Alien Workers in United States Agriculture: Impacts 
on Production." JouAnai o^ Tanm Economicd. Vol. 48, No. 5, December, 
1966. 

[7] Padfield, Harland; and Martin, William E. FoAmeAi, WoikeA^ and Hacklnti: 
Tzchnotog^cal and SodaZ Change. In FoAm Indoittyie^ o^ ^Aizona. Tuscon: 
The University of Arizona Press, 1965. 

[8] Salter, W. E. G. Vfiodixctivlty and TzchnicaZ Change. Canibridge: The 
University Press, 1966. 

[9] Shaffer, James Duncan. "On Institutional Obsolescence and Innovation - 
Background for Professional Dialogue on Public Policy." American JouAnal 
o{, AgfUcuiXuAot Economid. Vol. 51, No. 2, May, 1969. 

[10] Sultan, Paul; and Prasow, Paul. "Technology and Talent." WeJ)teAn 
Economic JouAnal. Vol. 3, No. 3, 1965. 

[11] Thor, Eric; and Mamer, John W. "Rural Manpower - Overview." FnuUX and 
VegehibZe HoAve^it HzchanlzaZlon, T echnologlcaJL Imptication^ . Edited by 
B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossmiller. Mich. State Univ. RMC Rpt. No. 16, 
1969, 51-71. 



207 



4456 

LABOR MARKET BEHAVIOR 
James S. Holt 

The nature of agricultural production gives rise to seasonal fluctuations 
in labor requirements and labor demand. In the past decade the seasonality of 
hired farm labor demand has increased [5]. Periods of peak and slack labor 
demand have been one of the principal farm labor problems for farm operators 
and workers alike for many years. Seasonality is a problem for workers because 
it reduces employment and earnings and creates uncertainty. It is a problem 
for employers because it creates the need for annual recruitment and training 
and is an additional source of uncertainty in production planning. 

For many workers the need for income and the desire for employment are 
continuous. In order to prolong their period of employment, some workers have 
sought to combine a succession of short-term seasonal farm jobs into a con- 
tinuous period of employment. One of the outgrowths of such efforts is our 
migratory farm work force. Farm manpower policy has encouraged and facilitated 
this combining or packaging of seasonal farm jobs, most notably, through the 
Annual Worker Plan. 

Combinations of farm jobs and of farm and nonfarm jobs have been advocated 
as a means of ameliorating the unemployment and earnings problems of hired farm 
workers. Combinations of farm and nonfarm work in the same locale have been 
advocated as an alternative to migrancy. The purpose of this paper is to 
examine the component groups of the hired farm work force from the standpoint 
of their labor market behavior; to assess the likely impact of mechanization 
on these component groups, with special emphasis on multiple jobholders; and 
to offer some suggestions for dealing with manpower problems arising from the 
mechanization of agricultural jobs. 

Labor Force Behavior of the Hired Farm Work Force 

The annual H-cAed foAm WoilUng FoA.ce Rz.pont6 [3] provide the only source 
of national data on the labor market behavior of the hired farm work force. 
Data relating to chief activity for the entire hired farm work force are 
available only since 1962, so a rigorous analysis of trends is not possible. 

From the standpoint of labor market behavior, the farm work force can 
usefully be subdivided into three groups: persons more or less permanently 
in the labor force who work at hired farm work only; persons permanently in 
the labor force who are multiple jobholders, that is, who combine farm wage 
work with other labor force activities during the year; and persons not usually 
in the labor force who work on a temporary basis to supplement their incomes.* 

Workers who perform farm work only constitute about 17 to 20% of all 
persons doing farm work for pay during the year (Table 1). Their number has 



*I am using the term "multiple jobholder" in a different sense from that in 
which it is frequently employed. In this paper, multiple jobholding is not 
equivalent to "moonlighting", that is, the holding of two jobs simultaneously. 

209 



4457 



tn ^a- tn vo 
I — "* r-^ tr> 






o o t-~ vo r~. 



"* kD «a- «*• 



U3 CTl 00 ro IX) 
<a- ro IT) O <3- 
r^ .— r- <3- 



r~- o ^r «a- 
LD csj n o 
ID n C3 CM 



ID r^ VD LT) 0% 
ID ID "3- C\J CM 



n ■— n cn 



r-~ r^ ro o r^ 
o^ h^ ^ CT> 00 

r^ 1— r— CO 



cy> n »3- n oo 
cy> r~ t^ ID CM 



CM <£> LT) CM 00 
r-» ID lO CM CM 



CM CO ro lo 



<JD O CO OJ lO 

I— en ■— >— cr> 
en .— CM "* 



lO 00 CM ID 
CM ^ CM tn 
00 LD 1— r- 



O <T> r— ID lO 

w CO cn o ID 



en cyi vo «a- 



CD 1 — ro CO CM 



us 1 — en ID 
vo r^ o^ o> 

CO LD O r— 



iDcncnooLD ididid>^ 



CM .— ro <a- cvj 



«:^ U) r- r- 

en CO ID en 
r~ lo en >— 



s- u. O) 
o ^ 
3 c s- 

i OT3 
O) O 3 O) 

tj> >> 

(/) lO C E o 
I- 3: O 4. ■— 
OJ <a o. 

■O E -^ 4- E 
•— C i- c V 
o « o o c 



0) S- S- I- L. 
^- (O (O ^ *o 



o E q- 



-o •>- •■- •■- •!- -r- 



o t/1 

01 Vl 

>>^ +J 

S- lO c in 
lO E <U t. 
S. 0) T3 O) 
O E 3 ^ 
O. O ■•-• ■•-' 

E 3: OO o 

0) 



o 


+j 


E 








c 


o 


(- 








^^—^ 


c 


a. 








<o o 












LI- O 


>> 


0} 










la 












E 


la 




















*> ir> 


U1 


o 


CO 






O 1 


V 


^ 


1— 1 


1—1 


1— J 


1— 1^ 


O) 


» 








ID 


Its 










(4- Ol 


+» 












c 


^. 


« 








0) 


a> 


u 


o 


o 




u 


^ 


t- 


i- 


i~ 




s- 


L. 


3 


3 


3 




0) 


O 


o 


o 


o 




a. 


3 


00 








la 


JH 


o 


•o 


a> 



210 



4458 



fluctuated considerably in the six-year period, 1962 through 1967, declining 
during periods of declining farm output and increasing in years of increasing 
farm output. On balance, the declines have outweighed the advances, and thus, 
the overall pattern has been one of declining employment with rising output. 
These workers are relatively fully employed, averaging about 250 days of work 
a year (Table 2). They have consistently averaged more days of employment 
than any other component of the hired farm work force (Table 3). They are 
the backbone of the hired farm work force, contributing more than half of the 
man-days of hired labor used on farms (Table 4). 

Multiple jobholders in the farm work force have declined steadily in 
numbers and relative importance from 1.2 million workers, one-third of the 
total in 1962 to 726,000 workers, less than a quarter of the total in 1967. 
Almost all of this decline has been accounted for by a decline in farm operators 
and unpaid family workers who also do work on other farms for pay and in 
workers who are primarily unemployed but do some farm work for wages.* The 
decline in primarily unemployed workers doing farm work accompanied a substan- 
tial improvement in the national unemployment rate and underscores the effect 
of general economic conditions on the supply of farm workers. The decline in 
farm operators and unpaid family workers doing hired farm work may also be a 
response to more nonfarm employment opportunities as well as reflecting a 
decline in the number of marginal farm units. 

By contrast, the number of multiple jobholders principally engaged in 
farm and nonfarm wage work has declined only slightly since 1962. In general, 
the decline in these two categories has paralleled the decline in numbers of 
workers doing only hired farm work, and suggest that these groups are not too 
responsive to changes in general economic conditions. One can hypothesize 
that the employment patterns of these workers are relatively stable and well 
adapted to the skill levels of the workers. 

Multiple jobholders who are primarily farm wage workers constitute about 
5% of the hired farm work force and perform about 10% of the man-days of hired 
farm work. They are employed about 175 days at farm work and about 220 days 
at all jobs. Although their daily earnings in nonfarm jobs are higher than 
in their farm jobs, there has been little change in the proportion of their 
work year devoted to farm and nonfarm work since 1962. 

Persons who are engaged primarily in nonfarm jobs constitute about 12% 
of the hired farm work force and perform about 6% of the man-days of hired 
farm work. They work about 35 days at farm work and about 225 days in total. 
They also have substantially higher earnings at nonfarm jobs than farm jobs, 
but there is no noticeable tendency toward a declining participation in hired 
farm work. 



*I have included workers whose chief activity was looking for work among the 
multiple jobholders rather than the temporary workers because these primarily 
unemployed workers were in the labor force most of the time while the temporary 
workers were not. 

211 



4459 



Table 2. Days of Farm Work 


of the Hired Farm 
1962 Through 1967 


Work Force by Chief Activity, 


Chief Activity 




1962 


1963 


Days of 
1964 


Farm 
1965 


Work 
1966 


1967 


Hired Farm Work Only 




248 


232 


238 


247 


269 


248 


Multiple Jobholders 

Primarily Farm Wage Work . 
Primarily Work on Own Farm 
Primarily Nonfarm Work 
Primarily Unemployed 


167 
50 
38 
66 


178 
45 
25 
50 


158 
43 
34 
38 


165 
43 
31 
40 


174 
79 
41 


175 
69 
41 


Temporary Workers 
Homemakers 
Students 
Others 




32 
32 
46 


28 
27 
45 


38 
35 
35 


35 
35 
40 


34 
35 
42 


35 
33 
38 


Average, All Workers 




81 


76 


80 


85 


85 


84 


'[3]. 
















See footnote b, Table 1. 

















Table 3. Total Days Worked at all Work for Pay by Chief Activity of Worker 
1962 Through 1967^ 



Chief Activity 



1962 



Days Worked at all Work for Pay 
1963 T9P T965 T966 T967 



Hired Farm Work Only 

Multiple Jobholders 
Primarily Farm Wage Workers 
Primarily Work on Own Farms'' 
Primarily Nonfarm Workers 
Primarily Unemployed 

Temporary Workers 
Homemakers 
Students 
Others 



248 



232 



238 



247 



269 



248 



215 


228 


209 


219 


233 


229 


65 


59 


57 


46 


92 


83 


236 


217 


223 


225 


236 


221 


85 


75 


73 


65 


— 


-- 


40 


36 


52 


49 


50 


48 


48 


41 


54 


53 


54 


51 


60 


60 


51 


62 


55 


64 



*[3]. 

'see , footnote b, Table 1, 



212 



4460 



Table 4. Percent of Man-days of Hired Farm Work by Chief Activity of 
Worker, 1962 Through 1967^ 






Chief Activity 



1962 



Percent of Man-days^ 
1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 



Hired Farm Work Only 

Multiple Activity Workers 
Primarily Farm Wage Workers 
Primarily Work on Own Farms^ 
Primarily Nonfarm Workers 
Primarily Unemployed 

Temporary Workers 
Homemakers 
Students 
Others 

Total 



52.1 



58.1 55.5 58.6 52.7 55.8 



27.2 


21.6 


21.2 


19.1 


23.7 


21.0 


9.7 


9.0 


11.1 


11.0 


10.3 


10.6 


6.1 


5.4 


3.5 


2.3 


5.3 


4.4 


5.3 


3.5 


5.2 


4.5 


7.0 


6.0 


6.1 


3.7 


1.4 


1.3 


1.1 


— 


20.5 


19.8 


24.3 


22.6 


23.6 


23.2 


6.9 


5.8 


7.7 


6.2 


4.6 


6.0 


10.5 


10,8 


14.6 


14.1 


15.4 


14.7 


3.1 


3.2 


2.0 


2.3 


3.6 


2.5 



100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 



^Computed from data in [3]. 
Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 
"^See footnote b, Table 1. 



Temporary workers, that is, those not in the labor force most of the 
time have filled the gap created by the decline in primarily unemployed 
workers and farm operators and unpaid family workers who do farm wage work. 
The number of temporary workers has remained relatively stable and their 
proportion of all workers has increased steadily since 1962. Well over half 
of these workers are students and most of the rest are homemakers. The 
number and proportion of students in the hired farm work force has increased 
considerably in this six-year period. 

These temporary workers contribute about one-fifth of the man-days of 
hired labor. They work about 35 days a year at farm work and about 50 days 
a year at all activities. A trend toward an increase in the average number 
of days of nonfarm work performed by temporary farm workers seems to prevail 
1n the data of Table 5. This suggests that a declining proportion of temporary 
workers employed days are devoted to farftt work. 

"Package Demand" and the Impact of Mechanization 

In total, about 17% of those persons more or less permanently attached 
to the labor force depend on some combination of farm and nonfarm employment 
to provide their annual income. These workers perform about 16% of the man- 
days of hired farm work. Some of these are, of course, workers who are making 
a more or less permanent change of status during the year from farm to nonfarm 
work or vice versa. But the relative stability in the number of such persons, 
and in their degree of commitment to farm and nonfarm work, suggests that in 

213 



4461 





<4- E 


















o s. 


















<o 


"^J- 


1 


co 


1 


^ 1— en 


in 






I/) M- 


Lf) 


1 


a> 


1 


\£i \S) as 


O 






>ic: 






r— 






r~ 






r^ lO o 
















J>£ 


to Q Z 
















S_ 


CM 
















o 


1 — 
















3 


















g 




o 


ID 


n 


1 


O •— OT) 


^ 




^ 


*S 


o 


CM 


cr> 


1 


csj n n 


CO 




la 




f^ 














<*- 




































o 


















■z. 


1- E 
















<«- 


o s- 
















o 


lO 


CTi 


1 


P-. 


1 


CM 00 CM 


CTl 






C0 4- 


LD 


1 


CTl 


1 


in in in 


O 




to 


>>c 






n— 






< — 




>, 


i£) rO O 
















<0 


lO Q Z 
















o 


CTl 
















o 




















O 


OJ 


o< 


o\ 


I— CM in 


en 




s- 


S« 


O 


<\J 


CTl 


in 


CO CO CM 


CO 




OJ 




^— 














J3 


















E 

3 




















Z 


<*- E 
















•a lo 


o s- 
















c r^ 


ra 




>=*• 


n 


o 


en 1^ 1 


CM 




fO to 


l/> t- 


LD 


ID 


en 


«;l- 


■a- in 1 


o 




o^ 


>>c: 






^— 






^ 




.ii; I— 


ID <o o 
















s_ 


ID Q Z 
















o^ 


cn 
















3 Ol 


^— 
















3 


















E O 


















s- s- 




o 


LT) 


o 


ro 


1^ .— «d- 


1^ 




lO ^ 


&9 


o 




o 


ID 


CM CO CM 


CO 




M- 1— 


















c: 


















o m 




















<n 


















0>r— 


M- E 
















e: 


O S- 


^^ 


^ 


•IT 


CO 


CO O CM 


00 




o >> 


d <4- 


LD 


LO 


a\ 


un 


^ ID ^ 


CT> 




Q +? 


>>c 






r~ 












^ lO o 
















O > 


VO Q Z 


















CT> 
















1— +J 


^ 




































O 


lO 


00 


ID 


ID CO tD 


00 




S- 4- 


&S 


O 


CSJ 


<T> 


ID 


CM CO CO 


CO 




(1) Ol 




^ 














^ •.- 






































3 


















>, 


<♦- E 
















E J3 


o s_ 


<T> 


r^ 


a> 


o 


•— r~ 1 


r-~ 




le 


i/m- 


>* 


ID 


a> 


to 


«* '^ 1 


en 




Ll. 








■" 










■a 


to Q z 
















Q) 


CT^ 
















j- 


^ 
















••— 


















3: 




O 


,_ 


ID 


o 


<n en "d- 


CM 




<4- 


&« 


O 


CvJ 


Ol 


in 


f— CM CM 


CO 




o 

0) 




^ 
















O) 


















lO 


















•»-> 






JD 












c 






E 












<u 






^ 












o 




j<: 


nj 
















o 


Ll- 


.^ 








r^ 


Ou 




3 


C 


t. 








Q) 








3 


o 


T3 










(U 


o 


3 


a> 






ja 

10 

1- 






in o> 






■ >> 






in 


>> 


s. la 


c 


E 


o 








■M 


(U 3 


o 










OJ 




T3 




<o 


Q. 


to 




^ 




> 


i— E 


.^ 


>♦- 


E 


i. 




xi 


ja 




o &. 


s- 


c 


01 


<o 




<Q 


+J 


3: ro 


o 


o 


c 


.^ 




0) 

• 4^ 


1— 


o 


Ll- 


3 


z 


zn 


S- 






«« 


J3 
O >, 


>> 


>> 


>» 


O in 
3 J- 


<n 

1. 
<u 


I— I o 




<<- 


O p 




^ 


^ 


0> in 
>, -i.: 4-» 


irce [; 
! footi 






01 s- 

r— ITJ 
Q. E 


_E 




s- 

ra 

_E 


orar 
mema 
uden 
hers 








4-> S- 


S- 


s- 


z. 


°- ° *i t^ 




o dj 
lo oo 






f— O. 


O- 


o. 


a. 


E 3: oo o 

1— 


'~~ 






3 








< 


rO ^ 



214 



4462 



many cases this is a fairly pennanent arrangement. The comparative daily 
earnings at farm and nonfarm work also suggests that the proportion of the 
worker's time between farm and nonfarm work is dictated by the duration of 
the jobs rather than the decision of the worker (Table 6). 

Those workers who are engaged primarily in nonfarm work spend relatively 
few days at farm work. Most of these workers are probably attracted into the 
farm work force for a specific crop activity and are doing so to fill in a 
brief period of unemployment or layoff or are working an additional job to 
supplement household income. Their daily earnings at nonfarm work are the 
highest of any group; thus, their opportunity cost at farm work is high. 
Furthermore, their primary involvement in nonfarm work means that they are 
strongly oriented to nonfarm working conditions. It seems reasonable to 
assume that these workers are only marginal farm labor force members and that 
an opportunity to increase nonfarm work would lead to a reduction in farm work. 

Workers who are primarily engaged in farm wage employment but also do 
nonfarm work spend the equivalent of about two months at nonfarm work. Their 
daily earnings at nonfarm work are lower than those who are primarily engaged 
in nonfarm work, and their daily farm earnings are higher.* Thus, their 
opportunity cost at farm work is lower than the primarily nonfarm workers. 
Workers working primarily at farm work are certainly marginal to the nonfarm 
work force. It is likely that their educational and skill levels would lead 
to little security in a nonfarm job. Thus, it can be hypothesized that the 
commitment of these workers to farm work is relatively strong. Nevertheless, 
these workers have had firsthand experience in nonfarm work and In many cases 
have such contact on a recurring basis. They are likely to judge farm employ- 
ment opportunities to some extent from a nonfarm point of view. 

An unknown but significant number of the persons whose chief activity 
is farm wage work, work at a sequence of farm jobs. This is particularly the 
case among migratory farm workers. In some cases this is a sequence of jobs 
at the same activity for different employers, such as with workers who follow 
the apple harvest. In other cases it is a sequence of different activities 
for the same or different employers, such as the asparagus, tomato, and potato 
harvest in New Jersey. 

Less than one-third of temporary farm workers work at farm and nonfarm 
jobs (Table 5). Their period of farm employment suggests that many of them 
are attracted into the farm work force for a specific activity. Well over 
half of these workers are students seeking summer and part-time employment. 
As many of these persons have little long-term vocational interest In their 
temporary employment, the more Imnediate considerations of availability and 
comparative earnings probably exert strong influence on labor market decisions 



*This could reflect higher basic pay rates for activities which workers doing 
primarily farm wage work engage in, higher productivity, or simply more hours 
worked per day. 

215 



4463 



«l- o ro 



o in o 



to IT) m 



O Ol CT> 



00 'a- r^ 



o o in 
CO in lo 



in «o csj 



^E 



0» r- 00 



t^ «0 CO 



00 00 00 



ro CM cvj in 

O lO CM 00 



I— CM r~. ■— 



10 >> 



<o 

<4- 
U) 0) 



-E 



00 lo r^ lo 

in in in o 

r^ «3- in in 

00 CM CM 00 

in o o m 

CM n n r>. 



I— .— ro r- 



w ro ^ 



«^ in o> 



ro o C3^ 



in o in o 



00 en CM CO 



in in o in 

CM r~ M> I— 



in ro 00 



in o o o 
cy> .— «a- lo 

vo w t^ m 



<u o 3 a> 



I— w) <o 



>,>,>,>> 



Ll_ r— 10 





<V 


</> 


>, 


^ 


-fj 


(. 


nl 


c 


« 




0) 


t. 






o 


g 


3 




o 




b 


-I- 


<0 



216 



4464 



of these workers. It is significant in this regard that there is little 
difference in the average daily earnings at farm and nonfarm work for temporary 
workers. Farm earnings in some cases exceed nonfarm earnings. 

Mechanization of a high labor using crop would be expected to have dif- 
ferential effects on different classes of workers and on producers of such 
crops. In crop activities utilizing primarily temporary workers the effect of 
mechanization undoubtedly would be to reduce temporary work opportunities, thus 
augmenting the supply of workers available for the remaining temporary jobs. 
For workers who are primarily unemployed or at work on nonfarm jobs the effect 
would probably be much the same, that is, reduced temporary job opportunities 
and an augmented supply of workers for the remaining jobs. 

For workers who are primarily single job, full-time workers the impact 
of mechanizing activities would likely be slight. In the long run mechanization 
has, of course, contributed to the reduced demand for year-round workers. 
However, as farm consolidation continues, also fostered in part by mechanization, 
we may anticipate a stabilizing and perhaps eventually increasing demand for 
permanent workers. 

For workers who are primarily or exclusively hired farm workers working 
at a sequence of farm jobs, the ramifications of mechanizing important labor 
using activities are difficult to assess. Mechanization of a key activity can 
create gaps in the sequence or package of employment either leaving workers 
idle during this period or leading them to seek alternative employment. This 
period of adjustment can create severe hardships for workers. In an economy 
in which demand for farm and unskilled labor is declining, alternative employ- 
ment is likely to be difficult to find and less renumerative. If the gap 
occurs for migratory workers away from home the problems are compounded. The 
mechanization of the snap bean harvest provides one recent example of such a 
disruption in the Northeast. 

In addition to the hardships created for workers the disruption of the 
employment sequence and the eventual re-establishment of a new sequence can 
lead to a shortage of workers for other activities in the original sequence. 
In many areas there is a dominate seasonal .labor using crop and many subordinate 
crops which draw on the seasonal labor force before or after the dominate 
activity. Mechanization of the dominate activity may lead to severe labor 
shortages in subsidiary activities, at least temporarily. When such a break- 
down in the job sequence occurs the employer's alternative is to substitute 
regufar or temporary workers. The need to hold labor for use in other crops 
may slow the mechanization process as employers seek alternative sources of 
labor. Instances of this were reported in the cherry and pickle harvest in 
Michigan [1]. 

Mechanization also affects the type of labor required. The data in 
Table 1 indicate that temporary workers, mostly housewives and youth, are 
the expanding sector of the farm labor force. Mechanization, which makes 

217 



4465 



seasonal jobs suitable for such workers, will greatly expand the potential 
supply of farm labor. In addition, mechanization in general makes farm work 
less strenuous and improves its desirability to an industrially oriented labor 
force. It also tends to establish a routine and pace of work which, if the 
machinery is reliable, enhances worker productivity and further reduces labor 
requirements. 

Implications for Manpower Policy 

As a society we do not have a very enviable record of anticipating man- 
power problems arising out of the technological, social, and economic changes 
that have taken place in rural society. We have generally waited to respond 
to the dramatic and visible crises which these changes have created. One need 
only mention the aftermath of the mechanization of the cotton harvest and the 
tremendous sweep of rural low income people to the cities to suggest the con- 
sequences of such a course of action. We must develop better means of 
anticipating manpower problems, large and small, and plan a course of action 
to cope with them before they become crises. 

One of the principal immediate labor force problems created by mechaniza- 
tion of seasonal farm jobs is the disruption of employment pattern for workers 
and the labor supply pattern for other farm coirmodities. Developments in the 
mechanization of farm jobs must continually be assessed, not only as an aid 
to planning of future farm labor recruitment programs, but in order to plan 
for solutions to the underemployment and unemployment problems created among 
the workers displaced. Conferences such as this to review the overall state 
of the arts in farm mechanization and special studies of emerging problems will 
be needed on a continuing basis. 

The development of alternative employment opportunities for displaced 
farm workers will not be easy. Retraining of these workers for steady permanent 
nonfarm jobs would, in many cases, be ideal. However, this is not a realistic 
alternative for many of the workers involved. The development of alternative 
agricultural jobs, even a sequence of seasonal jobs, appropriate to their level 
of skill and experience may prove more fruitful and should not be disregarded 
in programming. 

A special problem which needs to be understood and planned for is that 
arising from the mechanization of a particular task in a package of farm or 
farm and nonfarm jobs. We must develop and keep up to date our knowledge of 
the multiple job holding patterns of farm workers. In particular, we need to 
know more about the nature of farm-nonfarm employment patterns. Mechanization 
of a key crop will require the development of alternative employment opportuni- 
ties which may reduce the supply of workers for other activities and require 
the development of alternative sources of labor supply as well. This alternative 
source of supply will probably be temporary local workers to replace nonlocal 
workers. 

218 



4466 



Certainly prompt consideration should be given to the feasibility and 
impact of the extension of Unemployment Insurance protection to farm workers. 
The Unemployment Insurance system was designed to alleviate many of the problems 
we are discussing. Such a plan will have to take cognizance of the large 
number of interstate farm workers and the large number of temporary farm workers 
not ordinarily in the labor force. However, it is unreasonable to assume that 
alternative jobs can be quickly found for displaced workers already among the 
most marginally productive to society. 

While the search for combinations of jobs to increase the employment of 
seasonal workers must be counted, it seems unlikely that this will provide 
anything more than a temporary expedient in solving the employment and earnings 
problems of farm workers. The history of our technological development both 
in industry and agriculture has been one of increasing job specialization. 
Workers permanently attached to the labor force also prefer the security of 
steady employment. Multiple job holders lack security and cannot accumulate 
job rights. Not only migratory farm workers but nonmigratory workers who combine 
farm jobs or farm and nonfarm jobs are subject to these problems. What appears 
to be the impending organization of hired farm workers may provide an institu- 
tional framework for eliminating these problems among multiple farm jobholders. 
However, it seems unlikely that farm-nonfarm employment packages will be 
desirable alternatives for workers in the long run. 

REFERENCES CITED 

[1] Stanley, Harold F. "Mechanization and the Recruitment of Farm Workers." 
ToJim LaboH. Peva£opmen-C. Manpower Administration, U.S.D.L, August, 1968. 

[2] U.S. Dept, of Agriculture. Changes, In FoAm Production and E^iicU&ncy, 
A SummaA.y V.e.po>vt, 196S. Economic Research Service. Wash., D.C.: 
Government Printing Office, 1969. 

[3] . Th& Hired Tcvm WoKking Fo^ce Rzpont, (1962 through 1969.) 

Economic Research Service. Wash., D.C.: Government Printing Office. 

[4] U.S. Dept of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Handbook oi Labor 
Siatl&tici, 1967. Wash., D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1968. 

[5] U.S. Senate. He/vUngi Btiorz the. SabcoimUXtze. oi thz CormUXte.z on 
ApproprMvU-oni, . 90th Cong., 1st Sess. Part IV. FoAin Labor In a 
Changing AgrlcuUtuAz. Wash., D.C: Government Printing Office, 1967. 



ADDENDUM 

The. Hired Farm Working Force. Rzport ior 196S was published shortly 
after this paper was presented at the colloquium. The estimated size of the 
hired farm working force in 1968 showed a modest decline to 2,919 thousand 
persons while the index of total farm output showed a modest increase to 120 
(Addendum Table 1). In general, the composition of the hired farm work force 

219 



4467 



































i/t lo jx: 


1 


1 


in 


1 


'i- 


A 


1 


^ 


n 


<£> 


o 








>><»- <♦- J- 


1 


1 


in 


1 


o 




1 


-a- 


in 


«»■ 


o 








n3 o c: o 










CM 




















O O 3 






























z 






























■•-» e 






























c en t. 






























0) C (O ^ 


1 


1 


o 


o 


r~ 


J3 


1 


«s- 


ti- 


CM 


r>~ 








o-.-<»- I. 






o 


CO 


cn 




1 


CM 


ro 


CO 


CO 








s. o c o 






























(U Q 03 






























o. z 




























00 


































VD 
































o> 


irt 


g 






o 


in 


o 






o 


in 


O 


O 








C3> 


lO 






C3 


^ 


m 






o 


in 


lO 


CM 






i- 


C*-^ 


>«- 








• 




















o 


■1- «rt 


c 


1 


1 


•s- 


m 


vo 


^ 


1 


t>~ 


lO 


^ 


«a^ 






<*- 


J- «J 


o 

z 


' 


1 


'" 


*~ 


*" 




1 






■~ 








>> 


(O ■— 






























•tJ 


UJ •— 
































o 






























> 


>»3 






























































■l-> 


>^ 


c 


LT) 




in 


o 


o 






in 


o 


o 


in 






o 


<o 


c 


«*■ 




en 


CM 


i~-. 






t— 


in 


CO 


in 






ct 


o 


<a 








• 










• 




• 










Ll- 


^ 


1 


o 


CM 


r— 


^ 


1 


00 


r~» 


<Ti 


o 






<4- 








1 
























a> 




































JZ 
































o 




^ 




























>, 


.^ 


ro 


O 


1 


r— 


CO 


^ 


^ 


1 


ro 


CO 


O 


lO 






^ 


I. 
o 


O 




1 


CD 

CM 


r~. 


CM 
CM 




' 


•a- 


in 


in 


^ 






<o 


3 


1— 




























■»J 
































<0 


M- 






























o 


O 


























to 




0) 


(0 


























c 




o 


>, 


E 


o 


1 


VO 


00 


«n 


^ 




ro 


in 


in 


CT> 


o 




s. 


« 


«* 


1 


r^ 


in 


tn 




1 


CO 


CO 


CO 


t^ 


10 




o 


a 


<o 


CM 




^ 


















i. 




li. 




Ll. 
























0} 

a. 




o> 
































c 




























o 
o 








1c 




























o 




i. 




•IJ 


























o 


o 




C 


O 


w 


CM 


lO 


00 


n 


o 


^ 


en 


CO 




o 


c 


3 




(U 
























in 


•^ 






u 


00 


<vj 


"a- 


^ 


CM 




Ol 


in 


r-« 


in 


o 




T3 


g 




(. 




CV4 






1— • 




in 




CO 




o 


c 


C 


^ 


(rt 


a; 






















^— 


<o 


3 


<e 


I. 


a. 
























.c 


O 


li. 




























••J 


s_ 


•o 


i. 


























in 


o 


a> 


o 


























m 


*J 


s. 


3 


























a> 








1. 


























0) 


£ 




a> 


IT) 


CO 


^ 


^ 


CO 


r^ 


in 


<J» 


r«. 


o 


en 




3 






^ 


CM 


VO 


CM 


CO 


1-^ 


en 


CM 


»»■ 


o 


r^ 


r— 


in 


■o 






E 


m 


«o 






CO 




i>- 


»* 


1— 


^ 


CTI 


•^ 








3 






















CM 




in 


■— 




Z 
























0) 
in 


•o 




OJ 


























lO 


+J 




























Xi 


o 


-s 








cn 




















■fj 


1— 




>> 


I/I 


i. 

CJ> 


lO 
Ll. 

1 


i- 
0} 

a 


■a 
o 












0) 

(. 

0) 

z 
■a 

0) 

j= 
in 


o 
*J 

■o 

T3 
lO 

*J 

O 






"c 


t- 


3 


o 


E 














*»" 


c 






o 


<u 






le 


o. 


in 








O 












•o 




.^ 


<♦- 


E 


i. 








01 


U3 


>> 




>, 


.^ 




£ 


1. 


c 


0) 


0) 








o> 


3 


E 




^ 


t. 


o 


le 


o 


o 


c 


Jai 








10 


CL 






o 


.c 


u. 


3 


z 


Z3 


L. 








i- 








> 


3 


^ 










O 


in 






9) 


• 4J 


lO 




■M 




o 


>» 


>> 


>. 


>> 


3 




Ul 




^ 


1 — 1 O 

CO c 






o 














>> 


.^ 


+J 








(O 




< 


(O 


01 


t. 


i. 


t. 


I. 


t/ 


le 


c 


10 


i. 


a> 


4-» 




U- 




<o 




ID 


<o 


la 


g 


0) 


i- 


O 


a; o> 


C 




It- 




"q. 


E 


g 


E 


E 


i- 


^ 


-o 


01 




(J <o 


<u 




0) 


-a 












o 




3 


.c 




U L. 


o 






Q) 


4J 


t. 


(. 


I. 


X 


a. 


o 


■M 


+J 


10 


3 0) 


L. 


J 


<-> 




3 


o. 


a. 


Q. 


o. 


g 

1— 


3: 


in 


o 


■M 
O 

1— 


O > 


0) 

Ol 
U 



220 



4468 



by chief activity was consistent with trends established in prior years, 
with temporary workers increasing to 59% of the total. 

There was a sizable decline in the number of days of nonfarm work by 
temporary farm workers in 1968, although the proportion of workers doing nonfarm 
work remained about the same as in previous years. Daily farm earnings of 
homemakers and students were well above their daily earnings from nonfarm work. 
Average daily earnings at nonfarm work of those persons who were primarily 
farm wage workers increased considerably while their farm earnings showed little 
change. 

It should be noted that estimates published in Tkz H-Uidd ToAm UoiiUng 
foite. RzpofuU are based on a small sample of households and estimating errors 
can be substantial, especially on estimates with a small base. Thus, year-to- 
year differences can result from errors in estimation as well as actual changes 
in the variables estimated. 



221 



4469 

AGRICULTURAL LABOR MOBILITY 

Paul B. Miller 

Labor mobility is a many faceted subject and one which has increased in 
importance as the age of automation has progressed. In general, mobility 
exists when an individual has the ability to change the life or work pattern 
which he occupies currently. There are several dimensions or directions to 
the potential movement of people within the economic system as well as a 
multitude of factors influencing the decision to move. Most common types of 
mobility are social, labor force status, occupational, industrial, and 
geographic. The purpose of this paper is to explore each dimension of mobility 
briefly, consider some of the implications of recent research affecting each 
type and then discuss the significance of mobility in a dynamic agricultural 
labor market. Although each labor market is unique, I will rely heavily upon 
the experience gathered in studying the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas and 
Mexican-American farm workers. 

Economic Importance of Mobility 

The ability of a given labor market to expand and contract is vital to 
the economic health of a region. Unless movement is sufficient to compensate 
for changes in labor demand, both quantity and quality, bottlenecks occur 
causing structural unemployment in one area or occupation while an actual 
labor shortage might exist nearby. It is possible for a surplus of labor to 
exist amidst an extreme shortage if the skill requirements of the new job 
openings do not match the educational attainment of the available displaced 
workers. The result is an underutilization of human resources creating 
inefficiency and a decrease in potential productivity. 

Capital is considerably more mobile than labor. Recent experience has 
demonstrated how agricultural investment can be transferred from the United 
States to Mexico or any other desired location with little economic difficulty. 
Also capital resources can shift easily and swiftly into or out of a specific 
industry or process and drastically change the capital to labor ratio. Costs 
and availability of mechanical equipment relative to the supply and prevailing 
wage determine the rate of application of capital to agricultural production. 

Types of Mobility 

Social Mobility 

As a general rule, social mobility would not be treated in the context 
with the more conventional types of labor mobility. However, in the case of 
Mexican-Americans, it is highly relevant to the future supply of agricultural 



*The author is indebted to the Office of Manpower Policy, Evaluation and 
Research, United States Department of Labor, for their financial support of 
the research upon which this paper is based. 



245 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 28 



4470 



manpower. Even among Mexican-Americans, farm occupations do not enjoy a 
very high status. Most parents want their children to go into some higher 
skilled nonagri cultural career once he is old enough to leave home. The youth 
are better educated and receive much higher incomes than parents did at that 
same age. Skrabanek and Rapton found a significant trading up of occupations 
from farm to nonfarm intergenerationally [5]. Wright and Juvlesky found that 
48% of Mexican-American male high school students wanted to become professionals 
and only 5% mentioned unskilled occupations [7]. Indications are then that 
rural youth are interested in leaving agriculture if the proper opportunity 
can be created for them. 

Labor Force Status Mobility 

The labor force attachment of agricultural workers is often rather tenuous. 
Some of the reasons for this stem from the nature of the demand for their 
services. Due to conditions of temperature, moisture, etc., it is not uncommon 
to work only part of the day or not at all. There are frequent losses of work 
time due to the necessity of travel between jobs. Within each family the 
number of people employed over the year may fluctuate from zero to ten or more, 
depending on the specific month. Consequently, this shifting of individuals 
in and out of the labor force creates a fluid situation. While the long-run 
participation rate for the civilian labor force is stable at about 60%, the 
rate for a rural family may vary widely [6]. 

The average size of the household in our sample was seven persons. Of 
this household group, 23% had a maximum of only one worker employed at any 
time during the year, 29% had two, 12% had three, 14% had four, 14% had five, 
while 7% had over five working at the same time. Almost every household had 
experienced at least some unemployment or dropped out of the labor force. In 
addition, 30% of the families had two or more people unemployed or out of the 
labor force. 

The major determinants of the size of the family work force besides rate 
of childbirth are the level of family income and the age of the workers. 
Among farm families, most of the school age people drop out in September (or 
November for migrants) and go back in April, May, or June. If migrant family 
income is sufficiently high during the period spent out of Texas, the house- 
hold members frequently will not work while they winter in South Texas. That 
is to say, they are readily willing to substitute leisure for additional real 
inconte. However, there is a tendency for the younger workers to be more 
economically motivated than their parents in this respect. 

Occupational Mobility 

With a declining demand for agricultural manpower in most areas, it is 
essential for individuals to be able to move to another occupation. Major 
obstacles to the farm worker group's mobility include a paucity of education, 

246 



4471 



inconvertibility of skills, and lack of work experience. Average educational 
levels of farm workers are the lowest of any occupational group. In our study 
specifically, 51 of the household heads had less than one year of formal 
education while 77% had not completed the fifth grade. 

Although the problem of occupational mobility among agricultural laborers 
is worsened by a lack of potential skill convertibility, there is substantial 
lateral movement or shifting from the harvesting of one commodity to another. 
In our group it was found that on the average each worker spent time in the 
production of three different commodities in 1968. The products on which most 
of our group worked consisted of tomatoes, beets, cucumbers, onions, citrus, 
and carrots respectively. 

Although skilled at farm tasks, this group of workers does not meet the 
skill requirements of most jobs in the labor market as a whole. The entry 
level is low in most cases and, therefore, they face a surplus situation. 
Rural manpower often has difficulty adapting to the regimented, rapid pace 
urban work environment. Ruesink and Batson followed the adjustment process 
of a large group of Mexican-Americans who under a mobility project sponsored 
by the U.S. Department of Labor, moved from rural South Texas to urban ^ort 
Worth-Dallas [4]. Only about 10% of their group had agricultural employment 
as their last job but the experience of the group is worth noting. A majority 
of the group went to work at Ling-Tempco-Vought (LTV) where they were subjected 
to rigorous screening, pretraining, and close scrutiny by counselors. The 
results are phenomenal, indicating that if subjected to an environment of the 
nature generated at LTV, low skilled, high ability people can adapt to new 
job situations. The retention rate was 93% after two months and 68% after 
one year. In comparison, another project can be cited where a group of workers 
from South Texas went to a new job in the same labor market without prior 
training and without prior knowledge of what they were supposed to be doing 
on the job. It is not surprising that over 50% of the new employees did not 
stay with the same employer over two months. 

Industrial Mobility 

Moving from one occupation to another quite often is combined with an 
interindustry transfer. Frequently a complex move is necessary as opposed 
to a simple shift along one dimension. Perkins and Hathaway found that 
movement to nonfarm jobs would most likely occur among young non-Negroes 
having fairly high earnings in agriculture, previous nonfarm work experience, 
coming from a high income county, and being located within 50 miles of a 
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area [3]. Unfortunately, few of these 
factors are present in South Texas. However, experience with the LTV mobility 
project seems to indicate that some of the obstacles to mobility can be over- 
come. Choi din and Trout found that most Mexican-Americans who have dropped 
out of the migratory stream in a Michigan sample have been able to change 

247 



4472 



both occupation and industry without insurmountable difficulties [1]. Some 
57% of their sample had shifted from farm work to operative and kindred 
occupations, while 68% had moved to manufacturing jobs rather than agriculture. 

Within our group about one-third of the household heads had held a non- 
farm job in the last five years. Among this subgroup holding nonfarm jobs, 
approximately one-fourth did some type of construction work, 15% automotive 
related work and about the same number worked at agriculturally oriented jobs. 
Only two household heads did anything which might be classified as semi-skilled. 

Geographic Mobility 

Texas has provided an important source of seasonal farm labor for many 
years. While most of the hired labor force consists of local workers, migrant 
workers form the element on the supply side which serves to counterbalance 
pressures on the market stemming from the demand side during peak periods. 
This annual trek following the sun provides a ready source of trained farm 
labor for more urbanized states in which migration to the cities has pulled 
most of the people out of agriculture. Growers like this manpower source 
because they do not have to worry about creating jobs for the people in off 
seasons. Traditionally migrants did not stay; and, therefore, the towns did 
not have to worry about cultural friction and supplying housing or public 
facilities. 

Following the migratory path rather than staying in South Texas gives 
an individual or group the opportunity to work longer hours and make more 
money. In general, the Lower Rio Grande Valley has a surplus of unskilled 
human resources willing to work. The workers enjoy spending the colder months 
in the Valley where the temperature is more to their liking, and they are able 
to be near relatives and friends. While there, they are willing to work for 
much lower wage rates on winter vegetables and citrus. 

Tables 3 and 4 indicate the most important receiving states of migratory 
labor from the state of Texas. Migrants learn of jobs through the Texas 
Employment Commission, private labor recruiters, letters from employers, 
friends, and going out on their own from place to place. Michigan, Ohio, and 
Minnesota benefit most from the inflow of farm workers from Texas. Our research 
in Hidalgo County indicates that most of the families who left Texas went to 
the Middle West with Michigan being the. most popular. Although a large number 
did not leave the state, the average for the group was two states during the 
course of last year. 

Table 5 shows the relative importarvce of the Lower Rio Grande Valley to 
the exportation of labor. Hidalgo County (McAllen Labor Market) is the largest 
single contributor of migrant labor. Its share of the total supplied by the 
Valley has increased from 52% in 1965 to 61% of the number exported by private 
labor recruiters from Texas in 1968. For the country as a whole agricultural 
employment continues to decline as well as the share of migrants, which has 
fallen to 11% of total hired farm labor. 

248 



4473 



CM ■— ^ 
CTv LD 00 



(-~ 1^ .— 

cn vo io 



■— <X> fO 

00 r~. IT) 



in ^3- ID 

CM CO ^■ 



O CD h-. 

r- CTi in 



O 00 o 

a\ '=t CO 



^ l£> t-~ 

CT» ir> ko 



1^ o ^ 
00 I — lO 



<Tl Ol ^ 
kO r~ ID 



LT) tr) vo 
00 «*■ r^ 



r^ CM CM 

CO Ln vo 



00 cri 00 

1^ kO lO 



ro t^ CO 
I— r~. 00 



LO V£> CTt 

1-^ ^- r~. 



00 o in 00 UD ^1- 



CM CO O 
lO CO lO 



O ^ 00 

CO CO in 



00 00 in 

CO CO lO 



^ lO o 
lO 00 U3 



in CM CM 

CO r-^ lo 



r-- CM lo 
^3- 00 in 



ID VO CO 

en 1^ r-» 



00 CM I— 

r^ 00 t->. 



O ID CM 

r^ 00 vD 



00 00 en 
r^ 00 ID 



CM <n t^ 

CTl ^ 00 



CM 00 in 
en in CO 



o <n ro 
<n r~» ID 



CO en ID 
<n 00 in 



en t^ CM 
r-» en ID 



r— m 
•-^00 



00 00 CO 

00 ^*- en 



00 00 »j- 

00 <a- 00 



O^ CO o^ 
00 "d- 00 



O"00 ID 

<n in p~. 



00 r- ^ 

CO in CO 



O CM VD 

en in r^ 



CO Tl- CM 

en r-» ID 



o CO ro 

tTt ^o <£> 



O lO CM 
Ot ID ID 



w o <♦- 


QJ 0<4- 


Oi o <•- 


E ■— O 
>> D- 


E >— O 


^-s." 


O E <U 


O E 0) 




1— LU -M 


r- LU +J 


1— LU -tJ 


Q. <TS 


Q. (O 


a. <a 


E E QC 
Ul C 


E E Qi: 

LU C 


E E a: 

LU S- 


nj •— 


<o >— 


<a f— 


E >*- nJ 
C c -tJ 


£ <*- m 


E M- lO 


C C 4-> 


lO o o 


lO o o 


moo 



r-» CO 00 
r-. r^ in 



00 o en 
r^ 1^ in 



•— f— en 
ID 00 «a- 



CO 1^ en 
^ r-. li- 



en ID ^1- 
ro t^ in 



r-» «s- in 
r^ en in 



.— ID r— 

r^ 00 ID 



r~. w lO 
ID 00 in 



^ 


^ 


Sf, 








J^ 




o. 


o. 




+-> E 


■M E 


0) o. 




C 0) 


c <u 


XI E 




0) c 


Ol c= 


LU 




1^^=" 


t%^ 


en E 




0) O <4- 


<u o>»- 


n3 s- 




%n° 


l,'^^ 


■U lO 
C LU 


ID ID 


O E W 


O E (U 


(U 


■<n en 


.— LU +J 


r- LU +J 


o c 




a. lo 


Q. lO 


1. ■•- 




E E q: 


E E o: 






M C 


LU i~ 


a. en 


■>-> ■•-> 




/Of— 


VD 




E <t- <o 


E <•- n 


C 1 


^ ir 


C c -tJ 


S. C -M 


•.-00 


ID ID 


lO o o 


lO O O 


ID 


en en 


u-zt- 


U- Zh- 


OJ en 
cn>— 


*" ' 



249 



4474 





o 


CO O CO 


O CO CO 


oooo 


CM CM O 


cT> CM «a- 


1 1 1 


O 1 




f-^ 00 lO 


CM O IT) 


uT) CO m 


00 un <£) 


in 00 in 




Q 


r- ro 


r— ■* 


.— <a- 


>* 


>— >=J- 


1 1 1 


^l- 1 






> 

o 


OM~. CO 


CO CM CO 


vo r>~ I— 


o CM <r> 


in o o 




CM 
CM 1 




or-, r^ 


•-^ 00 VD 


<£> 1— VO 


t-^ <3- VO 


in ID 1^ 




z 


•— CO 


r- CO 


r- TJ- 


«* 


r— Id- 


1 1 1 


•s- 1 






■!-> 


O LD 0> 


CM ■— 1— 


vo .— CO 


i^ ^ in 


.— O lO 




O 
O 1 




1— IT) VO 


r— f^ VO 


CM C5 un 


un CM in 


CM ^ in 




o 


1— CO 


1— CO 


r— ^ 


«* 


•— «;^ 


1 1 1 






Q. 
0) 


Ol <T> >* 


CM CO 00 


<T> «* in 


CM in in 


en .— .— 




CM 




O ^ «3 


1— U3 IT) 


o o in 


<— •— KO 


1— CM m 


1 1 1 


cn 1 




x: 


00 


1— CO 


I— CO 


f— "=1- 


t— >* 


f— «* 


1 1 1 


1 




3 
O 

i. 


§1 


r. O Ol 


LT) CO 1— 


O^ CO CO 


in CM 00 


R"""^ 




t^ 




CO IT) VO 


CO VO <£> 


o o in 


1— .— in 


.— O in 


1 1 1 


en 1 




1- 


<: 


■— CO 


.— CO 


— "d- 


r— >* 


r— <* 








«S- 
















' 




VO 




















w 




















>) 


3 


Ol CO o 


ID O CM 


o r^ o 


00 00 «* 


CO in in 


1 1 1 


en 
in 1 




ro in r.. 


CO r^ lo 


O CTHJ3 


CM r- UD 


O O lO 


(0 

3 


•-3 


■— CO 


•— CO 


1— CO 


r— «* 


r- ^ 




CM 1 

1 




C 
■-3 


C 
3 


r-. <M r- 


O CM CM 


CM o r^ 


CTV o r^ 


eg n- in 


1 1 1 


CO 1 




^ r-. 00 


•:3- 1^ r^ 


CO o in 


«* CM in 


"* CO ID 


Ol 

J. 
■a: 


'O 


1— CO 


t— CO 


r- <* 


.— ^ 


r->* 


1 1 1 


1 






















0) (/) 


^ 


00 Ol en 


CM <n ir> 


O r— CO 


in in in 


CO CO r- 


O O 'S- 


en CTi 




CO r^ vD 


CO rv. vo 


CM CTl «* 


r^ CM tn 


in ^ in 


ID r^ in 


o in 




^ T3 


Z 


1— CO 


r— CO 


1— CO 


.— «* 


.— «d- 


•— "3- 






^ C 
















1 


4-> 


ITJ <0 


















c 


s: w 


















<u 


3 


















i. 


S- o 

O JZ 
-Q 1— 


a 


«*■ vo CO 


CO lo vo 


in CO 00 


CM CM CO 


co r^ in 


in o 00 


in r— 


<u 


CM r. r^ 


CM 00 in 


«s- o «* 


00 CO in 


ID in in 


r^ en >* 


^ ^ 


10 — - 


■< 


.— CO 


>— CO 


>— >* 


•— <* 


■— «* 


.— «3- 


CO ^ 




_l 


















T3 


>> 


















Ol 


^ 


















i- 


0) 


<o 


a> lo CO 


00 VO IT) 


.— 1— CM 


o r^ CO 


Ol in ^ 


1^ 00 CO 


in 


lO 


•— r^ r. 


.— 00 «3 


CM o in 


lo CM in 


.— ^ m 


«*■ 00 ^ 


O CO 


0) 


n> 


s: 


•— CO 


r- CO 


•— <* 


■— ^ 


<— ^ 


r— 'S- 


CM 




E 


















"q. 




















O 


+J 


















0) 


w 


















O. 


LU 


J3 


00 ^a- CM 


<* CO 00 


t^ CM r-. 


CM in lo 


in CM <n 


CO 1-^ CO 


Ol P- 


4J 

3 


01 


i— VO CO 


1— CO lO 


CM C3 in 


lO CM in 


CTi ^ in 


in 00 ID 


CM «J> 


U 

i. 

o 


Ll. 


1— CO 


r— CO 


r— ^ 


.— ^ 


«a- 


r— ^ 


CM CM 


XI 
















1 


(U 


U- 


















E 
<o 
10 


o 


C 
ro 


O »0 CO 


CO CM r-. 


in o CTi 


CO r-» 00 


in CT> Ol 


O O CM 


CTi m 


<— VO CO 


<— 00 VD 


CM o in 


in eg in 


ID CO in 


ID cn m 


O in 


C 0) 


la 


■r> 


r— CO 


<— CO 


f— ^a- 


•— ^ 


«»- 


.— <«■ 


«* «* 


O JZ 


_i 
















1 


(A 

to C 






4-> 


•)-> 


■(-> 


-«-> 


+J 


■*-> 


en 




CM 




c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


1— +-> 


E <0 






Q) 


« 


a> 


Qi 


0) 


01 


c: 




a> 




fj 


i. 


1. 


^ 


% 


i, 


C 0) 

SI, 


S> i- 


A 




O 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 




le 




r— 












3 O 


*^ >> 


1- 




a. 


a. 


o. 


"a. 


a. 


o. 


+J.— 


C ro 






■M E 


+J E 


■*-» E 


+J E 


4J E 


■M E 


0) a. 


0) E 






c <u 


c <u 


C 0) 


C 0) 


c a» 


C Q> 


.Q E 


1.^ 






0) c 


<u c 


0) c 


<u c 


(U c 


0) c 


LU 






4-> E =) 


^1.^ 


^1,=" 


^1.= 




■•-> E = 
c >> 


0) 
t3> E 


2g 






OJ o <<- 


0) O <4- 


<u o<t- 


QJ O <4- 


(DOM- 


0) O M- 


ID l- 


i-l. 

LU O 






I.'S.^ 


l.'S.^ 


Er- O 

5, a. 


1.'^° 


i,'s.° 


%'^° 


4J rtj CO <n 

c: U. ID ID 






O E <U 


O E <U 


O E 0) 


O E OJ 


O E <U 


O E OJ 


<u en CTi 








r— LU +J 


1— UJ 4J 


1— LlJ ■!-> 


r— LU ■!-> 


r— LU +J 


r— LU -U 


O C I— 1— 


10 Q. 






CL nj 


d ns 


a. la 


Q. <a 


Q. >a 


CL la 


1- -t- 


•O E 






E E a: 


E E CC 


E E ct: 


E E q: 


E Eo: 


E E o; 


<u O O 


X LU 






UJ i. 


LlJ t- 


LU I. 


LU i- 


LU t- 


LU S- 


o.eri -iJ +J 


01 






<o f— 


lO ■— 


<o I— 


ro r— 


lO r— 


nj I— 


ID 


^ E 






EM- <o 


E <4- <0 


E <4- lO 


E M- (D 


E <4- lO 


E <»- <o 


c 1 «a- ^ 








i- C 4J 


&. C -M 


C C 4J 


i. c ■»-> 


i. C -M 


I. C -M 


•.- 00 ID ID 


<a 






C lO o o 


lO o o 


nj O o 


UJ O O 


moo 


ITS o o 


ID en <Tl 


.. u. 






<U LL. Z I— 


Ll- Zl— 


u- Zh- 


u- Z (- 


u. Zl— 


U. Z 1— 


0) en r— r— 


0) 


















Or- 


O r— 






>— 'T 


in 


lO 


r^ 


00 


<Ti 


c 


t. <o 






<C lO 


lO 


l£> 


lO 


VO 


ID 


lO T3 


3 +J 






O CTl 


o> 


CJ> 


a> 


CT) 


CT> 


^ C 


o o 






s: r- 


^ 


' 


^~ 


*~~ 


' 


o >o 


00 1— 



250 



4475 



Table 3. Distribution of Agricultural Labor Sent Out of Texas Through 
Licensed Agents by State of Destination: 1965-68 



State 



1965 
No. Pet. 



1966 
No. Pet. 



1967 
No. Pet. 



1968 
No. Pet. 



California 

Colorado 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Montana 

Nebraska 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Utah 

Washington 

Wisconsin 

Wyomi ng 

Total No. of 
Workers 



6,020 
6,523 
1,871 

428 
33 
1,159 
5,631 
5,518 
1,900 
3,532 
2,654 
2,750 

334 
1,201 

7 
630 



40,251 



15.0 

16.2 

4.6 

1.1 

.1 

2.9 

14.0 

13.7 

4.7 

8.8 

6.6 

6.8 

.8 

3.0 

.01 
1.6 



5,907 
5.438 
1,660 

108 

497 

931 
4,000 
4,959 

784 
4,478 
2,376 
1.906 

467 
1,007 

236 
71 

930 



36,463 



16.2 

14.9 

4.6 

.3 

1.4 

2.6 

11.0 

13.6 

2.2 

12.3 

6.5 

5.2 

1.3 

2.8 

.6 

.2 

2.6 



679 

649 

1,988 

436 

465 

1,287 

3.732 

6.131 

1.335 

3,778 

1,899 

1,591 

974 

968 

303 

364 

1.107 



34,158 



2.0 

1.9 

5.8 

1.3 

1.4 

3.8 

10.9 

17.9 

3.9 

11.1 

5.6 

4.7 

2.9 

2.8 

.9 

1.1 

3.2 



1,016 

5,880 

1,782 

318 

825 

2,198 

4,242 

5,983 

1,365 

3,793 

2,702 

2,012 

215 

456 

261 

392 

1.308 



35,846 



2.8 
16.4 

5.0 
.9 

2.3 

6.1 
11.8 
16.7 

3.8 
10.6 

7.5 

5.6 
.6 

1.3 
.7 

1.1 

3.6 



Source: Texas Bureau of Labor Statistics. 



Table 4. D 


istribution of Agricultu 


ral Labor Sent 


Out of Texas Through 


Texas Employment 


Commission by 


State of Desti 


lation 


: 1965-68 




State 


1965 




1966 




1967 


1968 






No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet. 


Colorado 


2,606 


3.9 


2.346 


3.0 


3,368 


3.9 


987 


1.3 


Idaho 


4,592 


7.5 


4,618 


6.0 


4.515 


5.3 


5.461 


7.4 


Illinois 


5,143 


7.8 


6,440 


8.3 


6,017 


7.0 


4,984 


6.8 


Indiana 


5,678 


9.6 


7,657 


9.9 


8,561 


10.0 


6,011 


8.2 


Iowa 


371 


.6 


1,140 


1.5 


1,196 


1.4 


307 


.4 


Michigan 


15,303 


23.1 


23,545 


30.4 


26.199 


30.6 


27,896 


37.9 


Minnesota 


819 


1.2 


728 


.9 


1.170 


1.3 


1.294 


1.8 


Montana 


3,021 


4.6 


2,537 


3.3 


2,963 


3.5 


2.446 


3.3 


Ohio 


9,734 


14.7 


9,957 


12.9 


10,700 


12.5 


8,963 


12.2 


Oregon 


1,686 


2.6 


2,043 


2.6 


2,520 


2.9 


1,660 


2.3 


Washington 


1,916 


2.9 


2,282 


2.9 


2,210 


2.6 


1,285 


1.8 


Wisconsin 


7,294 


11.0 


7,361 


9.5 


8,837 


10.3 


6,577 


9.0 


Wyomi ng 


2,520 


3.8 


1.959 


2.5 


2.144 


2.5 


2,177 


3.3 


Total 


66,185 




77,498 




85.574 




73,460 




Source: Texas 


Employment Comn 


lission. 













251 



4476 



CM ■— I— 



■r- <V 

en o 



252 



4477 



To summarize the subject of mobility, there are several paths an indi- 
vidual might take to adjust to rapid changes in the agricultural labor market. 
An individual who is unable to adapt to the dynamics of the market will 
sacrifice both personal income, prestige, and job security. Consequently, 
the economy will suffer a loss of potential productivity resulting from under- 
utilization of the human resources which such an individual represents. 
Frustrated by failure to synchronize his personal attributes to the needs of 
the changing work environment, the farm worker could be alienated toward 
society. This in turn could result in his withdrawal both from society and 
the labor force. 

Mobility and Rural Manpower Problems 

There is general agreement on the desirability of achieving and maintain- 
ing a highly mobile agricultural labor force because such a force is able to 
fluctuate as manpower requirements change. Most people recognize the existence 
of barriers that impede the transition of farm workers from one job to another. 
Deficiencies in education, skill, and work experience coupled with strong 
sociological ties to specific regions create serious adaptional problems. The 
burden of hardships caused by mobility now rests primarily upon the individual. 
In most cases there are no provisions for income maintenance (unemployment 
compensation, supplementary unemployment benefits, etc.) comparable to nonfarm 
employment. Furthermore, there is a definite lack of general agreement on 
how the burden might be shifted from the farm worker and, indeed, on whether 
or not it should be shifted. 

On one hand there exists a substantial number of people who believe that 
the public should not tamper with the market mechanism. This opinion is based 
on the desire to maintain a large surplus of cheap captive labor. In addition, 
this view obtains additional support through associations of citizens which 
are located in areas that receive manpower but do not want certain ethnic 
groups settling in their areas permanently. These two sources of opposition 
to public participation represent a highly organized, politically influential 
force which resists virtually any piece of social legislation designed to 
assist mobility. However, on the other hand, most people believe public 
institutions have both an obligation and a major role in increasing labor 
mobility. 

There are numerous alternative public programs available under present 
laws which are designed to help ease some of the most severe hardships caused 
by labor market shifts. For example, the Annual Worker Plan has been effective 
in extending the work year and providing a rough estimate of migrant labor 
demand. At present the Farm Labor Service has at its disposal a wide range 
of programs oriented toward assisting people in transition by upgrading their 
skills and providing information concerning alternative employment opportunities. 
Through provisions of the Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA) of 1962, 

253 



4478 



as amended, and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, a number of innovative 
programs have been implemented. There remains the urgent need to improve the 
image of the Farm Labor Service so that more people will rely on its facilities. 
However, at current levels of appropriations the service cannot meet the needs 
of rural people. More funds are needed for Headstart and Adult Migrant 
Education courses of OED, MDTA sponsored research and training classes, as 
well as E + D and outreach programs of the Farm Labor Service and U.S. Employ- 
ment Service. 

Aside from the lack of funds, the direction of agricultural manpower 
programs might be altered to consider a middle ground for the individual. While 
mechanization is lowering the demand for unskilled workers, it also is creating 
openings for higher skilled persons to operate equipment and provide agriculture 
related services such as pesticide and herbicide distribution and application. 
It is possible to train displaced farm workers for jobs which are similar to 
what they have been doing. There are several types of nursery and lawn service 
openings that would require little training. Of more universal appeal are 
auto mechanics and welders who can either serve the agricultural or non- 
agricultural labor market. A highly successful MDTA class was held in farm 
management tailored to small farm operators in East Texas. Because of the 
lower benefit-cost ratio for longer vocational classes it is more practical to 
implement manpower programs for older workers that are more of an intermediate 
step rather than a drastic change from the individuals previous work patterns. 

South Texas will continue to serve as the resevoir for much of the 
migratory farm labor in the United States. Even though the birth rate is 
approximately 50% higher than the national average, the total population of 
the Lower R^o Grande Valley has increased very little during the last decade. 
Job opportunities are very limited in the Valley so many job seekers leave 
permanently each year. This is not an inexhaustible supply of agricultural 
workers, but they also present serious problems when making the transition 
out of the area and industry. There appears to be little potential for the 
location of industry in the region. The nonagricultural industries which might 
locate there are building facilities on the Mexican side of the border. Moving 
the surplus workers out of agriculture presents a national challenge. States 
have done little to help relieve the burden and uncertainty of the transition. 
Therefore, the leadership for financial support of ameliorative manpower programs 
falls on the federal government. 

REFERENCES CITED 

[1] Choldin, Harvey M.; and Trout, Grafton D., Jr. M^XA.c.an-Am^/UcJxni in 
Michigan: Vfiom Tidid to Factory, Interim report to U.S. Dept. of 
Labor, pp. 39-40. 

[2] McElroy, Robert C. The HiAzd Fa/i/n Wofik Fo^ce oi 1967. USDA, ERS, 

Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 148, Wash., D.C.: Government Printing Office, p. 11. 

254 



4479 



[3] Perkins, Brian; and Hathaway, Dale. Movmant oi LaboA. Be^een FoAm and 
WoniJoAw Jobi. Mich. State Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. No. 13, 1966. 

[4] Ruesink, David C; and Batson, T. Brice. "Success Factors in Retraining- 
Relocation Program Involving Mexican-Americans." Paper presented to the 
Association of Southern Agricultural Workers Meetings, Mobile, Alabama, 
February 3, 1969. 

[5] Skrabanek, R. L.; and Rapton, Avra. OccupaZioyuxl Ckangt Among Spanl&h.- 
hnivUcaM,. B-1061, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 15-19. 

[6] U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly Laboi Review. 
June, 1968. 

[7] Wright, Dwight E., Jr.; and Kuvlesky, William P. "Occupational Status 
Projections of Mexican-American Youth Residing in the Rio Grande Valley 
of Texas." Paper presented at annual meeting of Southwestern Social 
Science Association, Dallas, Texas, April, 1968. 



255 



4480 

MANPOWER POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 
John W. Mamer 
Introduction 

If one makes any global comparisons of fruit and vegetable production 
and of prices paid by consumers, he cannot fail to be impressed with the 
achievement of the fruit and vegetable industry in the United States. Produc- 
tion has been more than ample to meet domestic needs. Prices have been 
sufficiently low for a substantial volume to move into international trade. 

Yet the economic, social, and political framework of production is 
changing. Some of that change has its origin within the industry--in changing 
technology, methods of financing, marketing, etc. Some of the change to which 
adjustment will be made has its origin outside of agriculture in the economic, 
political, and social framework of the nation. 

Probably the most important element of change lies in government policies 
and programs. A decade or so ago the main thrust of government policies and 
programs relevant to farm labor was in the direction of providing a labor 
supply for the fruit and vegetable industry. In the past five years emphasis 
has shifted toward concern for the welfare of the seasonal farm worker. 

This shift is perhaps not emphatic. Yet it appears clear that currently, 
and more so in the future, progress is not to be measured exclusively in terms 
of volume of output and consumer prices. In part, this colloquium is a response 
to the questions of adjustments being generated by public policies as well as 
to changes in the labor supply-demand situation in the fruit and vegetable 
industry. 

This paper will concentrate largely on problems evolving wvth respect 
to hired seasonal labor employed in fruit and vegetable production. Although 
family members and year-round workers are also frequently employed in the 
production of fruit and vegetables, the major problems arise with respect to 
hired seasonal workers. From the growers' ^Joint of view there is the problem 
of obtaining the quantity and quality of labor desired, and from the point of 
view of society there are the social and economic problems associated with 
seasonal labor. 

To focus sharply on the critical issues, it is convenient at the outset 
to set down a series of brief statements that describe the current labor 
demand-supply situation in fruit and vegetable production. 

Current Situation 

The major elements of the present situation fall into two groups: 
(1) those that relate to seasonal farm labor requirements; and (2) those that 
relate to the supply of seasonal farm labor. The term "labor requirements" 
does not correspond to the economist's concept of demand but it is a useful 
and generally understood term. 

341 



4481 



Labor Requirements 

Despite the decline in seasonal labor requirements in fruit and vegetable 
production, there remains currently and in the foreseeable future the need to 
mobilize relatively large numbers of workers to perform the seasonal tasks if 
current levels of production are to be maintained or expanded. 

Assuming that employment approximates labor requirements, we can say 
that during the peak month, August, approximately a million seasonal farm 
workers are required in U.S. agriculture, given current volumes of output 
(Table 1). About 40% of these are employed in fruit and vegetable harvest. 
About a quarter of a million seasonal workers are migrants (Table 2). About 
four times as many seasonal workers are employed during the peak month as 
during the month of lowest employment, January. 

These are relatively large seasonal labor requirements. The number of 
workers is large relative to the number of individuals employed on a year- 
round basis, family or hired. The number is large relative to the number of 
workers that usually can be recruited local ly--hence, the need for migratory 
workers. State, county, and local data indicate to an even greater extent 
than national data the relative size of the annual mobilization of manpower 
among jobs and regions. In some counties or production areas the number of 
persons employed for a few weeks at seasonal farm work is from two to six times 
the annual average employment of all types of farm workers. 

Even if one assumed that the decline in seasonal labor requirements is 
in the neighborhood of 6% annually, that would leave by 1979 a relatively 
large number of individuals to recruit and employ at seasonal farm work. 
Further, even if one assumes that the substantial effort directed toward the 
mechanization of production and harvest of fruits and vegetables will be more 
elaborate and more successful in the near future, it would probably be safe 
to say that seasonal labor will be an important component of the labor input 
in fruit and vegetable production for the next two decades. 

The rate at which new technology is generated and proliferated through 
the industry is a variable subject to industry influence. Industry need not 
take the technology as given. The beet sugar industry and canning tomato 
industry in California are two obvious illustrations of industries that 
influenced substantially the rate of development of new technology. The new 
technology was the result of an organized comprehensive program in each case. 

A high probability of success of a comprehensive effort to develop and 
proliferate new technology is contingent upon bringing to bear the widest 
possible range of scientific disciplines and securing the cooperation of all 
of the sectors of industry, from the grower to the supermarket. 

Although the work of the ingenious inventor and the inventive farmer is 
still important, the problem of developing new technology is now largely beyond 
the resources of these two sources of new technology. The probability of 

342 



4482 










u 


en 


f— in 


r>. CO 


^ 


CM ID 


.— r^ ^3- "a- 


in 


«3- ro 00 


<M ro CM 


in 


3 








OJ 


Lf) 


CO LT) 


' <*'o 


1 — 


CM ro 


^ CM ID 


ro 


r— 1— 


CO p-~ 





■^ 











01 


CO «3- 


ro r— 




<a- in 


.— ro 


CM 


CM 


«3- 


»* 










CM 






' 














CO 










en 


r^ ^ 


CM CTi ro 


in 


00 ro 


.— ID in .— 


CM 


.— ro 00 


VD "O- CM 


ro 


-« 








> 






















Ci) 











n— 


r~ r— 


' an r^ 


^ 


1- ID 


^ ID in 


t-~ 


CO 1— .— 


CM ro VD 


00 


+^ 








^ 


CO 


"* ^ 


,— CM 


CM 


ID t^ 


1— in 


ro 




1— CM ro 


in 


3 








• 


to 


p~. in 


W CM P^ 





r^ CM 


in .— in 00 


in 


ro in r-~ 


CM ro ^ 


«3- 


^ 








■»-> 










• • 




• 








V 











«o 


«3- 


CM in 


'S- 


^ ID 


CM ^ CM 


CO 


in CM 


r^ CM «*• 


r^ 




tk 









en 


10 in 


■— ro 


CM 


r^ in 


CM in t^ 




r^ 


rr in ^ 


00 


s 


i~ 








V£) 






"* 


^- 




r— 


r— 






w 


0) 




























§ 


o 




























•v 


3 






■M 


^ 


in ro 


CO CM ro 


r^ 


CM P- 


CM ID «* 00 


CO 


CM ID 


CO r^ in 


CM 


.a 



<4- 






Q. 


'»■ 


ro ro 


t^ in 


vo 


in r- 


ID ro >— CM 


f^ 


^ r— ID 


00 00 


d 


ie 


O 






0) 
00 


5 


00 in 


1— ro 


00 
in 


ro CM 

CM 


1 — CO ro 00 


ro 


CM 


VD CM 


en 


ft. 


>1 




























*e 


■u 



























































J3 


> 




























ti 










CM 


*1- CM 


ro r- CO 





CO in 


CM ro ID 1^ 





CO in t-^ 


ro in CT> 


ro 


—1 






en 


l~^ 


CM in 


CM o^ 10 


,_! 


CO ID 


in ID CM .— 


t-~ 


^a- CM CM 


in r^ in 


CM 


c 


<a: 






3 





in CM 


CM I— r>. 


ro 


•— t^ 


1^ ID >— CM 


ro 


CM 


CM r^ CM 


CM 


^ 








•a: 





r— 




t-~ 


CvJ 


r— 


r— 


^— 


^- 




y 


>) 




























U. 










■" 






















i. 































9) 




























^ 


s. 






>, 


CO 


ro 


00 r- ^ 


r~ 


ro 1— 


^ in CM 


ro 


ID «3- ro 


<M 00 P^ 


«- 


*e 


O 00 














• 


• • 


• • • • 










^ 


3 «5 






3 


vo 


CM in 


ID lO CM 


«a- 


in 


CM CM 00 


ro 


ro CM 


1-^ VD 


in 


•v 


O. 




4-> 





r». 


t-^ m 


ID CM l£> 


00 


'T 


<— •— 1— 


00 


1— 1— in 


ro r^ CM 


CO 


s 






C 




(T> 


CM 




in 
















n> 




OJ 
























a) 


t- t- 

3 0) 




% 


























+J ^ 

































VI 




<u 


un 


t^ CM 


.— CD.— 


^- 


in CM 


CM CM 00 ro 


ro 


r^ ID 


p— .— CM 


in 




"3 tt) 


i. 


a. 


c 


• 






• 



















OJ 


E 


3 





^ 1— 


r^ CT» in 


CO 


' '^ 


in ;^ 





ID r~ in 


1— ro 00 


VD 


OJ 


•.- 0) 


^ 


m 


'^ 


ro 


r^ t^ 


CO ro «^ 


CM 


in 


CM r— n- 


CM 


r- .— 00 


CM 00 r— 


CO 


s- 


t- 


s. 






cri 


CM 




«r 






CM 








(O 


O) 1 





























It- • 


■a: >> 


5 


























i— 


t. 




























OJ >— 


T3 <0 
0) 3 

s_ c 





























3 




>, 


CSJ 


ro ro 


<M o> in 


ID 


CM 


f— in 10 


ID 


CD 00 00 


r— VD r— 





u 0. 


•t- 10 


»o 




lO 
























ac '^ 


T3 




S 


,— 


00 «r 


in p~. 


ID 


p~. 


•a- CT> ro 





ro r^ CM 


in .— CM 


CM 


p— * 




C 








in r-- 


^ in r-. 





<M 


00 


00 


CM *a- 




r». 


J3 CM 


r— •« 


<a 






U3 






CM 














3 VD 


10 Ut 


10 


























a. CM 


C OJ 


3 




























-tJ 





























-0 


(o m 


x: 








r— in 


ro CO «a- 


«r 


r>- 


ro ID >— t^ 


00 


CM 1— in 


«a- 00 p^ 




c » 


ns ■»-> 


1— 




1- 


• 










• • • • 




• • • 






. 10 c 


0) 10 






o. 


•a- 


l~^ r— 


ro r-. 


<xj 


00 


^ CO ■— 'd- 


(M 


CM en r- 


CM «3- 


CM 


in 


CO 






«t 


1^ 


CM r- 


1— ro CM 


^— 


ID 


in 


CM 


r— 


r— 


in 


1— t- -1- 


-0 








ro 




















(O m 


<*- <u 




























+J J3 in 


-•-> 




























fO 0) 






























+J _i 00 


+J c 






























C ID 








^ 


CTv •— 


ro CM ID 


CM 


ID 


r-~ r— ro in 


CM 


'S- VD CM 


ro ^ 


CM 


c ■*-> 


0) 






s. 












• • • • 








• 


■M </) 


f, 






>o 


00 


«s- Ol 


CM CM 


in 


ID 


ro 1— 1— 


in 


ro t— 




CM 








s: 


00 


10 10 


1— CM CM 





in 


r- ^ 


CM 


CM 


CM 


"a- 


■0 OJ 


5 








CM 




















■0 OJ « 






























<a *•> VI 


o. 




























*-> in 


E 




























^-> ••- <u 


£ 




























E s- 










00 


en CO 


«* en in 


CM 


in CM 


ro CM CM 00 





CM 00 


CM ID r^ 


en 


c E 01 


T3 






J3 






• • • 






• • • • 










5 


OJ 






01 


r— 


CM in 


vo ro in 





' ro 


ro 1— 1— VD 


ro 


n— n— 


ro en 


CM 


>,<_> 


*J 






Ll. 


r». 


in 10 


'T •— 




in 


r- ro 


ro 


ro 




>* 


<o 










CSJ 






r~ 














E 






























• +J 


•^ 




























t/1 OJ in 


■t-> 




























OJ -M r- 


I/I 




























S- 10 CM 


Ul 






c 


vo 


CO ro 


»S- CM 


r~- 


r^ cvj 


<— ro CO 


VD 


r- VD CM 


<M ro 


ro 


3 C 
CJ> OJ •> 








<a 


t£> 


CM r-» 


ro CM ^ 


p^ 


•d- CM 


ro I— *»• 


ro 


r~ ^ 


r^ CM 


^ 


•1- 00 ro 


• 






•-D 


ir> 


«*• 10 


<• 1— 


r~ 


"S- 


•— ro 


ro 


CO 


CM 


ro 


<4- CO 


'- 








CM 






"" 












• • r-!- 


V 






















' ■ 




oi m CTt 


























? w 


.a 
















M 






-0 


■r- OJ • 


•o 
















« 






OJ 


■o- t- 


1- 




I* 


(0 










>0 
01 




in in 

0) -<-> c 


OJ 


• C tMZ 
>0 3 C 

+J • 

10 i- -M 
Q. 






> 


> 




(/) 






CM 




J. 3 10 irt 


0. 


• 0: 












a. 




10 


in u) a> 




1. i. I- Q. 


Irt 


>,+>oo 






■M 


•M 


O) 







0) 


0) 0) > 




OJ <*- CM 


c 


1- • • 









U 


c 


u 


O) 









(/) ^ i- 


3 


10 0) =) 00 






<: 


ro 




u 


c 


!a 


(rt +J -M 1- 




3*1- T3 VJ 




C 3 










4-> 


c en 




C (O 


C lO 10 OJ 


m 


(_ 10 01 U C 


>> 


•r- Q 






a. 


^. 


1— <o 


■•-> t. 


+J 


*> 


(0 E -tJ -c 


■tJ 


+J I. f 10 I. 


4-> 


E :• 









r. 


10 > 


4J T- 0) 


10 


*J v 


* -IJ 


•^ 


•r- +J •!-> 10 0» 


'r— 


•r- OJ 






1. 


<t 


$- •>- 


+J 3x: 


0) 


■•-> o> 


CO 1— Q. 


3 


CJ </i ^ >>^ 


> 


t— •• U 











0) 4-> 


I. +J 


> 


0) 




I. 


10 •♦J 




OJ OJ l- 










C t— 


<_j li. 


I. 


CJ > 




u. 


t- 3:0 


■tJ 


l. '<>' 3 










0) 3 




10 










(J 


0. 










CD 




n: 










< 


10 ;c 00 



343 



4483 



Table 2. 


Estimated Employment of Migratory Agricu 


Itural 


Workers, By 


State 




and Month, 48 States, J 


anuary 


-December 1968 














(Thousands of 


Workers) 












State 










Migra 


nt-Worker Employment 








Jan, 


Feb. 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


July 


Aug. 


Sept, 


Oct. 


Nov, 


Dec* 


U.S. Total 
Alabama 


35.3 


38.5 


40.7 


59.8 


115.2 


203.9 


208.3 


235.6 


202.3 


134.9 


48,1 


44.9 














0.4 


1.7 


1.2 


0.8 


0,2 


0,1 


0,3 


0.1 


Arkansas 














1.5 





.1 





,3 











Arizona 


3.1 


3.0 


3.5 


4.2 


2.5 


2.7 


1.5 


.9 


1,2 


2.4 


3,6 


4.2 


California 


11.2 


12.2 


14.0 


20.2 


37.9 


38.3 


35.5 


51.5 


62.5 


38,7 


14.6 


12.7 


Colorado 











.6 


2.2 


7.8 


6.9 


5.8 


4.7 


3,1 


.3 





Connecticut 


.2 


.2 


.1 


1.1 


1.7 


1.7 


5.7 


5.1 


2.0 


1,4 


.6 


.2 


Delaware 














1.8 


1.9 


1.6 


2.0 


1.1 


,5 








Florida 


20.2 


21.5 


19.2 


19.0 


18.7 


7.3 


1.8 


.5 


.9 


5,0 


12.0 


18.6 


Georgia 














.5 





.1 

















Idaho 








.2 


1.0 


3.7 


6.4 


5.5 


3.9 


3.6 


3,0 


1.0 





Illinois 














2.0 


3.9 


2.1 


3.4 


4.0 


.7 








Indiana 














1.7 


2.4 


2.9 


5.0 


9.0 


,6 








Iowa 

















.4 


.4 


.6 


.5 


,3 


.1 





Kansas 











.6 


2.0 


3.3 


2.7 


1.3 


1.7 


1.7 


.7 





Kentucky 














.6 


.2 


.2 


.2 





,1 








Louisiana 











.8 


.7 











.4 


,4 


.4 


.2 


Maine 


























.4 


.1 








Maryland 











.4 


.7 


.8 


2.3 


2.6 


1.5 


,8 








Massachusetts 














.8 


1.0 


2.2 


2.9 


1.8 


,8 


.2 


b 


Michigan 











.7 


3.7 


23.2 


27.3 


40.0 


13.6 


10,3 


.6 





Minnesota 














.3 


6.3 


6.1 


.2 


.2 


,4 


b 





Mississippi 






































Missouri 




















.1 





.2 


,1 








Montana 


.1 


.3 


.7 


1.4 


1.5 


5.4 


5.9 


6.4 


4.0 


2,2 


1.1 


.4 


Nebraska 

















3.5 


3.8 


.4 


.1 


,1 








Nevada 






































New Hampshire 




















.1 


.1 


.2 


,2 








New Jersey 











1.3 


6.5 


9.8 


10.6 


12.1 


9.6 


5,5 


.2 


.1 


New Mexico 














.5 


1.1 


.8 


.7 


,9 


,5 


.4 


.1 


New York 














2.1 


4.0 


7.0 


9.3 


14,8 


13.1 








North Caroline 


t 


.2 


.1 


.1 


.3 


2.3 


3.7 


8.3 


4.7 


3,4 


1.8 





North Dakota 











1.4 


2.2 


4.1 


4.6 


5.6 


5.0 


5,1 








Ohio 














2.6 


5.1 


7.5 


13.6 


1.8.5 


2,5 








Oklahoma 


.1 


.1 


.1 


.3 


1.0 


13.0 


2.3 


1.7 


2,4 


1,4 


1.2 


.7 


Oregon 


,1 


.4 


.6 


1.3 


3.3 


12.1 


7.9 


13.3 


5.9 


3,7 


. 1 


.1 


Pennsylvania 














.5 


.8 


1.7 


3,6 


5.9 


4,9 


1.4 





Rhode Island 























.1 


.1 











South Caroline 


I 














4.1 


1.9 


2.0 


,4 





. 1 





Tennessee 














.4 


.1 


b 


b 


b 


,1 








Texas 


.1 


b 


.2 


1.3 


2.2 


10.0 


19.8 


14.7 


6,4 


6,2 


6.1 


7.5 


Utah 














.3 


1.5 


2.7 


,8 


1.5 


1,2 








Vermont 























b 


.1 


.1 








Virginia 














.8 


1.1 


4.4 


3,3 


2.8 


3.2 


.5 





Washington 


.2 


.8 


1.9 


4.0 


6.6 


12.5 


7.8 


5,8 


7.9 


9.8 


.7 





West Virginia 




















.1 


,3 


.5 


.7 


.3 





Wisconsin 














.6 


.8 


2.4 


6,9 


1.1 


.6 








Wyomi ng 














.5 


2f9 


2.3 


.1 














^Preliminary c 
Less than 50 


lata. 
























worker; 
























Source: U.S. 


Congress. Senate 


'. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. 


The 




HigA.atoA.li FoMn LaboA VAjoblem in thz United States. 


S. Rpt. No. 


91-L3, 1 


91st 


Congress, 1st Session, 


1969, 


p. 9. 












1 



344 



4484 



success is greater and more predictable if the many scientific disciplines are 
brought to bear on the problem in an organized manner and if industry coopera- 
tion and support is thoroughgoing. 

A program of research in the development of new technology that calls 
for the mobilization of the wide range of scientific disciplines included in 
the land grant universities places such an effort beyond the scope of any but 
the very largest private research institutions. On the other hand, much of 
the technology that is evolved for fruit and vegetable production and harvest 
has such a limited market that profit incentives are not likely to provide an 
adequate stimulus to the farm equipment companies to bring about the develop- 
ment and marketing of appropriate technology. 

A comprehensive program of research and industry-wide cooperation assumes 
everything from the seed to the form of the final product can be modified. 
Such an approach is the critical element in enabling industry to convert tech- 
nology into a variable subject to industry control. 

Labor Supply 

The situation under which seasonal labor is recruited for employment in 
the fruit and vegetable industry is changing. The following statements are 
a broad description of what appear to me to be the major elements of change 
with respect to the supply of seasonal labor: 

Increasingly, the hired labor supply in agriculture is made up of 
individuals who do not seek full-year employment. This group, primarily house- 
wives and students, are an increasing proportion of the total number of 
individuals who do hired farm work, increasing from about 20% in 1947-49 to 
about 58% in 1967 [14]. 

It is not possible to specify the extent to which those individuals who 
do not seek full-year employment are available and participate in the seasonal 
labor supplies for the fruit and vegetable industry. Nevertheless, this trend 
is an important factor in the labor supply situation. It indicates a possible 
source of manpower for seasonal tasks. Employment of manpower from this source 
would result in substantially smaller social and economic problems than is 
the case when persons seeking and needing full -year employment are so employed. 

Current social, political, and cultural forces are exerting pressure to 
eliminate the migratory farm work occupatioh. The pressure is not necessarily 
against seasonal farm tasks. Rather it is against the institution of migratory 
farm work as a way of life. To over simplify, the culture is telling the 
seasonal farm worker that he cannot follow the life style of moving about the 
country with his family performing such seasonal farm work as he can obtain. 

The 1969 Report of the Senate Comnittee on Labor and Public Welfare 
makes quite explicit the conviction that migrancy should be terminated. The 
report states in part: 

345 



4485 



A comprehensive evaluation of the causes and possible 
remedies of unemployment and underemployment of migrant farm 
workers should be undertaken with a view toward ending the 
migrant way of life. [13]. 

Relatively high and persistent unemployment rates prevail in many of the 
rural communities that serve as the trade centers of the areas of fruit and 
vegetable production. In the San Joaquin and Sacramento and some other valleys 
of California, unemployment rates are relatively high for most of the year. 
The unemployment rates for the civilian labor force are shown in Table 3 for 
a number of counties and labor market areas in California. My impression from 
personal observation is that in the larger rural geographical divisions there 
are many pockets where the unemployment problem is more serious than indicated 
by the rate for the region as a whole. In a recent paper on farm labor, Dale 
Hathaway and B. E. Perkins conclude that the need for expanded employment 
opportunities in the smaller urban centers is essential if the incomes of farm 
workers are to be improved [7]. 

The current political, cultural, and social climate is generally favorable 
to the public policies aimed at eliminating poverty and handicaps associated 
with racial origins. 

There is broad public support for special programs such as migrant housing 
and migrant health programs. Such special programs are more efficient than 
general programs in speeding aid to disadvantaged groups, but public support 
for special programs cannot be interpreted as favoring the operation of these 
programs in a way that shelters any industry or sector of any industry from 
the general economic forces generated by the rising standards of living and 
the rising standards of employment in the economy at large. Varden Fuller and 
Calvin Beale describe the evolving situation as follows: 

Contemporary society is coming to have a more explicit 
concern for its people, whether viewed as productive human capital 
or as disadvantaged and poor. The components of a deliberate 
national manpower policy are emerging, reflecting both the resource 
and the human interest. Right now, that concern is being diverted 
and attenuated by Vietnam and other foreign involvements, but we 
assume that domestic needs and goals will eventually reclaim 
their proportion of political attention and support. Assuming 
so, two prospective impacts follow: (1) departure from agriculture 
of the remaining surplus farmers will be made easier; (2) the 
supply price of labor to farming will rise. Or, to put the latter 
more pointedly, the gap between the terms of farm and nonfarm 
employment will disappear. [5]. 

Without passing judgment on the merits of the strategy of the efforts 
to organize the grape workers and on the responses of the grape growers, the 
widespread sympathy for efforts to organize the grape workers can be inter- 
preted, I believe, as broad public support for efforts to raise the standards 
of employment among farm workers, particularly seasonal farm workers. 

The individuals who make up the hired farm labor force in the United 
States tend increasingly to reside off the farm. In 1948-49, 65% of all farm 

346 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 29 



4486 



wage workers resided- on farms. In 1966-67, 73% of hired farm workers reported 
their residence as nonfarm. Increasingly the hired labor force is recruited 
from among individuals who are increasingly aware of and subject to influences 
of the nonfarm economy. 

The militancy of disadvantaged minority groups in our society is not 
likely to subside. The fact that many seasonal farm workers are members of 
racial minority groups underscores the importance of this factor. 



Table 3. Civi 


lian Labor 


Force 


Unemployment 










1967 






Jan 


-June 




uOunty or Labor Market Area 


Percent 






Percent 










1967 






1968 


Fresno 


7.1 




8.6 






7.7 


Bakersfield 


5.5 




5.9 






5.9 


Stockton 


6.8 




8.9 






8.1 


Salinas-Monterey 


6.2 




7.6 






-- 


Lake 


10.9 




12.5 






9.5 


Merced 


8.5 




10.8 






9.9 


San Benito 


12.2 




17.1 






— 


Stanislaus 


10.6 




13.5 






12.6 


Yuba-Sutter 


9.2 




12.0 






10.3 


Source: State of California. 


C(itL{ion.nla 


Statu tiaal AbitAact, 


1968, 


p. 32. 



The gap between nonfarm and farm standards of employment remains sub- 
stantial. A number of fruit and vegetable producers, individually, and through 
associations, have so improved the standards of employment that one can say 
that the employment standards of their workers are substantially comparable to 
those prevailing in nonfarm employment. However, there are rather important 
gaps between the standards generally prevailing in agriculture and those in 
nonagriculture. Considering, only wage rates per hour, the position of farm 
workers as compared to workers in manufacturing is about the same now as 10 years 
ago [3]. 

If one examines the other terms of employment, retirement benefits, health 
and welfare, collective bargaining protections, etc., one would conclude that 
the gap has both increased and decreased. In absolute terms, farm workers have 
probably improved their position, but relatively they have lost ground. 

The seasonal farm worker realizes a low annual income. The 1967 statis- 
tical report on the hired farm working force indicates that those migratory 
faniKworkers who had the highest average number of days employment, 240 days, 
realized an average annual income of $2,824, [14] which places them in or on 
the margin of poverty unless this income is supplemented by the earnings of 
other members of the family. 

Implications and Priorities of the Present Situation 

In this discussion the present situation is considered to be 5 to 7 years 
ahead, while the future includes a time horizon of 15 to 20 years. The order 

347 



4487 



in which the implications are discussed is suggested as a possible set of 
priorities. No optimum properties are attributed to this ordering of 
considerations. 

Industry 

The fruit and vegetable industry is well aware of its needs for seasonal 
labor. Rapid technological progress has not induced the producers to disband 
labor recruitment organizations. The producers recognize that substantial 
numbers of seasonal workers will have to be recruited and employed if the 
present volume of fruit and vegetable production is to be maintained, even 
though each year additional fruit crops are being added to the list of fruits 
that can be harvested mechanically. 

Previous reports in this series indicate that the development of trees 
or plants with characteristics suitable for mechanical harvesting is frequently 
a time consuming process. If the final product is to be modified, time will 
be required to determine market acceptability. Thus, for the present the 
problem of first priority is that of obtaining adequate supplies of seasonal 
labor to perform the many hand labor tasks involved in fruit and vegetable 
production and harvest. 

But this is only part of the first implication; the recruitment of 
seasonal labor must be carried out in a context that is changing. The circum- 
stances and conditions with which present patterns of meeting seasonal labor 
needs are in accord cannot be relied upon to prevail in the future [9]. As 
indicated previously, many fruit and vegetable producers have changed their 
labor recruitment and labor management procedures to bring them into accord 
with the evolving labor supply situation. 

Recognition that technology is a variable subject to the control of the 
industry is essential if control is to be exercised. But that ability to 
generate and proliferate technology that will enable the industry to meet the 
changing situation is contingent upon the development of the appropriate mix 
of public and private efforts and the appropriate interest of all sectors of 
the industry--producers, marketing firms, processors, and farm equipment 
manufacturers. Recognition of this interrelationship of interests was clearly 
expressed by Mr. Crosby of the National Canners Association in the previous 
meeting of this group [2]. 

The implications of supply control--that is, supply of new technology- 
are very interesting. If the supply of new technology is a variable that is 
substantially under industry control, this raises the question of structuring 
the pattern of new technology forthcoming so as to minimize regional peak 
seasonal labor requirements. It raises the possibility of surveying the demand 
for seasonal labor for appropriately defined labor market areas with the view 
of identifying those crops and operations that contribute most to the season- 
ality of labor requirements. Efforts could then be directed toward the 

348 



4488 



production of that technology which would contribute most to the stability 
of labor requirements in the region. 

Following this approach would require the balancing of interests of 
producers among crops and among regions. It would also require the balancing 
of present needs with future needs. It would be appropriate to evaluate the 
expected long-run impact of progress in the development of new technology on 
production. 

Wage rates in fruit and vegetable production are likely to move upward 
as fast currently and in the years immediately ahead as in the past. Hourly 
wage rates in agriculture have increased substantially in the past decade and 
the standards of employment have also improved; yet, the gap between farm and 
nonfarm terms of employment has not been substantially reduced. The pressure 
to raise farm wage rates that originates in farm-nonfarm comparisons does 
not appear to be declining currently. Further, the public interest in the 
welfare of seasonal farm workers is increasingly focusing attention on annual 
incomes. As noted above, data with respect to annual incomes realized 
indicate that the average professional migratory farm worker is in or on the 
margin of poverty. 

I have the impression that implications with respect to annual earnings 
is not completely recognized by the fruit and vegetable industry. In discussing 
earnings of fruit and vegetable harvest workers, it is common for spokesmen 
for the industry to cite the hourly earnings of such workers as evidence that 
a relatively high wage is paid. It is sometimes argued that other industries 
are not held accountable for the level of living achieved by their workers 
during the off season. They cite nonfarm industries with irregular employment 
patterns and the relatively good public image that they retain. 

On the other hand, as I have noted previously, fruit and vegetable 
producers in a number of states have recognized that the supply situation with 
respect to seasonal labor has changed substantially. Such employers have 
recognized that high wage rates per hour are only one of several items necessary 
to attract workers. They have developed pay schedules that permit the seasonal 
worker to earn relatively high hourly earnings (averaging over $2 per hour in 
1967) and have combined this with efforts to expand annual employment. Some 
of these growers voluntarily cover their workers under unemployment insurance. 

Grower members of such associations have also supported the development 
and application of modern labor management procedures to seasonal farm 
employment. Their employment policies are a movement away from a casual 
employer- employee relationship toward a more continuing and structured 
relationship [3]. 

I have mentioned producers associations with reference to decasualization 
of farm work, but I would not argue that this type of organization is the 
optimum means of facing the issue of decasualization. In fact, it is not even 
certain that the issue of decasualization needs to be faced Immediately. It 

349 



4489 



would be quite possible for the fruit and vegetable industry to ignore most 
of the implications of the present set of trends as here described. It might 
use such influence as it can generate to secure government assistance in 
retaining a special labor supply for seasonal work in fruits and vegetables. 
The industry could acknowledge that a production cut back is necessary to get 
higher product prices that would enable it to compete for labor. The industry 
could recruit more seasonal workers from among those individuals who do not 
want full year employment. No doubt a residual of individuals who presently 
perform seasonal farm work would be available for some years. As the casual 
labor supply dwindles, the production could be cut back in those crops that 
do not yield to mechanization. The acreage of those that are mechanized would 
expand. 

The problem that is implied in the present situation is that of discover- 
ing those organizational structures that will enable the fruit and vegetable 
industry to compete for workers within the constraints of the labor market, 
recognizing at the same time that the labor requirements of the industry are 
changing in quantity and quality. Likewise the terms of employment that must 
be offered to attract workers are changing--becoming more expensive and 
complex each year. The appropriate organizational structures are those that 
will encourage fruit and vegetable producers to organize and operate efficient 
producing units and will provide an opportunity for the workers to realize 
their goals. 

Finding the suitable structure is complicated by difference among 
producers in terms of size, financing, crop potentials, etc. Difference among 
producers is matched by difference among the individuals that make up the 
seasonal farm labor supply, ranging from the professional migratory worker 
who actively follows the occupation to the student and housewife who want only 
part of the year employment, to the marginal worker who takes seasonal farm 
work for the lack of any other alternative to the newly arrived immigrant who 
is doing seasonal farm work until he learns the language and gets acquainted 
with the country sufficiently well to look for a nonfarm job. Recruiting 
from this diverse group is further complicated by such factors as the increased 
militancy of the poor and the minority groups, and the relatively high levels 
of unemployment in the rural areas. 

On the other hand, a part of the "several hundred thousand Mexicans 
admitted as immigrants to the United States are currently in the seasonal farm 
labor force [10]. Some of these migrate to the U.S. seasonally to work on 
farms. Others live near the border and commute daily [8]; others have chosen 
to reside here permanently. Probably a major proportion of these immigrants 
are leaving agriculture for nonfarm occupations. The fruit and vegetable 
industry has an important interest in encouraging these irrmigrants to continue 
in agricultural work. No doubt the rate at which these workers will leave 
seasonal farm work and other agricultural work for nonfarm jobs will depend, 

350 



4490 



in part, upon the standards of employment in agriculture as compared to 
nonagriculture. 

Government 

It would seem that in the present situation first priority in government 
policies and programs is to give conscientious attention to the manpower needs 
of the fruit and vegetable industry in a manner consistent with the proposition 
that the manpower policy appropriate for agriculture should not in objective 
be different from national manpower policy. If this proposition is accepted 
then it is appropriate: (1) for farm labor to be included under social 
legislation such as unemployment insurance and labor relations legislation; 
(2) for manpower training and development programs to apply fully to farm 
labor; and (3) to provide expanded employment opportunities in rural areas [6], 

Robert Goodwin, Bureau of Employment Security Administrator, in commenting 
on the 1969 National Rural Manpower Conference gave expression to this orienta- 
tion of manpower policy. He said: 

This conference offers a turning point in the employment 
service operation. The agenda for this meeting differs in several 
respects from those of past years. I believe that it truly reflects 
the aim which we have had for the past several years to expand our 
programs from their agricultural orientation to a broader approach 
which includes agriculture and its workers but also includes all 
other industries and workers .... [16]. 

It is obvious that the welfare of the seasonal farm worker as well as 
the nonfarm residents of the rural community is enhanced by increases in 
employment opportunities in rural areas. To the extent that seasonal farm 
workers face increased nonfarm employment opportunities, it is going to be 
more difficult to recruit them for farm work whether for local or distant 
farms. This is likely to be the case if employment standards in seasonal 
farm work tend to continue to fall behind in the upward movement that char- 
acterizes nonfarm employment. 

The somewhat conflicting interests of the seasonal farm worker and the 
fruit and vegetable industry present the relevant government agencies with 
an interesting challenge. On one hand, the enhancement of the welfare of the 
workers calls for manpower training opportunities and expansion of job 
opportunities. On the other hand, the price and marketing situation faced by 
the bulk of the fruit and vegetable industry does not suggest that the costs 
of increased standards of employment in the fruit and vegetable industry 
could be easily passed along to the consumer, and at the same time retain our 
position in international markets. 

One broad approach to this situation that might be considered currently 
is that of concentrating on programs to utilize the available labor force more 
efficiently. While pressure to increase wage rates will continue, it is 
questionable whether concessions in this area are likely to be sufficient to 

351 



I 



4491 



retain seasonal labor supplies of adequate quantity and quality. It is 
probably that more attention and imagination will be necessary in the area 
of increasing the amount of farm and nonfarm employment realized annually by 
the workers. Equally important is a more extensive application of modern 
labor management to the recruitment and supervision of the seasonal worker. 

To encourage cooperative efforts among fruit and vegetable producers 
the government might provide an incentive for those growers and groups of 
growers who undertake programs to enhance the annual employment of their work 
force. For example, let us assume for a moment that all farm workers were 
covered under unemployment insurance. Contributions to unemployment insurance 
fund could be on a sliding scale related to the success of cooperative efforts 
to expand annual employment realized by the workers. Alternatively, coopera- 
tive efforts to use the available labor more efficiently might be encouraged 
by a government subsidy. No doubt one could construct a variety of possible 
approaches, but it might be more useful to attempt some experimentation. 

An additional comment might be made with respect to present government 
programs. Special programs for migratory workers such as housing, health and 
education, annual worker plans, etc., must have a short life or fade into more 
general programs of housing, health, manpower training, etc., if seasonal farm 
labor is not to be sheltered from the generally rising standards of employment 
in the economy. 

Future 

One of the most perceptive statements about the future that applies quite 
appropriately to our present look at the future was made a little more than 
a half-century ago in discussing the problem of seasonal hand labor in sugar 
beet production. A writer in the 1904 report on progress in the sugar beet 
industry observed: 

In this country we are devoted to the production and use of 
labor-saving machinery. Our tendency has been away from rather than 
toward hand labor. In those old countries the farmer and every 
member of his family were workers in the beet field. Here the 
farmer and the hired men do the work; the children attend public 
schools and colleges. Our farmers and hired hands not only do the 
work on the farm, but as a rule they do it with labor-saving 
implements, the main point being to eliminate every form of 
drudgery .... [15]. 

Of course, we resolved this problem in the past by importing, so to 
speak, our labor supply to perform the seasonal hand labor tasks. It came 
to be widely believed that only foreigners would do the arduous handwork of 
labor-intensive crops. 

It is fair to say that presently we are af the stage of rejecting the 
notion that we should import our seasonal labor supply. It is being suggested 
that the fruit and vegetable industry compete with other industries In the 
open market for labor. At the same time, the reservoirs of seasonal labor 

352 



4492 



are the subject of manpower development programs that will ultimately result 
in part of that labor supply moving out of the seasonal farm labor work. In 
looking to the future it is probably safe to assume that we have permanently 
turned away from programs of importing foreign labor to work in fruit and 
vegetable production [14]. It is also safe to assume that in the future as 
in the past there will be a genuine interest in minimizing drudgery. 

With regard to government manpower policies and programs, it is expected 
that the human resource development orientation will continue [1]. Given the 
potential for developing new technology that exists and the international 
trade implications of differences in costs of production in the various 
countries, a variety of alternatives are possible. In considering future 
implications for industry and government, one can be only somewhat suggestive. 

Industry 

The fruit and vegetable industry has been substituting capital for labor 
at a relatively rapid rate. This substitution has occurred because it has 
been profitable. In part, it has also been an effort to reduce uncertainty 
with regard to labor supply, which is one aspect of labor cost. The substitu- 
tion has occurred essentially because the cost of labor has risen more than 
the cost of substitutable capital. 

If supply-price of labor continues to increase faster than that of 
capital, the substitution of capital for labor will continue unabated. But 
in the long run, being considered here, the decision with respect to sub- 
stituting capital for labor is not merely one of comparing price-cost ratios 
for alternative methods of production. The industry, if it acts rationally, 
will consider the cost of developing new technology and the probable impact 
of new technology on profits in the industry. That is a complex process. 
Yet even with less than perfect information about the future values of such 
variables as wage rates, fringe benefits, probability of successful research, 
etc., it is likely that an intensive program to develop and to utilize new 
technology would be warranted. It is probably safe to assume that socio- 
economic forces will make labor-saving technology even more economic in the 
two decades ahead than currently. 

If the direction and intensity of the socio-economic forces continue, 
it would seem to place a premium on efforts to decasualize the employment of 
seasonal labor in fruit and vegetable production and harvest. I suggested 
previously that decasualization might not be crucial in the immediate present 
or near future. But it seems reasonable to me that some form of decasualiza- 
tion will have widespread support in perhaps 15 years. 

We can highlight the difference between a systematic decasualized labor 
recruitment and the casual methods that currently exist by reference to an 
analogy with irrigation. When water is very cheap and can be wasted without 
cost, it can be applied crudely, flooding the field with enough to cover even 

353 



4493 



the highest points. When water is expensive and excessive applications 
reduce yields, it becomes economic to apply it precisely with respect to 
location and quantity. In the operation of the casual labor market, labor 
tends to flow into the area of employment without any precise relationship 
to actual labor requirements. Time lost by workers because of inefficiently 
matching workers with jobs does not receive much attention. If lost time 
becomes a part of the labor cost, it will become more economical to match 
worker and job more precisely. I am expecting that in the future much more 
attention will be given to the annual income realized by farm workers, which 
will focus more attention to time lost in seeking work. On the other hand, 
matching workers and jobs more precisely will also require of the worker a 
more than casual attitude toward the job. 

Even under the most efficient methods of matching workers and jobs and 
the most efficient methods of shifting workers from region to region with a 
minimum loss of time, it will not be possible to provide full year employment 
for all workers employed at the peak of the season. This is the case for the 
country as a whole and it is also true for most states and smaller areas. 
Unless the number of workers that are needed at the peak of the season can be 
reduced dramatically there are likely to be many seasonal workers who do not 
realize the amount of employment desired and needed. On the other hand, as 
noted previously, each year an increasing proportion of those who do farm work 
for hire are not seeking full year employment. There may be opportunities 
for recruiting more seasonal farm workers from among this group--particularly 
among the youth. 

Thus, the long term implications of the manpower situation facing the 
fruit and vegetable industry are complex. The socio-economic forces are 
discouraging the continuation of migratory labor. Manpower development programs 
are seeking to increase nonfarm employment opportunities for the seasonal farm 
worker. The hired farm labor supply is increasingly made up of persons who do 
not seek full year employment. There is substantial rural unemployment, but 
pressures to increase farm wages are brisk. Finally, product prices and 
international competition do not offer easy avenues of adjustment. 

It is quite obvious that the implications of this set of circumstances 
lie in: (1) areas of labor recruitment and management; and (2) the intensive 
development of technology that will reduce costs and seasonality of employment 
in the industry. 

Government 

In looking to the future it seems reasonable to expect a continuation 
of public support for efforts to improve the welfare of the seasonal farm 
worker. It is probable that the seasonal farm worker will be brought under 
unemployment insurance programs and that collective bargaining legislation of 
some type will be adapted to agriculture. Beyond these expected developments, 
there are a wide range of implications for government policies and programs. 

354 



4494 



Rational development of public policies and programs will require some 
kind of agreement on goals with respect to the fruit and vegetable industry. 
It will also require consideration of the interrelationships of goals and 
means of achieving these goals. 

If one of the goals of public policy with respect to the fruit and 
vegetable industry is the continued expansion of the industry and improvement 
of its competitive position in the international market, programs that result 
in price increases will be of limited attractiveness. 

If the goal of public policy were exclusively that of raising the 
standards of employment in fruit and vegetable production, then efforts to 
increase minimum wages, provide unemployment insurance coverage, etc., would 
receive first attention. The impact of higher cost on output and prices could 
be ignored. The declines in exports could be ignored, as could be increased 
imports into U.S. markets in response to higher prices. 

If the public goals include the improvement in the welfare of seasonal 
farm workers in the fruit and vegetable industry, maintaining our position 
in international markets and reducing rural poverty, then a more complex set 
of programs is likely to be appropriate. Such a set of goals would suggest 
a comprehensive long-term program. Such a program would include efforts to 
increase the efficiency with which workers and jobs are matched. Industry 
would be encouraged to develop labor recruitment and management procedures 
that improve its ability to compete for labor. The employment of students, 
housewives, and others who do not want full year employment for seasonal farm 
work would be encouraged. 

However, if the fruit and vegetable industry is to continue to supply 
domestic markets and maintain its position in international markets, and 
provide for a rising standard of employment for the labor force employed, then 
the factor of most fundamental importance in the long-run future is a brisk 
flow of new technology. New technology will permit lower cost of production 
with higher wage levels and reduced seasonality of employment. At the same 
time real enhancement in the welfare of the seasonal farm worker who is 
displaced by new technology calls for a new and better job--that is, expanded 
employment opportunities. 

Finally, it might be noted that a genuine concern for the welfare of 
farm workers as well as an awareness of the political and social climate 
suggests that efforts to develop new technology for the fruit and vegetable 
industry must be accompanied by equally serious efforts to meet the social 
and economic problems that accompany technological progress if public agencies 
such as the Agricultural Experiment Stations and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture are to cooperate in such efforts. 



355 



4495 



REFERENCES CITED 

[1] Aller, Curtis C. "Manpower Development Programs for Farm People." Fmjti 
LaboK -in the. UniZzd SiaZu. Edited by C. E. Bishop. New York: Columbia 
University Press, 1967, 115-135. 

[2] Cargill, B. F.; and Rossmiller, G. E., eds. Tn.uUX and Vzgztable. HoAvut 
MzchanizcLtion, Te.chnologiail lmpLic.<vU.on& . Mich. State Univ. RMC Rpt. 
No. 16, 1969. 

[3] Dolp, Franz. VzcitiuaLLzatlon oi$ SmionaZ Tajm LaboK. Information 
Series in Agr. Econ, No. 68-1, January, 1968. 

[4] Fuller, Varden. "A New Era for Farm Labor?" IndaitnAJil ReMitioni. 
6: (3)285-302, May. 1967. 

[5] ; and Beale, C. L. "Impact of Socio-economic Factors on Farm 

Labor Supply." JouAnaZ oi faJm Economics. 49: (5)1237-1243, December, 
1967. 

[6] . "Farm Manpower Policy." FoAm Lcibofi In the. Unitzd Statu. 
Edited by C. E. Bishop. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967, 
97-114. 

[7] Hathaway, D. E,; and Perkins, B. E. "Farm Labor Mobility, Migration, and 
Income Distribution." AmeAiain JouAnaZ o{i AgxlcuttuAoI. Economia. Vol. 50, 
May, 1968, 342-353. 

[8] Knebel , Stanley M. "Restrictive Admission Standards: Probable Impact on 
Mexican Alien Commuters." FoAm LaboK VzveZopmznti. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 
Bureau of Employment Security, November, 1968, 8-20. 

[9] Mamer, J. W.; and Fuller, V. "Labor and the Economic Factors in Fruit 
and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization." Ag>UcuMuAaZ Science Rev-tew. 
3:4, Fourth Quarter 1965. 

[10] Nix, James C. "Characteristics of Mexican Immigrants Working on Farms." 
FoAm LabofL Vzveloprmnti. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Employment 
Security, September-October, 1967, 36-41. 

[11] U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Cong^uilonal Rzcoid. 55th 
Cong., 1st Sess., 30:(1)140. 

[12] . Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Thz Migiatofiif 

ToAm laboK Pnoblm In thz UvUXnd Statu. S, Rpt. No, 1006, 90th Cong., 
2nd Sess., 1968. 

[13] . Senate. Thz HLgiatoiy Tcvm iabon Vnoblm In the. Unite.d States. 

S. Rpt. No. 91-83, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 1969, 

[14] U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. ERS. Thz Hlnzd Tom iilon.iUng FoA.ce oi 1967. 
Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 148, Wash., D.C: Government Printing Office, 1948. 

[15] , PfLogn.zii 0)f thz Bze^-iugaA. lnduJ>tAy In thz United States in 

1904. Rpt. No. 80, Wash,, D,C,: Government Printing Office, 1905, 

[16] U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Employment Security. FoAm Laboi 

Vzvzlopmznti. National Rural Manpower Conference. June, 1969, 1-4. 



356 



4496 



RURAL WORKER ADJUSTMENT 

TO URBAN LIFE 

An Assessment of the Research 



Varden Fuller 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 



A JOINT PUBLICATION OF THE 

INSTITUTE OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN — WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY 

AND THE 

NATIONAL MANPOWER POLICY TASK FORCE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 

February 1970 



4497 



Copyright © 1970 

by the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, 

The University of Michigan -Wayne State University 

Ail rights reserved 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 79-6291 17 

SBN: 87736-115-0 

Printed in the United States of America 

This research was prepared under a contract with the 
Office of Manpower Research, Manpower Administration, 
United States Department of Labor, under the authority 
of the Manpower Development and Training Act. Researchers 
undertaking such projects with Government sponsorship 
are encouraged to express their own judgment freely. 
Therefore, points of view or opinions stated in this 
document do not necessarily represent the official 
position or policy of the Department of Labor. 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7A - 30 



4498 



CONTENTS 



1 Introduction I 

2 Concepts, Definitions, and Magni- 
tudes 9 

3 The Basic Expellant: Agricultural Tech- 

nological Advance 18 

4 Opportunities and Uncertainties in the 

Economic Environment for OfF-farm 
Migrants 23 

5 Attributes and Influences in Mobility 44 

6 Differential Mobility by Ethnic Groups 
and Regions 54 

7 Attributes and Influences in Assimila- 
tion 6 1 

8 Future Research Relating to Rur- 
al-Urban Migration: Identifying Signifi- 
cant Areas of Inquiry 76 



4499 



1 



INTRODUCTION 



Central to this essay is the significant question — incredibly late 
in coming into public awareness — how well has the rural labor 
force adjusted to the urban setting? At best the rural-urban 
dichotomy is hazy. Nevertheless, much widely divergent re- 
search has been associated with it, however imprecisely. A 
reviewer of research has to establish terminal boundaries for his 
work and in this instance- with a vague central concept and an 
array of no less vague peripheral associations — the cutofl" bound- 
aries have had to be rather arbitrary. Consequently, not every- 
one will find that specific areas or items in which he is interested 
have been considered. 

This is not a literature of affirmation. It deals with a grim but 
impassively suflfered episode in our national life. The research 
contributions concerning it are fragmental, superficial, and gen- 
erally unsatisfying. 

The rural-to-urban movement in American socioeconomic 
history is one of dual mischance. Farm people were pushed off 
farms and cities were agglomerated, both as by-products of 
forces not clearly perceived and without benefit of articulated 

1 



2 Introduction 

purpose. No deliberately formulated objective was served at 
either end of this disorderly transaction. Contemporary writers 
are fond of saying that farm technological advance made a great 
contribution to national welfare by freeing a labor force to serve 
the growing manpower needs of the nonfarm economy. To say 
that much is to state a truism, provided one accepts the inherent 
assumption that the expanded nonfarm economy has been a 
national blessing. But to go further, as is done, and imply that 
the release of farm manpower was the intended objective of 
farm technological advance is to place rationalization upon what 
was only the fortuitous result of a disorderly episode. If moving 
manpower from the farms had been deliberate, something would 
have been done to develop this resource and prepare for its 
effective utilization in the nonfarm world. The facts are to the 
contrary — miserably so. Off-farm movers have been required to 
adjust alone, often against bewildering and frustrating obstacles. 

When the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Land- 
Grant College system was initiated just over 100 years ago, 
it was with the anticipation that, if farmers could be helped 
to be more productive they would prosper and the foundations 
of Jeffersonian rural life would be strengthened. It was a popu- 
list and rural fundamentalist idea. But contrary to expectation, 
the Land-Grant College Act was to become probably the most 
influential prometropolitan step ever undertaken by any national 
government. 

The expected new farm technology did materialize, though 
not immediately and not entirely as a result of the public effort. 
By helping to make food abundant and moderately priced, it 
contributed much to the American people. However, for farmers 
it contributed more to their obsolescence than to their prosper- 
ity. 

In the past twenty years, the amount of labor required for 
farming has declined by 4.7 percent per year, the farm popu- 
lation by 4.3 percent per year. These rates of adjustment have 
brought revolutionary changes in the lives of millions. That 
government should continue to support farm technological ad- 
vance as well as to subsidize the price-depressing consequences 
of surplus production was not seriously questioned; that govern- 
ment might assume some responsibility for those being tech- 
nologically disrupted was never seriously debated until em- 
braced in the broader consciousness of the Manpower Devel- 



Introduction 3 

opment and Training Act of 1962. No real money has ever been 
spent on research concerning human adjustments of ex-farm 
people or on aiding those adjustments. 

If the magnitude of disruption absorbed by the farm popu- 
lation had occurred in the more cohesive and articulated group- 
ings of factory situations, the response might well have been less 
impassive and consequently the obligation to adjust might not 
have been left so exclusively to the individual. 

However, a few voices were heard to question whether the 
massive rural-to-urban adjustment was being as successful as it 
seemed for either the populations involved, the communities of 
exodus, or the communities of relocation. That under- 
employment, unemployment, and poverty were persistently 
rural as well as urban could be known by those who wished to 
know. Much of what superficially seemed to be urban assimila- 
tion was only tentative emulsion; much of what seemed to be 
rural accommodation was only the extraordinary capacity of 
rural people to adjust to varying forms and intensities of under- 
employment. 

Concern about the rural-urban population adjustment was 
very late in coming. Meanwhile, unsolved rural poverty prob- 
lems were flowing into urban ghettos and there being transmuted 
into the second and third generations. Others, not relocating in