(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 .."

~) 



^^™i i o 4 i 

AMHERST COLLEGE 




310212 3111 4592 3 



MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATORY LABOR 



OF THE 



COMMITTEE ON 

LABOR AND PUBLIC WELEARE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

MANPOWER AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS 

APRIL 15, 1970 



PART 7-B 



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




MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGEATOEY LABOB 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

MANPOWER AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS 



APRIL 15, 1970 



PART 7-B 



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




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



COMMITTEE OX 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 P. 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 Migbatory Labob 
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, Counsel 
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 91st 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 



(hi) 



CONTENTS 



CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 
Wednesday, April 15, 1970 

Sturt, Daniel, director, Rural Manpower Center, Michigan State Pa e e 

University 4527 

Gnaizda, Robert, deputy director, California Rural Legal Assistance, San 

Francisco, Calif 4589 

STATEMENTS 

Gnaizda, Robert, deputy director, California Rural Legal Assistance, San 

Francisco, Calif 4589 

Prepared statement, with attachments 4590 

Migrant Research Project, Washington, D.C., prepared statement 4822 

Sturt, Daniel, director, Rural Manpower Center, Michigan State 

University 4527 

Prepared statement, with attachments 4565 

Trout, Grafton, professor of sociology, Michigan State University, East 

Lansing, Mich., comprehensive statement 4533 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Articles, publications, etc. : 

"Agribusiness, U.S.A. : Management Responsible Only to Itself," by 
A. V. Krebs, Jr 4754 

"Alternative Policies for Increasing the Earnings of Migratory Farm 
Workers," by Herrington J. Bryee, member, research staff, the Urban 
Institute, Washington, D.C., and member, economics faculty, Clark 
University, Massachusetts, reprinted from Public Policy 4707 

"Human Relations on Michigan Fruit and Vegetable Farms," excerpts 
from, by Maurice E. Voland, Department of Sociology, Michigan 
State University 4579 

"In Aid of the Mexican- American : A Proposal To Aid Mexican- Ameri- 
can Farm Workers," by Mark Erenburg, Department of Economics, 
Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind 4775 

"Labor Waste in New York : Rural Exploitation and Migrant Work- 
ers," by William H. Friedland. reprinted from Trans-action 4747 

"Mexican Immigration and American Labor Demands," by Julian 

Samora and Jorge Bustamante 4783 

"The Measurement and Interpretation of the Earnings of Migratory 
Farm Workers," by Herrington J. Bryce, member, research staff, 
the Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., and member, economics fac- 
ulty, Clark University, Massachusetts 4725 

Selected court briefs 4604 

(V) 



MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 

Manpower and Economic Problems 



WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1970 

UjS. Senate, 
Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 
of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 

Washington, D.C. 

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

Present : Senator Mondale. 

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

Senator Mondale. The subcommittee will come to order. This morn- 
ing we continue our investigation of economic and manpower prob- 
lems of farmworkers. 

Our first witness this morning is Dr. Daniel Sturt, director of the 
Eural Manpower Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 
Mich. 

We appreciate having you here this morning. Do you have a written 
statement ? You may proceed as you wish. 

I might note, Dr. Sturt, that this subcommittee's work has been 
plagued from the beginning by the space program, and that explains 
the sparse crowd in the hearing room this morning. One of our earlier 
hearings was the morning of the first moonshot, and our opening wit- 
ness was scheduled to start, the same moment as blastoff. Now, some of 
the Nation's attention is turned to the aborted moonshot. Many news- 
men think that is more interesting than what we have to say. 

I don't know if there is any correlation or not between migrant farm- 
worker problems and moonshots. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL STURT, DIRECTOR, RURAL MANPOWER 
CENTER, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. Sturt. I am sure that the news on the space program is very 
difficult to compete with these days. 

I have a statement that I would like to submit as well as a variety 
of publications out of the Rural Manpower Center at Michigan State. 
I believe we are the only rural manpower center in the United States. 

4527 



4528 

Senator Mondale. Proceed with your statement, and we will include 
such parts as you think appropriate in the record at the close of your 
remarks, and possibly some of the exhibits will be retained in the 
official files of the subcommittee. 

Dr. Sturt. In the interest of time it might be a good idea to simply 
sketch down through a statement which I prepared and I believe 
you have in front of you now on some migrant worker needs. 

Senator Mondale. Very well. 

Dr. Sturt. There is a quiet crisis smoldering in rural America. 
Changes in the economic, political, and social organization in rural 
areas have resulted in low returns for resources and low levels of 
living. The migratory farmworker is caught up in these changes. Many 
migratory farmworkers, farm operators and rural nonfarm residents 
are a part of the rural poor, the silent minority in our society that are, 
in truth, the people left behind. 

To understand the problems confronting the migratory worker, one 
must consider what is happening in rural America generally, the 
impact of agricultural technology upon rural people and the inade- 
quacy of rural institutions in helping rural people solve their prob- 
lems. There are, of course, a special set of problems associated with 
the migrancy of farmworkers. However, many of the problems con- 
fronting migrants are representative of what is happening to agri- 
cultural manpower in general, and what is happening to rural people. 

The American public has long been enamored with the marvels of 
agricultural technology and the cheap food that this technology has 
made possible. The agricultural establishment, spearheaded by the 
USDA and its land-grant university affiliates, has carried out a mas- 
sive research and education effort which has made it possible for Amer- 
ican farmers to supply the food and fiber requirements of American 
consumers at relatively low prices. The enthusiastic public support 
for cheap food policies has tended to place such policies above ques- 
tioning. 

The cost of cheap food is greater than it at first appears. Among 
other considerations, the cost of cheap food must be measured in terms 
of what happens to the people involved in the production of this food 
and what happens to the rural communities where these people live. 
From the overview, it would appear that the cost is high indeed. 
The human fallout from unbridled technological innovation includes, 
among others, many migrator}' workers. 

This is, I might add, the position that the rural manpower center 
has taken and it essentially sets the tone for my statement here today. 

Perhaps we can skip over the structure of the hired farm, work 
force. In looking at some of the other testimony, that has been pre- 
sented here, I notice that this data has already been included. In look- 
ing at the structure of the hired farm work force, one recognizes that 
migrant workers are part of the seasonal farm work force, which is 
in turn part of the hired farm work force, which in turn is part of 
rural manpower. 

There are three migratory worker streams. This has been well 
documented. 



4529 

Many of the so-called social problems associated with the migrant 
movement of farmworkers— health, education and other problems — 
are due to the fact that our society is not geared to accommodate 
farmworkers on the move. Also, community discrimination is a serious 
problem as migrants seek to obtain services provided for others more 
permanently located, more readily accepted and accommodated in 
rural communities. The relatively low status of farm work affects all 
hired farmworkers, particularly seasonal workers on the move. 

TECHNOLOGY AND THE FUTURE DEMAND FOR SEASONAL WORKERS 

Mechanization and new technology, particularly in the harvesting 
of fruits and vegetables, is rapidly reducing the requirements for sea- 
sonal farmworkers. The rural manpower center task force, estimating 
the number of farmworker jobs which will be displaced by 1975 in 
the harvesting of fruits and vegetables in the United States, has indi- 
cated that there will be some 250,000 fewer jobs in 1975 than 1968. 

Senator Mondale. Are you referring to rural employment job 
losses? 

Dr. Sturt. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. Migrants ? 

Dr. Sturt. What? 

Senator Mondale. Are you saying 250,000 fewer jobs for migrants? 

Dr. Sturt. Seasonal farmworkers. One of the problems in dealing 
with migrant problems is that we get into a semantics hassle over the 
difference between seasonal farmworker's and migrant farmworkers. 

Senator Mondale. I ask that because yesterday USDA testified 
there was an estimated 250,000 migrants, but you are referring to 
total rural employment. 

Dr. Sturt. I am talking about in harvesting of fruits and vegetables. 
We went through the crops and made estimates of acreages. We spent a 
year looking at technology relative to each one of these crops. 

Senator Mondale. These are projections that your task force made? 

Dr. Sturt. The USDA representative probably used the same data, 
because we have been working with the USDA. I think this is con- 
servative, incidentally. This includes 53,000 fewer harvest jobs in Cali- 
fornia, 50,774 fewer in Oregon, 35,782 fewer in North Carolina, 19,497 
fewer in Michigan, 18,271 fewer in Washington, and 13,553 fewer in 
Texas. I feel that these estimates are conservative. Many of these jobs 
will be those involved in the harvest of grapes, bush and pole beans, 
and cucumbers. The 1968 seasonal peak employment by crop and 
State is indicated in tables 2 and 3 of the prepared statement. 

Senator Mondale. What about employment in sugar beets ? I under- 
stand there is a new mechanical harvester being developed. 

Dr. Sturt. No, there is not, but the sugar beet situation is a special 
story. There is no really fantastic breakthrough relative to sugar beets. 
We have had new technology all along and more farmers are begin- 
ning to use it. 

Senator Mondale. Yesterday the Department of Agriculture made 
their first projections about job losses. They never before made such 
projections. 



4530 

Dr. Sturt. On sugar beets ? 

Senator Mondale. On anything. To this date, we did not know what 
the labor supply and demand market is going to be in the future, and 
I am not sure we know now. 

Dr. Sturt. There was a USD A person involved in our task force 
study. 

Senator Mondale. But the Department has not done this before. 
They only recently have concluded that, "We estimate now 12,000 or 
14,000 less migrants will be employed in sugar beets this year.'* 

That was their biggest, most dangerous, and bravest projection. You 
say you do not see such a possibility ? 

Dr. Sturt. Let me tell you the Michigan situation. I do not know 
about sugar beets outside of Michigan. 

Senator Mondale. The figures you used were from the rural man- 
power task force ? 

Dr. Sturt. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. And they did not project this kind of develop- 
ment in sugar beets ? 

Dr. Sturt. The rural manpower task force is concerned with the 
harvesting of fruits and vegetabes. We did not get into sugar beets. 
If you want to know about sugar beets in Michigan, last year we hired 
about 4,500 people for thinning and weeding. This year probably it 
will be around 2,000. 

The reason is no fantastic breakthrough in technology, other than 
the fact researchers have come up with what we call a preemergence 
spray that is used to inhibit weeds. The important thing is that farmers 
are now using more of this technology. 

Sugar beets have been harvested mechanically for years. The mi- 
grants that are used in sugar beets are used primarily for weeding and 
thinning. There is a monogerm seed, which when used should take care 
of the thinning problem, for the most part. 

We have, of course, various sprays. The most recent is this pre- 
emergence spray. One of the main reasons there will be fewer people 
used in Michigan in sugar beets is that the Michigan Sugar Co. is no 
longer hiring workers, but has placed this responsibility upon the in- 
dividual growers and in the process individual growers are going 
to hire fewer workers. 

I don't know whether this answers your question or not. 

Senator Mondale. Yes ; thank you. 

Dr. Sturt. I have some material here on seasonal employment peaks 
but that is old data. Most important is the fact that the complementar- 
ity in employment will be significantly disturbed as new technology is 
introduced. Michigan is a good example. 

Michigan has some 30 crops involving seasonal farmworkers. Usu- 
ally farmworkers come to Michigan in May and June for work in 
harvesting strawberries and asparagus. From this work they move 
into the cherry and pickle harvests, which is followed by the tomato 
and apple harvests. This year most of the tart cherries and about 40 
percent of the cucumbers will be harvested mechanically. 



4531 

All crops considered, during the mid-season period from mid-July 
to mid-August there will be an estimated 10,000 fewer jobs. I am not 
saying 10,000 fewer workers. I am saying 10,000 fewer jobs. This 
creates a special set of problems for the workers, the growers, and for 
the communities involved. 

We are trying to do something about this in Michigan. 

Mechanization also creates new jobs. However, most migrants do not 
possess the skills to fill these jobs. A good cherry picker does not 
necessarily make a good cherry harvester operator. In fact, it would 
appear that most migrant workers do not possess the basic mechaniza- 
tion skills to successfully compete for these jobs, and they are being 
filled by local workers. 

We have seen this happen right along. 

THE MIGRANT IN TRANSITION 

The migrant farmworker is but one part of the massive migration 
of people from rural to urban areas and from farm to nonf arm work. 
From 1960-66 the average annual net migration of farm people to 
urban areas was about 800,000, many of whom were farmworkers. For 
farmworkers the move to the cities has been more "push'- than "pull." 
There was no other place to go. Migrant farmworkers have been caught 
up in this mass movement. 

Agricultural economists have not recognized the "push" dimension 
in all of this. There is a great deal of difference between being attracted 
to a better job and being forced to leave with no job alternatives. 

The hidden hardship in migration is the back-movement, where 
people move back and forth between geographical areas in search of 
work and an environment in which they feel culturally comfortable. 

Dr. Dale Hathaway has done a good deal of research on back-move- 
ment ; for every person that successfully moves there are several who 
move continuously back and forth and back and forth searching for 
this environment which is again culturally comfortable, searching for 
a job. 

Senator Mondale. In other words, you are referring to migrants 
who are unhappy in the stream, and having difficulty making it. They 
are looking for something else out of the stream. But, on many oc- 
casions they will be disappointed, they will return to the migrant 
stream to try again. They go back and forth, in and out of the stream, 
is that it ? 

Dr. Sttjrt. That is right. But not just migrants. Migrants are part 
of this. I am concerned with migrants, of course, but I am concerned 
with rural people, and they are all a part of this pattern. They could be 
Appalachian people. They could be southern blacks or whites. 

Senator Mondale. Of course, all those categories have migrants. 

Dr. Sttjrt. In Michigan a study of the Mexican-American migrant 
in transition in which the various stages of transition have been ex- 
plored indicates that some 1,000-1,500 Mexican Americans drop out of 



4532 

the stream each year and attempt to settle in Michigan. Jobs, housing, 
kinship ties, and the like all play an important part in the settling out 
process. 

After spending a couple of hours with Dr. Trout, I brought with me 
a comprehensive statement prepared by him on Mexican Americans 
in transition in the Midwest. You have this before you. 

Senator Mondale. We would like to print excerpts from that mate- 
rial in our record at this point in your remarks. 

(The information referred to follows :) 



4533 



Comprehensive Statement on Mexican-Americans in 
Transition in the Midwest by Professor Grafton 
Trout, Professor of Sociology, Michigan State Uni- 
versity, East Lansing, Michigan 

(1) Some Recommendations for Facilitating Settlement Out of the 
Migrant Stream 

General comments . Changing residence from one region of the country 
to another and shifting from one occupation or industry or even one employer 
to another are each in themselves transitions of considerable stress to most 
families. Undertaking them concurrently, Mexican-American families moving 
into the Midwest, largely from Texas, face double difficulties compounded 
further by the families' large size and extremely low level of supporting 
resources commonly called upon during such transitions. Often the situation 
is further complicated by the family members 1 deficiency in English-language 
competence. Simultaneously, the family must find adequate housing, the male 
head and perhaps the wife and other members of the family must find new Jobs, 
the children must enter new schools , food and clothing must be obtained from 
new sources, and, last but not least, new sustaining interpersonal and 
institutional affiliations must be formed, all in an unfamiliar environment. 
Even when the move is between communities of roughly similar size, they 
differ in many important respects. When the move is from rural or small 
communities or from the encapsulated "barrios" of San Antonio or medium- 
sized communities, the lack of experience in an urban-industrial milieu may 
be critical. 

Since it may safely be predicted that employment opportunity and wage 
differentials will continue to exist and perhaps even widen between South 
Texas and the Midwest , it may also be predicted that the migration of 
Mexican-Americans in the Texas-Midwest channel will persist if not increase. 
Add to this the increasingly rapid displacement by mechanization and crop 
shifts of seasonal migratory farm laborers depending upon Midwestern employ- 
ment for a part of the year to maintain the delicately articulated migratory 
cycle and even greater pressure for resettlement may be foreseen. Therefore, 



4534 



the recently fashionable concept of "guided migration" seems most pertinent 
to the problems of the population concerned here. What is clearly necessary 
is to rationalize and cushion the stresses of the resettlement process both 
for the benefit of the migrating family and for maximizing of manpower 
resources. With regard to the latter benefit, we hasten to point out that 
the Mexican-American worker should be considered as much a manpower resource 
in the Midwest as much as or, perhaps more than, a manpower problem. We will 
discuss below in detail some of the ways in which we believe the unique work 
experience, preferences and commitments of many ex-migratory farm workers 
provide an important resource for filling new manpower requirements , par- 
ticularly those associated with the mechanization of agriculture. Let us 
look first at some of the aspects of migration which appear to be amenable 
to programs of action. 

Guided migration . Who should migrate, when, where and how? Certainly 
our data do not permit definitive answers to these questions , but some 
reasonable tentative conclusions can be reached. Further research is dis- 
cussed below regarding more adequate answers to these questions. It would 
seek to identify the characteristics of the successful migrants as con- 
trasted with those who try to settle and fail and those who desire to settle 
but cannot do so. Pending more specific findings, however, the following 
suggestions may be made: 

l) The most successful migrants are likely to be those who are 
relatively young, certainly under Uo, with smaller than 
average families, higher than average education, relatives 
or friends in the areas of resettlement, and occupational 
skills and preferences conforming to the demands of the 
local labor market in the area of resettlement. 

Of course, theBe are also characteristics which will differentially account 

for the relative success of such families even among those staying in Texas. 

Nevertheless, guided migration programs ought to encourage those to migrate 

who have the highest probability of benefiting from the move and who have 

the greatest resources for accomplishing it successfully. It is worth 

emphasizing here that Mexican-Americans tend to move in the migratory stream 

as family units and tend likewise to resettle as such. Two-thirds of the 



4535 



f emily heads interviewed settled in family units ; 50 percent as head of a 
nuclear family, 17 percent in a two or three generational family. The Ling- 
Temco-Vought Job training and guided resettlement experiment in Texas 
appears likely to confirm the importance of the move of complete family units 
in the resettlement process. The size of the family is important not only 
in terms of the strain placed upon financial and other resources but at least 
as importantly in respect to the opportunity for obtaining housing. We 
have been forced to conclude that the lack of low income housing of suf- 
ficient capacity is the primary impediment at the present time to resettle- 
ment. The problem in finding housing is not so much discrimination against 
Mexican-Americans because of ethnicity, although it exists, but the more 
general discrimination against large families . Many cases came to our 
attention during this research in which good jobs had been lined up but lack 
of adequate, or even inadequate, housing, precluded the resettlement of the 
family. Clearly, no amount of attention devoted to the facilitation of job 
training and placement in migration will be of benefit until some improvement 
in the availability of housing is accomplished. This leads to the question 
of the relative desirability of destination communities in terms of the 
availability of Jobs, housing, and other amenities. To what places should 
migration be directed? There has been much emphasis upon the misallocation 
of much south to north migration because of the disproportionate concentra- 
tion in already overcrowded metropolitan areas. It has been suggested that 
because of the high visibility and the gravity pull of large minority 
subcommunities in a few major cities, middle-sized and smaller communities 
have failed to absorb the proportion of migrants warranted often by their 
employment needs. Among Mexican-Americans, we believe this to be somewhat 



4536 



less the case than among Negroes for two reasons primarily. First, there is 
somewhat less discrimination against Mexican-Americans in the Midwest, 
especially when the proportionate number is small, and secondly, Mexican- 
American migratory farm workers have been located prior to settlement in 
rural and less densely populated areas near which they have tended to settle, 
at least, initially and often remain even while commuting to a larger city 
where more attractive employment may be available. Furthermore, we received 
the distinct impression during this research that many Mexican-American 
families prefer small-town living both because it is consistent with their 
past experience in the places of origin and because they find urban living 
disruptive of the values and patterns of family life that they cherish, 
particularly in respect to child rearing. On the other hand, we found as 
well a desire to be near other Mexican-American families and ethnic 
opportunities which made isolated farm or even village settlement undesirable. 
Nevertheless , with regard to the destination settlements of Mexican-American 
families , we would recommend that 

2) given adequate employment opportunities for adult family members, 
migration should be encouraged and facilitated to smaller or 
middle-sized communities as an alternative to resettlement in 
major metropolitan areas. 

Access to other Mexican-American families and facilities may be important 

for many families but we have noted a high degree of mobility in driving to 

wherever such may be available if absent in the local community. This should 

not be surprising among a population, a majority of whose members may have 

participated in the most mobile of all occupations available, namely, 

migratory farm work. 

How should migration be facilitated? This question is particularly 

appropriate in the case such as this whether geographical mobility is almost 



4537 



necessarily linked with occupational and socio-economic mobility. In order 

to resettle successfully, the migrant must, in most instances, shift to a 

new occupation requiring skills and habits different from his present one. 

One kind of mobility cannot be facilitated without parallel enhancement of 

the other. If retraining is to be involved, then the question arises as to 

whether it should be accomplished among intended migrants in the place of 

origin or among actual migrants at the place of destination. We suggest 

the following for consideration, especially in light of further research: 

3) preparation for migration, especially when trainine ie necessary, 
should be accomplished in the place of origin where feasible as 
well as, or in addition to, facilitation of settlement in the 
place of destination. 

We believe that areas of out-migration are sufficiently apparent in the case 
of Mexican-Americans as to make preparation for migration at the probable 
place of origin economically feasible and socially desirable. Costs would 
be lower due to level of living differences. Bilingual Mexican-American 
personnel for staffing would be more readily available. And, finally, 
placement could be more rational if cooperation between employment services 
of the sending and receiving states or communities could be developed. There 
are, of course, serious obstacles to such training in the place of origin. 
First, it would require cooperation of local authorities in some communities 
in which the Mexican-American migratory labor force is a valued resource for 
seasonal employment complementing the northern migratory season. In harsher 
terms, it may be described as a captive labor force caught in a cycle of 
marginal employment, no part of that cycle being capable or willing to pay 
more than marginal wages. In such communities, particularly smaller rural- 
based ones , any program explicitly aimed at facilitating out-migration will 
encounter formidable obstacles. In larger cities such as Brownsville, Laredo, 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 2 



4538 



Corpus Cristi or San Antonio such a program might meet less resistance and 
even elicit cooperation if it could be shown to relieve local problems 
resulting from underemployment or unemployment. Certainly the present cooper- 
ation between the state employment security offices of Michigan and Texas 
with regard to the scheduling of migrant agricultural labor each season sug- 
gests that, given more aggresive Job search activity on the receiving end of 
the channel, migration might be successfully guided to the places having the 
greatest need and, if possible, the greatest capacity to absorb new workers 
and their families. If direct recruitment of Mexican-American workers for 
the sugar beet and metal industries of Michigan was successful before and 
during World War II, why could not similar efforts be made by state employ- 
ment offices? This, combined with basic education or up-grading and job 
training would greatly enhance the migrant families' chances of a successful 
and rapid adjustment in their new environments. 

Finally, guided migration assumes some facilitation of resettlement 
on the receiving end of the channel. In this regard, we strongly suggest that 
programs be developed particularly fitted to the needs of the Mexican- 
American migrant: 

U) use should be made both in preparation for migration and in 
facilitating settlement of the ethnic interpersonal and 
institutional bonds of the families involved. 

The experience of relocation of the Cuban refugees from Florida provides an 
example of guided resettlement which is worth considerable study in prepara- 
tion of such a program for Mexican- American South Texas residents. One of 
the most striking features of this effort has been the central role of 
religious organizations. The large-scale organization with which Mexican- 
Americans seem to deal most effectively in Michigan is the Catholic Church. 



4539 



This is explainable in that most of them are Catholics and have related to 
the church elsewhere throughout their lifetimes. There are several Catholic 
priests and lay administrators who have been interested and active in working 
for the benefit of Mexican-Americans and migrant farm workers in Michigan 
and some of these persons have worked very effectively with Mexican-Americans 
in the communities. Some constructive predominantly Mexican-American 
institutions are church related, such as credit unions in at least two cities, 
community centers, and other community-level organizations. 

Mexican-Americans do not have such satisfactory relationships with 
many other Anglo-dominated institutions, such as school systems. We find 
very low rates of Mexican-Americans on welfare, so that is not an agency 
system which is highly used by them. We find them not using other agencies 
which are available to them, such as the state employment service. We find 
them in complicated and sometimes conflicted relationships with some com- 
munity action programs. 

On the positive side, it would seem that, building strength upon 
strength, the Catholic church and its ancillary agencies should be brought 
into programs for Mexican-Americans in a major way. This would seem to be a 
strategy of directing services or communications to the Mexican-Americans 
through a channel which has proven to be acceptable to them. The major 
drawback in this idea is that the Church is an Anglo-dominated institution 
and might be resented by Mexican-Americans as paternalistic. Nonetheless, 
many within the Church bureaucracy are aware of this problem and would be 
likely to put as much control and responsibility in the hands of members of 
the community as possible. 



4540 



As far as the other agencies with which Mexican-Americans have less 
satisfactory relationships are concerned, the problem is one of agencies' 
managing to adapt themselves to better serve Mexican-Americans in ways that 
would be acceptable to this client population. One of the most rapid and 
effective ways of doing this is the recruitment and training of Mexican- 
Americans as sub-professionals to mediate between the agency professionals 
and their Mexican-American clients. It goes without saying that the 
recruitment of full professionals of Mexican-American background is urgent 
but this is a longer term solution. The need is immediate and, we believe 
that the competence and commitment is present among Mexican-American 
residents, many of whom are currently less effectively employed in less 
satisfying work than that which would be involved in sub-professional 
occupations. 

Needs of settlers-in . While resettlement in Michigan is sometimes 
carefully planned with arrangements for housing and sometimes Jobs being 
made in advance through relatives and friends already resident in the com- 
munity of destination, more often it is relatively spontaneous and unplanned. 
This is particularly true of dropouts from the migratory farm labor stream. 
Often information regarding the possibility of a job may be obtained from 
someone else while in the field or perhaps the farmer consents to the 
family's staying on in his housing rent-free or provides a month or so 
extra work beyond the season for a few families. All too frequently, the 
family may have bad luck in getting enough work because of weather or other 
vicissitudes affecting migratory farm work and consequently have too little 
earnings to permit returning to Texas where it typically will have been in 
debt prior to leaving for the work in the stream. Thus it is these 



4541 



"spontaneous" and often "unintentional" dropouts who are most in need of aid 
in getting settled. They are often without friends or relatives in the com- 
munities near their last field work and therefore must rely upon the farmer 
who employed them, local agencies, or agencies or programs specifically 
directed at migrant problems . 

In Michigan, Michigan Migrant Opportunities, Inc., sponsored Jointly 
by the Michigan Catholic Conference and the Michigan Council of Churches 
and recipient of a series of grants under the Economic Opportunity Act of 
196U began work with migrants in the camps in the summer of 1965. Programs 
were directed at problems in the camps such as education, day care for 
children, health and legal aid. The agency was specifically limited to 
assistance of migrants in the stream but its personnel observed the problems 
of settling out and, in 1968, under a new grant from the Migrant Division 
of O.E.O., it was reorganized as United Migrants for Opportunity, Inc. and 
began to work with settlers out of the stream on a year-round basis. 
Religious bodies also have had workers in the camps who have attempted in 
so far as possille to aid in the settling out process. In the summer of 
1969, a State Committee on Inter-Agency Cooperation for Migrants is sponsoring 
two centers to maximize agency services for migrants settling out. Thus 
progress is being made in the direction of developing programs to facilitate 
successful settling out. The experience of these agencies and programs 
provides an invaluable resource for future program planning in this area. 
Similar activities are underway in other Midwestern states but it is our 
impression that those of Michigan are somewhat advanced over others. We 
recommend strongly that 

5) any programs for guided migration and resettlement of 
migratory farm workers in the Midwest make use of the 
valuable experience accumulated by previous smaller- 
scale efforts in assistance to migrants settling out of 
the stream. 



4542 



In addition, we would like to emphasize the increasing availability as a 
result of experience in these programs of highly dedicated and committed 
Mexican-American personnel who have proved to be highly effective in the 
human relations aspects of assisting migrant families . In our view such 
personnel are essential to any program seeking to work with Mexican-American 
migrants since these families are used to working with other people of 
similar culture and background not with impersonal bureaucracies. Not only 
is bilingualism necessary for such personnel, but also the experience of 
having been a migrant and having settled out successfully is quite helpful. 
The increasing number of Mexican-American ex-migratory workers in the Mid- 
west who have successfully upgraded their education and have accumulated 
valuable experience in community organization and family assistance, often 
informally through their unpaid private efforts , constitute an indispensable 
human resource for future programs of migrant settlement facilitation. 

New opportunities in industrializing agriculture . With increasing 
mechanization in this region and the consequent diminishing size of the 
projected seasonal agricultural labor force, we recommend: 

6) the development of programs by which migrant field workers 
can learn the necessary mechanical skills to continue in 
agricultural work in new positions. 

This has been attempted on a small scale in Michigan and merits further 

testing. Essentially, what it involves, in terms of Job training, is 

teaching the migrants to operate or service farm machinery. 

This is an attractive strategy because there is a need in agriculture 

in this region for year-round farm workers with mechanical skills and 

because some of the Mexican-Americans like agricultural work and rural 

living and would not be averse to continuing in it at a higher wage level 



4543 



vith better living conditions. One misconception commonly held concerning 
Mexican-American migrant farm workers is that they have a low level of 
mechanical aptitude. Our survey data indicate that this is not the case: 
many of the respondents indicated that they have mechanical skills which they 
do not use in their current Jobs. The presence of the majority of Michigan 
Mexican-Americans in factory work indicates that they are capable of employ- 
ment involving machinery. 

In addition to the training of ex-migrant workers to perform specific 
mechanical tasks, many would also need some social services to assist them 
in operating in a new environment, particularly in smaller rural communities. 

In terms of the ordinary way in which migrants enter and become 
acculturated in new communities, this attempt to open mechanical farm work 
to Mexican-Americans has at least one major drawback. That is, living on 
dispersed farms as "hired hands" the individual migrant families would be 
deprived of the social support and other functions that derive from living 
within an ethnic subcommunity or within a network of others of their back- 
ground. However, we might find the dispersed farm families making their own 
substitute arrangements for the functions of the barrio. While we believe 
that programs working with Mexican-American ex-migratory workers must be 
solicitous of their needs and particular cultural background, we do not wish 
to give the impression that they are so completely integrated into a Mexican- 
American subculture as to be unwilling or unable to "survive" outside an 
urban Mexican-American subcommunity. We have been impressed by their 
adaptability and by the strength derived from the coherence of the family 
unit in rural and small town settings. Therefore, we do not anticipate that 
new settlers especially will be unresponsive to new opportunities for agri- 
cultural employment at higher levels of skill and remuneration. 



4544 



One thing which should be kept in mind, however, regarding rural 
settlement and agricultural employment is the need or desirability of pro- 
viding employment opportunities for wives and other family members. We have 
noted that one-third of the wives of our male respondents are presently 
employed. Rural opportunities for female employment may be fewer than in 
urban areas, although the opportunity of part-time farming activity in a 
rural setting might provide 6ome unpaid agricultural employment for wives 
and other family members. In any case, it is always necessary to consider 
the family as a whole in any program of retraining and guided settlement. 

Complementary part-time employment in seasonal farm labor . While there 
is growing recognition that the migratory way of life is socially undesir- 
able and economically marginal, the need for unevenly distributed amounts of 
labor in certain crops will remain. Either such labor must be recruited 
locally or within commuting distance of the farms or farmers must switch to 
other crops as the supply of migratory labor decreases as it must as the 
cycle of work is broken by selective mechanization. In discussing the employ- 
ment transition from migratory farm labor to urban industrial labor, we 
pointed out that among a significant number of families, part-time seasonal 
farm labor persists as an income supplement some years after settlement. 
This may be a matter of wives and elder children working during peak harvest 
periods while the husband continues his industrial job or of the whole family 
returning to farm work during vacations , change-over lay-offs in motor 
vehicle plants or, in some cases, even on weekends. This resource of intra- 
state seasonal farm labor provides an increasingly important supplement to 
the seasonal labor force which will continue to be required at peak periods 
or regularly during certain weeks in ciops not now or foreseeably subject to 



4545 



mechanization. We recommend that 

7) some experiments should be undertaken in systematically 
linking ex-migratory farm workers and members of their 
families desiring part-time farm employment to 
opportunities for such employment. 

While families settling out near areas in which they last worked in agri- 
culture will have contacts with farmers nearby for whom they worked, those 
families settling in more distant urban areas may have little awareness of 
part-time agricultural employment nearby or of other opportunities further 
away. Therefore, some of the recruiting and placement efforts now focused 
on inter-state migrants by employment offices might be redirected toward 
the placement of intra-state farm laborers. 

Income maintenance during resettlement . A final recommendation 
regarding problems of resettling migrants, particularly dropouts from the 
migrant stream, concerns the problem of a decline of income or insufficiency 
of income to meet the increased needs resulting from resettlement. A well- 
known characteristic of migrant families is that of their working together 
both in the stream and in communities of origin. The wife and older children 
contribute to the total family income in the field and may do so in agri- 
cultural employment back home or perhaps the wife may work in food processing 
for several months if not in the field. The multiple-earner character of 
the Mexican-American family tends to breakdown during resettlement and 
despite the often much higher individual earnings of the male head, the total 
family income may decline particularly because of the wife's inability to 
find work or the husband's unwillingness to have her work in an urban- 
industrial environment. At the same time, the needs of the family are 
greatly increased. Warmer clothes are needed to withstand the winter 
weather. Living costs in general are likely to be much higher. And finally, 



4546 



debts accumulated during vinter months of sporadic employment must be paid. 
Therefore, the most important single form of assistance that could be pro- 
vided the family settling out would be an income supplement. We recommend 
that 

8) low-interest "settlement" loans and/or relocation payments 
to supplement Income during the first year or so of 
settlement be provided to needy dropouts from the migrant 
stream. 

We believe this would be a very worthwhile investment in most cases and 

would greatly accelerate the process of adjustment to the new environment. 

It would allow older children to remain in school by providing them with 

needed clothes and relieving them from the necessity to work and would 

likewise enable the wife to remain in the home with younger children during 

this critical period. It would avoid the frequently encountered paradox 

of the lowering of the level of living of the family as the husband triples 

his wages in a new job. 



4547 

Dr. Stttrt. I will simply take a few minutes and pull out some of 
Dr. Trout's recommendations relative to migrants in transition. 

He points out the most successful migrants, the ones who made the 
transition successfully, are the ones under 40 with smaller than average 
families. This I stress because the large family becomes very, very much 
of an encumbrance in terms of making the transition — finding housing 
and finding resources to make the transition. 

Among other recommendations he stresses the need for providing 
adequate employment opportunities for adult family members. 
"Migration should be encouraged and facilitated through small- or 
middle-sized communities as an alternative to resettlement in major 
metropolitan areas," he states. 

He feels that the ones who have settled in Albion, and Grand Kapids, 
Ithaca, Lansing, and places like this in Michigan have had a more 
successful experience than those that have gone to larger cities. 

Senator Mondale. Of the thousand or 1,500 Mexican-Americans 
seeking to settle in Michigan, do you have any idea how many actually 
make a successful adjustment, and stay permanently out of the migra- 
tion stream ? 

Dr. Stttrt. These would be permanent. 

"Preparation for migration, especially where training is necessary, 
should be accomplished in place of origin where feasible * * *." He' 
feels and I agree with him that we have not done enough to train 
migrants where they are. 

In Michigan about two-thirds of the migrants that come into the 
State come out of the valley, the Kio Grande Valley, and are Mexican 
American. He feels that a great deal more needs to be done relative 
to working with the people in the valley where they are, particularly 
insofar as the development of transferable skills. 

This is somewhat against the grain of what seems to be happening, 
of what many people seem to be proposing relative to training pro- 
grams, for example, training where the jobs are. 

But I think we need both ; and training in transferable skills, where 
the people are, appears to make sense. If a training program could 
be conducted in the Valley, comparable to what we might offer in 
Michigan, the training could be accomplished and the people would be 
much more comfortable in the process. 

Senator Mondale. I think unless something is done about the bor- 
der problem, there is no point in talking about training. 

Dr. Stttrt. You mean the green card problem, and the wetbacks? 

Senator Mondale. And the fact that there are no effective restric- 
tions on Mexicans coming across the border although the Department 
claims there are. Working conditions are abominable, and Mexican 
foreign commuters are often used to break strikes. There is either a 
wholesale violation of social and economic legislation, or it does not 
extend to them. Their whole pattern of life and work is as bad today 
as it was 30 years ago, and there is little going on by way of economic 
development, 

Migrants that I have talked to say that : "If you want a young man 
to take training, you better have a job in mind for him, and be able to 



4548 

tell him about it, or he will not have the incentive to take training." 
Along the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas, there is little or no 
training on jobs. So I think that to talk of training down there is nice, 
but the surplus labor pressure is so enormous that it is a singular 
source of the migrant stream. It is a major hemorrhage. 

I can't convince any of the Federal departments or agencies to get 
interested in it. We keep talking about token programs, while human 
beings continue to suffer. 

Dr. Sturt. I don't agree with you at all in terms of training pro- 
grams in the Valley. I feel youngsters go to school everyday and do not 
expect to have a job waiting at the end of the line necessarily. There 
are all kinds of things that can be done in the Valley. There are, of 
course, many problems in Texas. 

Senator Mondale. I agree with that. 

Dr. Sturt. There is little sense in providing basic education pro- 
grams, and these kinds of things in Michigan, as we are currently 
doing. Our programs are only a drop in the bucket. There needs to be 
education programs in the valley on a massive scale. 

Senator Mondale. But my basic complaint is that we have a massive 
poverty population coining into the country virtually every day from 
Mexico. We thought we stopped it when we eliminated the bracero 
program, but now other methods for commuting across the border 
perpetuates the problem so it is just as bad as it was 15 years ago. 

We need a rational policy to stop that hemorrhaging along the bor- 
der, and to implement a policy encouraging economic bargaining 
power for the individual Mexican- American. 

I really despair over how little sensitivity I think the appropriate 
agencies are snowing toward this program. We saw an impressive re- 
action to marijuana in the recent Operation Intercept. I understand 
that there are efforts in Maine affecting Canadians coming in to work 
in Maine. But along the Texas border and along the California border, 
you have to be an idiot not to know how to get across that border to 
work in the United States. 

Dr. Sturt. This I know very little about. I assume you invited im- 
migration representatives here to testify. 

Senator Mondale. Yes, but that did not help any. 

Dr. Sturt. It is true there we have a large surplus of farm workers 
and that is the basic economic problem. What you are saying is that 
the surplus is being expanded by people flowing across the river into 
the farm labor stream. 

Granted, something has to be done on that, and that is something 
I know very little about. I do know that there are some real advan- 
tages to working with people and trying to train them in their own 
locals where they are culturally comfortable. 

We can get money in Michigan to do training, but I feel the same 
money can be spent far more effectively in the Valley in the winter 
at times when they are not as busy. 

Dr. Trout feels that we should attempt to guide migration to those 
areas where there are already people with whom the migrants can 
identify. 



4549 

For a number of years we have been proposing the development of 
master migration plans. Where are people going to be needed and how 
do we develop the kinds of mechanisms to get them there ? 

I have not been able to sell the master migration plan idea to the 
Department of Labor. 

Senator Mondale. I get the impression that there is none of that 
kind of strategic thinking going on in the Department of Agriculture 
or Labor. Once the migrant is in the stream, he is on his own. He might 
get a little help from some friends. He might get some help from 
occasional manpower offices, but in terms of the best use of his time, 
best return for his efforts, and the best place for him to be, he is lucky 
if he gets any help. 

Dr. Sturt. This is not completely true. The Farm Labor Service 
has an annual worker plan which they use. 

Senator Mondale. I think they testified yesterday that once mi- 
grants are in the stream, they don't follow a worker as much. And not 
all workers are using the plan, and many farmers don't participate. 

Dr. Sturt. No, they have an annual worker plan in which a crew 
or group will start out in the Valley, for example, and they know the 
workers will be in Arkansas for work there, in Michigan for work in 
asparagus, etc. The work plan is all scheduled ahead of time. 

It is called the "annual worker plan." It has many weaknesses in it, 
but it is a good idea and it is used. Along the way the workers need 
all kinds of services and they do not get access to many of these needed 
services. I will get into that in a minute. 

I would like to return to my statement, and comment on the impact 
of technology on people. 

In terms of the Department of Agriculture it would appear that 95 
percent of their research budget goes into technological research. 

There is an imbalance between the emphasis upon the physical sci- 
ences and technological research and the human fallout resulting 
from this research. We agriculturists have been great in creating the 
problems but not very adept in solving them. 

Senator Mondale. That was developed at yesterday's hearing. They 
spent $125 million for technology and other kinds of efforts that the 
Department of Agriculture institutes that has the effect of reducing 
the need for manpower. And that is a drop in the bucket. On the other 
side, in terms of money for trying to deal with the human problems, 
trying to meet the oversupply of labor, trying to discourage migrancy, 
trying to get a better balance between jobs and workers, there seems to 
be little known or done. 

Dr. Sturt. Precisely. I think we have an example of a really mas- 
sive thrust to displace people, and using Federal funds to do it. 

Senator Mondale. Did you think that $125 million figure is low ? 

Dr. Sturt. It is way low, I believe. 

Senator Mondale. What would you estimate ? 

Dr. Sturt. Probably twice as much. 

Senator Mondale. For the record, could you give us your calcula- 
tions in this field, how much you think goes into this area ? 



4550 

Dr. Sturt. It depends on how it is couched. I am simply saying 
probably 95 percent of all the research moneys in the US DA and its 
land-grant affiliates is technologically oriented and, therefore, ori- 
ented toward the displacement of people. 

Senator Mondale. I think it is significant that yours is the only 
rural manpower center at a land-grant college in the country, is that 
right? 

Dr. Sturt. It is very significant, primarily because we are a prod- 
uct of the Michigan State Legislature. 

Senator Mondale. But it is the only one of its kind in the country, 
yet every land-grant college in the country has agriculture techno- 
logical schools. 

Dr. Sttjrt. This is because there has been this concern with tech- 
nology, primarily to provide cheap food. Society is saying anything 
goes as long as you provide cheap food ; we will give you unlimited 
funds as long as you provide cheap food. Also, it is generally held that 
whatever is good for the individual farm operator is good for rural 
people. This is not always true. It may be good for the individual farm 
operator and not be good for all rural people. 

I won't continue on with Dr. Trout's material. He is interested in 
income supplements, for example, so people will be able to make the 
transition. Also, he is interested in resettlement assistance. He is in- 
terested in guiding migration, as I am, and we disagree only on one 
point. 

I contend that most of the migrants do not possess the basic aptitude 
for acquiring mechanization skills. He thinks they can be expected to 
move into jobs in mechanized agriculture and I do not think this can 
be accomplished without massive training programs, because most of 
the migrants are not oriented in this direction. They are oriented to- 
ward picking and harvesting, but not toward the operation of 
machinery. 

I have three or four points on immediate needs. One of the immediate 
needs, of course, has to do with housing. 

Adequate housing is needed both for migrant farmworkers em- 
ployed in agriculture and those who wish to move into nonfarm jobs. 
Migrant housing for those employed in agriculture has improved, and 
growers will continue to improve housing as licensing and other forms 
of encouragement take effect. 

In Michigan, we have some very bad housing and we also have 
some very good housing ; it is improving. 

Some sort of cost-sharing arrangement whereby the public enters 
into a partnership with the individual grower to improve housing 
should be encouraged. The agricultural labor commission, which is a 
statutory commission in the State of Michigan and which I chair, 
came up with a proposal last August for a State appropriation of over 
$1 million for this kind of program. 

Although for a much smaller amount, there is a provision in the 
Governor's budget for cost -sharing and it is a significant breakthrough. 
Society has the responsibility to join hands with the grower and help 
him underwrite the cost of this housing. 



4551 

Senator Mondale. What about the possibility of mobile homes, or 
campers, or similar vehicular homes for subsidizing migrants, rather 
than subsidizing a particular fixed housing location ? 

It seems to me that we have several problems here. As you point 
out, many farmers have limited periods during which they need mi- 
grants, say 2 or 3 weeks, and they are very reluctant to spend a lot of 
money on housing. 

Dr. Sturt. Particulary if those farmers are also living in poverty. 

Senator Mondale. The other problem is that many farmers have 
crops where they think mechanization will take over, so they ask why 
they should build housing, and provide decent sanitation, and all the 
rest when a year or 2 or 3 from now they may not need any of it. 

Yet, from what you have said, and what was testified to yesterday, 
there will continue to be a need for migrants. And that need will in- 
volve a much more sophisticated use of migrants, much more careful 
planning, far better services, and much better mobility. Why wouldn't 
it make sense to assist the migrant in finding quality housing that he 
can take with him ? 

Dr. Sturt. I have no objections to this. It has been discussed along 
the way. I would say it is a possibility. You have to be sure of all the 
other supporting services which have to go along with it. The migrant 
has to know how to take care of the housing and how to use it properly. 
It certainly is worthy of consideration. 

It would also be expensive, I might add, when you think of giving a 
mobile home to each family. 

The cost-sharing notion is highly significant, I feel, and those on 
the Agricultural Labor Commission in the State of Michigan feel the 
same way. 

It is, essentially, saying to society, "If you feel so strongly about this, 
put your money where your mouth is and help us do the job." 

I am speaking primarily for Michigan, where we do not have a lot 
of large operators in the California or Florida sense. Also, we are talk- 
ing about some farm operators in Michigan, who, as I have said, are 
well qualified for poverty assistance along with many hired workers. 

There are Federal funds available for improving farm worker hous- 
ing, but we have been unsuccessful in developing a mechanism for 
using it. You would think that HUD and the Farmers Home Admin- 
istration would provide more assistance along these lines. We have not 
been able to get a Federal project moving. We organized and worked 
with groups of growers on several occasions where we thought we were 
going to get cooperative housing units set up, but we were unsuccessful. 

It never comes off for a variety of reasons and we do not have any 
of this publicly supported housing in Michigan. 

Let us move to the second recommendation in the statement. It has to 
do with improved health, education, and welfare services for migrant 
workers and their families. I am particularly concerned with the food 
stamp program. 

I don't know a great deal about this except that I know there have 
been fantastic blockages for migrants who attempt to get access to 
food and food stamps. The food programs are not designed to serve 



4552 

people on the move, in the migrant worker sense. There should be 
self -certification. 

Senator Mondale. Have you made an analysis as to how many coun- 
ties in which migrants are used extensively in Michigan are counties 
which even have a food stamp program ? 

Dr. Sturt. I believe they all have them. 

Senator Mondale. Then the second question is how many of those 
that have them have simply token programs ? 

Dr. Sturt. No. We have active food programs and food stamp pro- » 
grams in Michigan, but the accessibility to these is through that county 
person who is there who becomes all-powerful when you apply for 
stamps. I have suggested to the Department of Agriculture that inas- 
much as the average income of the migrant from farm and nonfarm 
work is something like $1,400 or $1,500 a year, why not automatically 
qualify all people that are in the interstate farm labor work force for 
food stamps ? 

With such a program there would be a few that would be getting 
stamps that should not ; but many deserving thousands would receive 
assistance which is now being denied them. It seems to me there has 
to be some sort of waiver system, where the usual rules are not applied, 
because, like so many other things in our society, the rules are not 
designed to accommodate these people on the move. 

Senator Mondale. If you think it is bad when migrants are on the 
move, you should go down to southern Texas and Florida and see how 
they are treated when they are stationary. We found in southern 
Florida that the counties that had the highest migrant population 
had no food stamp program, or if they had programs at all, they were 
token programs. 

The largest migrant county had county-elected officials who said 
migrants were Federal people, and were not the responsibility of local 
government. They thought it would be illegal to provide food stamps, 
so you have an awful bias, an awful form of discrimination that affects 
food programs in the South. 

Dr. Sturt. I am sure this is true. But in Michigan we have a fairly 
progressive program, I think. On the other hand, insofar as the 
migrants are concerned, some do get service, but some do not. 

What would be wrong with a food program where anyone involved 
in interstate farm work would automatically qualify? Granted some 
would get them that should not, but only a very few, because there are 
only a few that would go above the stipulated income level for 
qualifying. 

I would like to talk some more about equity of access. If there is 
any one thing we have tried to inject into all of our presentations in 
the last year, it has been this term. It pertains to access to all public 
services. 

We would contend that the rural poor generally do not have equity 
of access to services. There is a double discrimination involved. Urban 
areas are attracting more Federal funds these days than are the rural 
areas. 

There is a disproportionate share of moneys going into urban areas 
as opposed to rural areas, which are the source of urban problems in 



4553 

the first place. Second, within the rural community there is this lack 
of equity of access, so someone living in north Michigan is a victim of 
double discrimination in terms of equity of access to services. 

Another immediate need for migrant workers has to do with em- 
ployment services; we feel that migrants need more job information. 
They need assistance in job scheduling. 

Many migrants are looking for nonfarm work and as they search 
for this nonfarm work, they need special employment assistance, not 
only in job information, but the whole bundle of services that will 
assist them in making the transition to a dramatically different type 
of work in an oftentimes hostile environment. 

Not only migrants, but rural people, need a whole array of employ- 
ment services. I am concerned that there appears to be a move under- 
way to have one set of employment services emanating from the De- 
partment of Labor offices, as opposed to something that is identifiably 
rural and that is specially tailored to meet the needs of rural people. 

Working with migrants is a different ball game from working with 
urban people, and the Department of Labor has to recognize this. 

Senator Mondale. But aren't there also special problems with the 
interstate migrant that are unique from rural people generally ? 

Dr. Stukt. Yes, but I think you are missing the boat if you do not 
include migrant and rural problems together, because the migrant is a 
part of the total rural picture. 

Senator Mondale. I think he is one of the key contributors to rural 
poverty because he comes along at peak employment need time and 
takes pressure off the normal operation of a free enterprise supply and 
demand labor market. 

Dr. Sturt. We have a lot of hired farmworkers in Michigan, for 
example. We have about 15,000. All of them would not be classified 
as rural poor, but a number would be. They are not migrants in any 
sense. 

We have people that have dropped out of the stream. We have a lot 
of people that are simply there. Our estimates are that approximately 
one-half million people m rural Michigan, for example, are poor and 
living in poverty. And we have encouraged the Governor to appoint 
a rural affairs council. Hopefully we will get an office of rural affairs. 
Rural poverty has been pushed into the background. The migrant 
problems are a part of it, and a significant part of it. 

Senator Mondale. I guess what I am apprehensive about in that 
analysis is I agree with the rural poverty point, but I am also of the 
opinion that there are many factors that are different between the 
migrant, and the local impoverished rural worker who does not 
migrate. There are, in fact, many special problems of the interstate 
migrant that require a special focus, and many times special admin- 
istrative apparatus is needed if he is going to have any help at all. 

For example, the rural impoverished problems in Michigan are not 
the same as the constantly mobile farmworker looking for work. 
Many of the migrants that come to Michigan come there because they 
are forced out of Texas. At least the rural poor in Michigan live in 
some kind of community, and he may even vote. They may have a little 
political power. Kids from a permanent resident, rural poor family 

36-513 O — 71 — pt. 7B 3 



4554 

may go to a school and will at least be accepted as residents of that 
community. In fact, they live in a community long enough where he 
might have a chance at welfare, and some of the other services also. 

Dr. Sturt. It is a little better situation. 

Senator Moxdale. The migrant has nothing. He has no vote and no 
political power. He is just moving along. And he is often hated. He is 
a foreigner. He accepts all the risks, and all of the costs of finding the 
next job. 

Dr. Sturt. There is fantastic community discrimination relative 
to the migrant, Many people point their fingers at the individual 
growers and accuse them of discriminating against migrant workers. 
While there are some cases of grower discrimination, there are many 
situations where the grower turns out to be the best friend of the 
migrant worker. 

We have encountered very serious community discrimination. This 
is one of the reasons why it is almost impossible to establish coopera- 
tive housing developments for migrant workers. The community dis- 
criminates and objects to housing developments being established. 

These are the same people, mind you, that through the church or- 
ganizations and other avenues will be blasting the grower. They will 
refuse to have a migrant housing operation in their community. 

Let us move to long-run needs. I feel that we should have interde- 
partmental technology councils that weigh the anticipated impact of 
public investments in technological research. The imbalance toward 
physical science research should be redressed in order to encourage 
more social science research. A product orientation should give way to 
a people orientation, as the human consequences of technology are put 
in proper perspective. 

What I am saying here is I think there should be some kind of intra - 
departmental technology council that influences the allocation of 
moneys that go into research, particularly relative to agricultural 
research. 

We recommend this to foreign governments. I conduct international 
manpower seminars here in Washington and other places, and a stand- 
ard recommendation is to encourage planners to select those technolo- 
gies that best fit their economies. 

For example, if your people-to-land ratio is high, you usually do not 
encourage the labor-displacing types of technology. 

I think the only way to come to grips with this problem is to find 
some mechanism for making those who promote technological research 
and education, face up to the human consequences of it. 

Let us look at a second long-run need. A system of social and eco- 
nomic rewards based upon human resources rather than property 
resources should be encouraged. Along these lines, wage supports would 
be more appropriate than price supports. 

I assume somebody else suggested this idea. 

Senator Mondale. Would you include minimum wage increases 
under that ? 

Dr. Sturt. In a sense, but using a system of wage subsidies, that are 
paid by the consumer. 



4555 

All of your USDA price support programs are geared to a property 
base rather than a human resource base. This, again, is predicated 
upon the belief that what is good for the individual operator is good 
for all people in agriculture. This is not true, because all people do 
not own property. 

For example, the tobacco program. I am familiar with that. The 
price support program for tobacco and the increased prices are essen- 
tially capitalized in the price of the land. It does not accrue to the 
individuals doing the work. It accrues to the individuals that own the 
tobacco land. 

Senator Mondale. Would that great subsidy approach encourage 
labor intensive efforts and discourage mechanization? Would that be 
the tendency ? 

Dr. Sturt. Sure. Let me give you an example of what I am talking 
about. We have a proposal called the farmworker equity proposal. 
It goes like this : 

If you took 1 percent of the total food bill — it could be a tax at retail 
level, it could be a food handling tax — you would get about a billion 
dollars. This billion dollars could go a long way toward subsidizing 
wages for the hired farmworkers, improving housing and so forth. 

It would also take away some of the pressure for increased mechani- 
zation. It could be administered by ASC offices. You have the mecha- 
nism already there for administration. It would be putting the em- 
phasis upon the human inputs rather than the property inputs in 
agriculture. 

It would probably improve the quality of the products because 
oftentimes mechanization does not provide you with as high quality 
products as does hand harvesting. 

It should reduce the push to the cities. Originally, perhaps this was 
the intent of our price support and other farm legislation, to improve 
the quality of rural living and help rural people. What, in fact, has 
happened is that these programs have helped those people who own 
property ; this does not mean the same thing as helping rural people. 

Senator Mondale. Would you favor extension of the National 
Labor Relations Act to the farmworker ? 

Dr. Sturt. Would I favor extension of the National Labor 
Relations Act? 

Senator Mondale. Yes, sir. 

Dr. Sturt. It would depend upon the form that it takes. I am going 
to cover this in a minute in my report. I think unionization coverage 
has to be geared to agriculture. Probably the Secretary of Labor's 
proposal which he made in a speech in Ohio would be acceptable. I 
don't see anything wrong with it. 

Senator Mondale. The Secretary of Labor would substitute 
compulsory arbitration. Would you favor that approach? 

Dr. Sturt. Compulsory arbitration is probably the only answer. 
The basic problem we have in agriculture stems from simply including 
agriculture in social legislation. We must design appropriate 
mechanisms that fit this special situation. 

In Michigan, for example, we have workmen's compensation for 
some agricultural workers. It looks like we are going to move toward 



4556 

workmen's compensation for all agricultural workers in Michigan. I 
am convinced that agriculture is different. 

This does not mean they have to be exempted. In the process we 
have to recognize that the farmwork environment is a different work 
environment and we have to tailor these programs and tailor legisla- 
tion to arrive at a comparable end, but perhaps with a different 
means. 

I don't know whether I am communicating with you or not. I am 
saying agricultural workers deserve equal treatment, obviously. And 
we need these protections, but we also have to be realistic enough to 
know that we have to devise a mechanism that works and fits the 
situation. 

I am not a union person and I know very little about unionization, 
but I know you have to hold elections and all of these things. As I 
see unionization in the agricultural work situation, I am bothered as 
to how the industrial pattern would work. 

I think far too much time has been spent in saying, include them, 
instead of coming up with some really creative approaches as to how 
the thing is going to work. The same thing applies to workmen's 
compensation and all the rest. 

We have struggled along in Michigan with a very unusual work- 
men's compensation program, for example. Originally, legislation pro- 
vided comprehensive workmen's compensation for some and hospital 
and medical insurance coverage for others. 

Now it looks like we are ready to move to more comprehensive 
coverage. 

Incidentally, it has been difficult to get insurance companies to coop- 
erate with this program. I would contend, on the other hand, they 
made a fortune out of it, but they are still dragging their feet. 

My main point here is that we need to devise appropriate mecha- 
nisms for achieving the same end with a more appropriate means. It 
is very easy for people to say we are going to bring workers under the 
NLRA, but it is not that simple to devise something that works. 

We could, for example, bring in agriculture workers under the 
NLRA, and I do not think a great deal would happen. I cannot see 
immediate mass unionization movements, and all kinds of bargaining 
activities, as a result. It is going to be too difficult to accomplish in the 
agricultural environment. 

Are we communicating ? 

Senator Mondale. We don't agree, but we are communicating. 

Dr. Sturt. I want to hit the equity of access thing again. I contend 
that the service organizations, many of which have a Federal base — 
the Extension Service, the FHA, the SCS, and others, including the 
landgrant universities — suffer from what we call hardening of the 
attitudes ; we are insensitive. 

We develop, over a period of time, insensitivity to people, particu- 
larly the rural poor, and there are a lot of barriers to keep people 
from enjoying equity of access to services. One of the things that we 
have discovered, as we have asked agencies about how were they 
insuring that they were providing their services on an equitable 
basis, is that they say, "Our doors are always open." We contend that 



4557 

this is not enough. There are too many barriers. There are psycho- 
logical barriers, language barriers, and so forth. For the migrant there 
are more barriers than there are for the local poor. 

But for the local rural poor there are many barriers, too. You have 
an agency that always says, "My doors are always open." So what? I 
am not impressed. 

Again, I think something has to be done to sensitize agencies in 
order to insure this equity of access to services, because the bundle of 
public services that we get in this life are, perhaps, more important 
than the actual dollar income, when you think of it. 

They are certainly very significant. In other words, one's level of 
living is not just determined by what his dollar income is. It includes 
the whole array of services that are available to him. 

Point 4 of the report has to do with what we were talking about, 
that is, innovative legislative and administrative institutions must be 
designed to provide for rural workers the benefits and protection that 
have been provided for nonfarmworkers, recognizing the significant 
differences between the farm and nonfarm situation. Appropriate 
avenues to provide farmworkers the advantages that have been pro- 
vided nonfarmworkers through social legislation must be devised in 
order to achieve the same "ends" via a more fitting "means." 

This is what I am talking about in the case of unemployment in- 
surance. We are going to have to experiment and come up with some- 
thing that works. As I mentioned, we experimented with workmen's 
compensation in Michigan and we are coming up with something that 
works. 

We have to experiment with unionization to come up with some- 
thing that works, but I do not think you can expect any miracles with 
one wave of the hand. 

The fifth point in this report has to do with instability of agricul- 
tural employment. This, of course, is very important. I am very anxious 
to see the Farm Labor and Rural Manpower Service in the Depart- 
ment of Labor become an identifiable rural manpower service that 
works with migrants and others to help them find nonfarm work, and 
that helps the rural poor to find nonfarm work. 

It is important that we have a rural manpower service unit that is 
identifiable, that is known as the rural manpower unit. Hopefully 
there will be people in the servicet hat communicate well, including 
some Spanish-speaking people. We have to develop a service that 
will help the rural poor and migrants find complementary job op- 
portunities. 

Senator Mondale. It is very interesting that in the Farm Labor 
Service, there are no migrants on any advisory councils that I know of. 
Very often people that need the service, and who are using the service, 
are not involved in determining how it should work. 

We have had several migrants, actual live migrants, who have come 
in here to testify. I am sure you have heard their experiences many 
times, perhaps many times more than I have. It is a pretty disappoint- 
ing picture. 

The Labor Department service is not always uniformly received by 
the workers. There is a lawsuit in California right now which states 



4558 

as its basic case that the FLS is accomplishing more harm than good, 
and we are going to be hearing from attorneys who have brought that 
case). 

But it seems very peculiar that a service which is designed to serve 
the public, and to serve rural neighborhoods, does not have close con- 
tact with the migrants themselves. In other words, how do migrants 
see that service ? 

For example, how many Spanish-speaking personnel are there? 
The Department of Labor told us yesterday they don't have the slight- 
est idea. They are trying to find out. For the first time they are 
beginning to evolve regulations to require personnel to speak the 
language of those who must use the service. 

Now, if there was any sensitivity and deep concern for these people, 
why didn't that happen the first day these offices were open. That is 
where you begin. If you cannot talk to the guy, where are you ? 

Dr. Sturt. I agree with you. They do need more Spanish-speaking 
personnel. The local office in Lansing, Mich., does have a Spanish- 
speaking person. 

Senator Mondale. There are some that have them, but it has been 
a slow process. And it is one that has been a paternal process. The 
power structure begins to drop a Mexican person here or there, but the 
people who are using the service have nothing to say. 

Wouldn't it be far better if in this service in which their lives are so 
deeply involved, and which they know better than any of us because 
they must live it, if there were some kind of national migrant council 
to advise rural manpower officials about actual migrants? 

This town is packed with white, middle- and upper-class people 
who are advising the Government on things all the time. We pay them 
$100 and $150 a day. If you cut out advising in Washington, the Wash- 
ington Hilton would be broke today, and all those bars would be empty 
at 6 o'clock tonight. 

But you are never going to see a Mexican migrant in those bars. He 
cannot afford to come to town, let alone get into one of those joints. 

Why don't we have a situation where the agency that is most closely 
related to migrants own lives above all consults with migrants and 
listens to the poor ? Why don't we do that ? 

Dr. Sturt. I think it is a good idea. I could not agree with you 
more. There are problems involved in this kind of thing I might add. 

Senator Mondale. There are always problems when you talk to 
poor folks. 

Dr. Sturt. I have gone this route where we tried to set up councils 
in various communities. 

Senator Mondale. And you involved the workers themselves ? 

Dr. Sturt. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. And haven't you found they brought strength 
to those discussions ? 

Dr. Sturt. Unfortunately no; and I am concerned. If I were not, 
I would not have spent all these years working with these problems. 

Senator Mondale. Why do you say they do not bring any strength ? 

Dr. Sturt. We had in Saginaw, Mich., what we call a farm labor 
council. I am a great believer, that if you get a variety of people with 



4559 

different points of view, you can create a forum and you can battle out 
the problems and arrive at solutions. I am a great believer in local 
forums, and I believe the university has a function to play as a con- 
vener of these forums. 

Essentially our Agricultural Labor Commission in the State of 
Michigan is a State forum where we have former migrants. In Sagi- 
naw, for example, there were some migrants on the council. They were 
not participative, and I understand why. They felt ill at ease. It just 
did not work out. 

At the State level we had former migrants on a migrant labor coun- 
cil several years ago. These former migrants had had experience in 
migrant work and understood what the problems were all about, and 
yet they had not developed the ability to articulate to others their own 
thoughts. 

I am just saying that it sounds better on paper, Senator, than it 
actually is. 

Senator Mondale. The thing that strikes me is we have had live 
migrants testify before us, and I think we learned more from them 
than from a lot of other witnesses about the details of their lives and 
how they are treated, and how they try to live, and how much they earn, 
and their efforts, for example, to find housing and educate their kids. 

After all, that is what we need to know, isn't it? We just had the big 
cheeses from Labor and Agriculture here yesterday and they as much 
as admit that they do not know whether their statistics are sound. They 
are based on probability samples and not even counting the people, 
and once the migrants are in the stream they don't know what they are 
doing, or how, and they do not know how much they earn. 

Wouldn't we learn more if we worked with actual living people? 

Dr. Sturt. Statistically you would not. You could bring 100 migrant 
workers in the room and ask them how much they earn and that would 
not improve your statistics one iota, but it would give you a feeling for 
some of the basic problems. 

In order for advisory groups and councils to be effective the migrants 
must be involved in a way that they feel compatible. There has to be 
recognition of the language problem and all the rest if you are going 
to meaningfully communicate with these people and have something 
that is not just a facade. 

Now I would like to talk about the instability of farm-labor income. 
I do not think that we have ever really done very much constructive 
work in the area of trying to mesh jobs together, in order that we come 
up with complementary jobs. What are some sets of jobs that might fit 
together? Most of us agree the need for farm labor, for seasonal farm- 
workers is going to continue although the demand will be less. The 
question is how, then, do we provide some sort of complementary in 
job opportunities ? 

Do we simply give them a guaranteed annual wage ? 

This may well be the answer. A lot of farms carry their year-round 
hired workers for 12 months, even though they actually only use them 
for only 8 or 9 months. 

Why couldn't we expect the same farms that carry them for 6 months 
to at least share in carrying them for a longer period of time? In 



4560 

other words, the productive months have to pay for the productive 
and nonproductive months. Because people have to have a year round 
income. 

Point 6 in the report pertains to rural people needing better man- 
power services. I feel there should be a spokesman for rural manpower 
and rural people, including the migrant. 

Over half our farm people in the State of Michigan earn more off 
the farm than on the farm, which means that job information and the 
bundle of manpower services are very important to our people in rural 
Michigan. Yet they have very little access to manpower services. 

There are very few manpower offices out in the small towns. Offices 
are located in the urban centers, and yet the rural people need these 
services. Perhaps, the Department of Labor could be a spokesman for 
rural manpower. Then, maybe they could, for example, get the Exten- 
sion Service in the Department of Agriculture and other services to 
cooperate in providing manpower services of various kinds. "Working 
together, they could provide job information, training information, etc. 

The Department of Labor could develop cooperative linkages with 
existing agencies that are already located in rural communities. I do 
not think it is likely that we will see enough money appropriated to 
have comprehensive manpower services taken to all these rural com- 
munities. But they need them and there is this lack of access because 
they do not have them. 

I close with simply the comment that for many migrants there are 
few alternatives in other forms of work. Our society does not accom- 
modate such workers very well. As time passes, the number of migra- 
tory workers will continue to decline, with only highly specialized 
workers continuing in this type of work. 

The fate of the migrant farmworkers is inextricably interwoven 
with the fate of agriculture and rural people in general. 

I feel strongly as long as we continue to essentially worship cheap 
food policy in the United States, as long as rural people are discrimi- 
nated against in their request for a fair share of Government assis- 
tance, many people including migrants are destined to remain the 
people left behind. 

I notice that there is a rural affairs council that has been appointed 
at the Federal level by the President. Is this a U.S.D.A. council in 
effect. I have some basic questions as to whether any one Department 
is capable of providing the kind of rural services that are needed in 
rural areas. 

I think a group such as yours, a committee such as yours, should 
point this out. 

Senator Mondale. Dr. Sturt, we are most grateful to you for this 
most useful statement. I think I am correct that you will shortly be 
director of the appropriate program in the Department of Labor? 

Dr. Sttjrt. That may well be true, but I have not heard about it. 

Senator Mondale. I am sure the President would not want me to 
carry the news. 

I find your statement helpful. It is encouraging to know the one 
head of one department of one university in the country that has 
bothered to look at this problem. 



4501 

I suppose that I can be excused for just making a few comments 
here, not in response to your testimony, but which I think expresses 
my view on some of these problems. 

I have a lot less hope that the bureaucracy is going to be truly 
meaningful and relevant in their effort to respond to migrants than 
do many people who have studied this problem. I think the migrants 
have suffered from an overdose of malignant paternalism. It is a 
wonderful way for white people to work out their guilt feelings. 
Eleanor Roosevelt visited them, and we had films and documentaries 
such as "Harvest of Shame.'' Two years ago we had the educational 
television people do a follow-up to "Harvest of Shame." Now, thank 
goodness, NBC is going to go back again. 

We are going to have another "Harvest of Shame'' revisited, and 
we are just having a wonderful time studying and restudying the 
migrants. The single most significant aspect of the studies is that the 
sitaution is continuing to grow worse in its tragedy. The whole migrant 
stream continues to be refueled daily along the Mexican border, Cali- 
fornia and Texas, and this has national ramifications. 

After these many years we have a sort of ritual where we come up 
with new plans, new ideas, and new suggestions, but all of them have 
the same paternal base. Every program is phrased in terms of : "This 
is something we are going to do for them." 

I wonder whether much more time and much more hope might be 
found in structuring programs that permit the migrants to do some- 
thing for themselves. For example, the right to organize and bargain 
collectively, the right to strike, the right to close off that Texas border 
from this hemorrhaging of surplus labor that is coming across daily. 

If we just did that, I think the economic position of the average 
farmworker and migrant would be demonstrably improved. Setting 
up a Farm Labor Service in which the farmworkers had a strong hand, 
working in cooperation with the government and the farmer, we may 
find far more sensitive treatment of that worker and his problems, and 
how he get around, so his work can be accomplished for his best 
advantage as well as for the advantage of the farmer. 

"When dealing with housing problems, we should not just think of 
ways of bringing housing to a particular site, but maybe clothing the 
migrant with some power over his own housing problems. Because 
everywhere the migrant goes today he is absolutely impotent, politi- 
cally, economically, socially, culturally to affect his' own life. In every 
way he is powerless. He does not count, and I don't think he is even 
counted. 

We do not even do him the courtesy of counting him every 10 years. 
Thus, for all of our little programs here and there — OEO programs, 
Labor programs, Agriculture programs — the farmworkers are still 
the hardest working, poorest paid people in America. He is still, 40 
years after the National Labor Relations Act, fighting for the right 
to be recognized. 

I would hope that we could begin to see in the Department of Labor 
and Department of Agriculture and at local levels, a slight shift, or 
maybe major shift, in philosophy, directed toward the impotence 



4562 

which denies the farmworkers the right to say something about his 
own life. 

We have seen the same phenomenon with the American Indian for 
130 years; more than any other human being, the American Indian 
has been the ward of the U.S. Government. We have run his housing, 
handled his education, provided his jobs. We have done everything 
for him. 

Yet today, in every single indicator, there is the Indian described 
as a pathetic, hopeless person. He has no power to speak for himself. 
I would like to see a national policy which deals not alone with the 
specific programs, but deals with the delivery systems from the Federal 
level which so many times are frustrated and somehow lose their way. 

For example, among Indians we spent $8,200 nationally per capita 
for every Indian in this country, through Federal programs, but the 
annual income of Indians is about $1,800. If we just close all these 
Federal programs down, and send him the money, they would be twice 
over the poverty line. But by the time the middle class bureaucracy, 
and regional directors, and national offices, and everybody gets their 
share, there is nothing left for the Indian, and he is 50 percent below 
the poverty line. 

And there is this phenomenon of white middle-class programs, like 
the missionaries who come to do good, and do very well for themselves, 
I think that those people in American society, like the migrant and 
the Indian, beset with utter impotence, are totally miserable people. 
And no policy should assume that the American character is suddenly 
going to change on our own, voluntarily, to become compassionate. 

I don't want to paint that bleak picture of America, but I think we 
do a lot better in American society where those who seek justice have 
some power to demand justice. The postal carriers gave up. They had 
the first strikes in 200 years and the Federal Government acted in 
about 2 days to raise their pay. 

We fooled around here for years, passing bills in the Senate but not 
in the House, passing bills in the House but not in the Senate, passing 
different bills in the Senate and House, and then not even meeting 
to resolve differences. Finally, the postal carriers became desperate. 

But unlike the migrant, they had something they could do about 
it, and they had a strike and, boy, did we move. Mind you, never in 
response to that kind of illegal action. We made that clear. But we 
got them money fast. 

And I think that our bureaucratic insensitivities, our paternalism, 
creates an insensitivity for illegality that I personally despair. I am 
a lawyer. I was attorney general in my State. I believe in law and order 
and justice. I believe in due process. But I think it is wrong for us to 
believe that somehow we are going to do better with migrant farm- 
workers than we have all these years unless we give them something 
to say about their own lives. 

Dr. Sturt. I agree with you. Anything that can be done to dry 
up the migrant stream is obviously going to be a step in the right 
direction, in view of all the social problems attendant to migrancy. 

Senator Mondale. I think migrancy is a curse. We are talking about 
economics here today, but we have had child psychiatrists in past 



4563 

hearings, that said the psychological maiming of the migrant child 
through the failure to have a home, the hostility that child felt 
wherever he goes, whatever school he is in, and the backroads some of 
them have to travel — because they are not even permitted to travel 
on the main road — that these kinds of things destroy that kid's 
concept of himself. 

I think migrancy has to end. I would like to see it abolished. 

Dr. Sturt. I feel that legislatures, State legislatures and the Con- 
gress should sensitize agencies in their own unique way and they have 
done this in some States, I think. 

Senator Mondale. We have usually done it where our efforts to 
sensitize here in Washington are backed up by a broad political base 
back home. Then it usually works, but you look at what we have done 
for the Indian. He is worse off today than he was 5-years ago. 

We have our committees, and we have our meetings, and we have our 
hearings, and sometimes we even pass legislation. But somehow it does 
not seem to get down to the folks and make any difference in their 
lives, because they are not in a position to demand that programs we 
dream up in Washington are properly responsive to their needs. 

Dr. Sturt. And migrants generally do not vote. At least they don't 
vote in Michigan. I doubt if they even vote in the Valley. I would 
be surprised if they did. In fact, I have had several politicians say 
exactly this to me, when we tried to arouse interest in some problem, 
"After all, these people do not vote." 

Senator Mondale. They have some dandy provisions in Texas law 
that have discouraged registration and voting too. But we won't go 
into that here. 

Dr. Sturt. The question of migrants not voting and our respon- 
sibility for migrants has been raised in Michigan. 

We expect to have 10,000 fewer seasonal farm jobs in midsummer 
in Michigan. Many migrants will be unemployed. Some say, "Why 
should Michigan be bearing the brunt of all this?" I would contend 
that even with all its problems, Michigan is a far better place for 
the migrant to be than in Texas. This is why they come, even though 
they think there may not be work. 

Michigan can expect some migrants this summer, partly because of 
the array of services that are available. 

All of the migrant problems and farm-labor problems are complex. 
We have a continuing problem with newspaper and others who want 
instant analysis and simple answers. 

I do feel that your border problem appears to be, from what you 
are saying, one of the significant things that has to be remedied. 

I would also like to submit as part of the evidence a couple other 
publications. I have given copies of these books on mechnization and 
manpower to Mr. Chertkov. We have a third book that is coming out 
on policy recommendations. Essentially, the recommendations will be 
an attack on agricultural technology. I feel very strongly that the 
Congress and others across the country have not really faced up to 
this problem — the human fallout from technology and the imbalance 
between physical and social research. 



4564 

I also brought along for submission a study, entitled "Human Ke- 
i?Jl?? S T 0n FrUlt and Ve £ etable Farms" done by Dr. Voland of the 
KMC. He writes about the aspiration levels of blacks, whites and 
browns, for example. There is also a publication by Dr. Myrtle Reul. 
She is one of the exceptionally well-qualified people in this area. She 
has written a great deal and spent a year working with migrants, 
masquerading as a migrant herself. She used to be on our staff, and 
)fj™ w a T fc the University of Georgia. She has a book out, entitled 

Where Hannibal Lives," which is the story of her year working in 
the stream— not observing, but actually working. 

With that I would like to thank you for the opportunity \o be 
here. If we can help you in any way, we will be happy to do so. 

Senator Mondale. We are grateful to you for your useful testi- 
mony and we look forward to working with you. 

Dr. Sturt, since you have been interrupted in your presentation, 
we will print your statement in full at this point in the record, to- 
gether with certain of the material which you have appended to your 
remarks. I note, however, that some of the materials were also sub- 
mitted yesterday, and may be printed elsewhere in this record. 

Again, I want to thank you very much for your contribution. 

(The prepared statement and other information submitted by Dr 
Sturt follows:) 



4565 



PREPARED STVTEMENT OF I). W. STURT, 
Rural Manpower Center 
Michigan State University, 
East Lansing, Michigan 

Some Migrant Worker Needs 



There is a quiet crisis smoldering in rural America. Changes in the 
economic, political, and social organization in rural areas have resulted in 
low returns for resources and low levels of living. The migratory farm worker 
is caught up in these changes. Many migratory farm workers, farm operators, 
and rural non-farm residents are a part of the rural poor, the silent minority 
in our society that are, in truth, the people left behind. 

To understand the problems confronting the migratory worker one must con- 
sider what is happening in rural America generally, the impact of agricultural 
technology upon rural people and the inadequacy of rural institutions in helping 
rural people solve their problems. There are, of course, a special set of prob- 
lems, associated with the migrancy of farm workers; however, many of the problems 
confronting migrants are representative of what is happening to agricultural 
manpower in general, and what Is happening to rural people. 

The American public has long been enamored with the marvels of agricultural 
technology and the cheap food that this technology has made possible. The agricul- 
tural establishment, spearheaded by the U.S.D.A. and its land-grant university 
affiliates, has carried out a massive research and education effort which has 
made it possible for American farmers to supply the food and fiber requirements 
of American consumers at relatively low prices. The enthusiastic public support 
for cheap food policies has tended to place such policies above questioning. 



4566 



The cost of cheap food is greater than it at first appears. Among other 
considerations, the cost of cheap food must be measured in terms of what happens 
to the people involved in the production of this food and what happens to the 
rural communities where these people live. From the overview, it would appear 
that the cost is high Indeed. The human fallout from unbridled technological 
Innovation includes, among others, many migratory workers. 

The Structure of the Hired Farm Work Force - Migratory farm workers in the U.S. 
are a part of the hired farm work force. In 1968, approximately three million 
people did some work on farms in the U.S.; however, only 66 percent of these 
worked more than 25 days. The seasonal work force, those working from 25 to 
150 days, numbered approximately one million, with those working more than 150 
days numbering about 0.6 million. 

Migratory workers are usually a part of the seasonal farm work force, and 
the number of seasonal farm workers in the U.S. is declining rapidly. In 1968, 
there were 279,000 migrant workers reported by the Economic Research Service of 
the U.S.D.A. They worked an average of 124 days per worker, with total farm 
and non-farm wages averaging $1,562 per worker, or $12.60 per day. Average 
earnings for farm work only were $917 per worker or $11.45 per day. The numbers 
of workers, length of time employed, and other statistics relative to migratory 
and other farm workers is detailed in Table I. 

The three migratory worker streams, the East Coast, West Coast, and midwest 
stream, have been well documented and are shown in Figure I. 

Many of the so-called social problems associated with the migrant movement 
of farm workers — health, education, and other problems — are due to the fact that 
our society is not geared to accommodate farm workers on the move. Also, community 
discrimination is a serious problem as migrants seek to obtain services provided 
for others more permanently located, more readily accepted and accommodated in 

2 



4567 





"O 


CM 




o 


m o 


in m o 


m m o 




o o 


co in o 


o o m o 




ID 


I- >- 




CM 


o\ CO 


O 00 NO 


r» no — 




m r-» 


i o — m 


1 CO O NO NO 




c 


CD ro 


O 




















u 


CL Q 


3 


■3- 


rf on 


m in — 


r~ oo vo 




<* <* 


i -a- m vo 


i r~ r» no "* 




ID 






















E 


UJ 

o 






















l_ 




CM 


oo in 


00 On m 


m to cm 




•* r» 


i o> to m 


r~- o o o> 


ID 


a 


1- (0 






On rO 


"* CM — 


m r-» cm 




I s - ^ 


i no o in 


i — r~- cm — 


-i- 


ID 


CD CD 


O 


in 


in cm 


no r-- to 


— — — 




— — 


i r~ to o 


1 — — CM 


c 


3 


CL >- 


Q 
















i 


O 




















to 




z 
























W CD 
























no 


o «* 


ro no r- 


o o o 




CM O 


i m o in 


i in o oo in 




ro i_ 


O 


to 


** CM 


-3- rr cm 


CM CM CM 




— — " 


i m cm co 


i — — — _ 




a o 


Z 














i — 


i 




3= 






















TD 


CM 




in 


o m 


o o o 


O o in 




o o 


in m o o 


m m o O 




ID 

c 

L. 


L. >■ 

CD t) 
CL Q 


O 

a 


LO 

o 


ON — 


On tO in 


cm m no 




«* ^1- 


-a- o\ cm r- 

— O CM — 


i ctn — m to 
i r^ oo r~ on 


O ON 


O — ON 


co co r^ 




ID 

UJ 

1/1 

CD 






















l_ 




"* 


to r~ 


r- o — 


On — r» 




•* CO 


in — oo no 


— CT» to NO 


E 


en 


1- (0 




to 


oo r~- 


cm in to 


CM *3- O 




r- o> 


m to o m 


i r^ no no cm 


L 


ro 


CD (1) 


o 


oo 


00 NO 


o O ON 


to to to 




cm in 


r- on r^ >* 


1 CM CM CM to 


10 


S 


CL >- 


a 
















1 


Ll_ 


















CM CM 


CM — 






in CD 






















. 


CT> 


— -3- 


•3- to oo 


O O O 




o> co 


O NO CO On 


i •«*■ to in m 




(D 1- 


o 


r» 


oo r-~ 


On O- On 


■^ ^3- ^r 




ON CM 


<* r~ m to 


i to to to to 




O O 


z 












— CM 


CM — 


i 




IS 






















X? 


CM 




o 


in o 


o o in 


o o m 




O O 


m o m m 


m o o o 




CD 


t- >- 

CD 10 
CL Q 


o 
a 


NO 


CM CM 


cm r- on 


— NO o 




no m 


"tf P» ON NO 


i r~« on cm on 


E 


i_ 


— 


cm a\ 


CM CM Ov 


co oo r- 







cm m 


i r^ r-~ r» o 


i_ 


ro 






















ID 


UJ 






















c 


in 






















O 


CD 


1_ 




NO 


— to 


mom 


m m o 




oo m 


m 


00 On to m 


z 


CT 


l_ (D 




<tf 


co — 


r» oo ** 


co — to 




■sr <=r 


in o 


i co to oo ^f 




ro 


CD CD 


o 


fO 


"3" On 


no r^- cm 


<3- in "3- 




•>=r r^ 


r- i— o m 


i ro to to in 


"o 


s 


CL >- 


a 
















i 


c 
E 












— _ . 






CM CM 


CM CM — to 
























L 


■o 




















ID 


in cd 




















U_ 


>--* 




vO 


— ON 


r-» o in 


o o — 




— ON 


o — oo «* 


1 O to ro O 




(D L. 


o 




CM ON 


m ^ CM 


NO VO NO 




— to 


•<a- to |-~ CM 


1 in ^ m in 




Q O 


z 












CM CM 


CM CM CM 


i 




3 




















l_ V_ 




On 


in ro 


— o — 


00 NO CM 




tT On 


m -^ "d- to 


r~ m on r^ o 


Q) 


m 




CM ON 


— o — 


O CM 00 




oo <=* 


CM cm to r~- 


rO CM "3- o r~- 


J3 •+- J*. 


D 


On 


CM NO 


_ i— <a- 


co in cm 




r^ no 


m to 


r~ ^ 


£ O L. 


O 


* 


•> 


* •> 










* * 


Z3 O 


j= 


CM 


CM 


CM — 












z s 


1— 


































.*: 




















!_ 




















O 




















3 -* 




















1_ 




















£ O 




If) 
















l_ StO 


© — 


u 
















ro -^ 


u o 
















jj: 


H- E L. 


L. O 


T3 +- 




00 










i_ 


c i_ o 


O © -C 


<D 01 




NO 










o 


O ro 3 


i- in u 


+- — 




o\ 


X 










C >4- 


73 in 


O 1- 






UJ 


CD 


CD 


>- 




t= E ^ 


L. O 


© CD 






CO 


+- 


+- 


(- 


© 


-1- O L I"'* O JZ O) 


— +- 






CD 








cr 


zi c ro o 


T3 -O C 


© CJ 




CO 


Q +- 


© -C 


CD -C 


> 


^<: ro 


O >♦- 2 


© ro CD — 


CO <U 




ct: 


z — 


4- 3 


© +- 3 




L. S 


J= -C 


> — c -o 


l_ 




UJ 


< CD -C 


— C 


— •— c 


(- 


O 


-t- +- t_ E 


O — C 1_ 


<0 




^ 


+- 3 


©-CO 


id r O 


o 


5 E 


CO L 


— CO-©© 


-C 




or 


or — c 


— 3 Z 


E S Z 


< 


l_ 


3: S -C ro 


Q. — © +- x: 


o 




o 


o -c o 


(0 


© 




E ro 


-r- ><- 


E fl) +- +- 






3 


— 1 s z 


2 


u_ 


u_ 


1- u_ 


O c 


© +- ^ < o 








o 






LU 


ro 


O 


c O 






_l 


o 








lo- 


Z 


3 z 






_J 








X 
















< 








o 









4568 







T3 


CN 


. 




inirioo 


in 


in 


in o 








CD 


1- >- 






•o co e~\ cr> 


CO 


CM 


CTi 00 








c 


CD (0 


O 


















L 

LU 

to 


0_ Q 


a 




<* cn ro in 


^f 


rn 


"* K> 






E 






































L. 


<D 


l_ 






Ki't ro i^i 


CTN 


oo 


■<a- r^ 






ro 


CT 


L. (D 


-— 




O CN CTi CM 


00 


in 


•3- o\ 








ro 


Q) 0) 


o 




r» ">i- in cm 




m 


vo "t 






c 


3 


Q- >- 


Q 
















o 






















z. 






















XJ 




















(O 0) 




















>-J* 






co to m ^j- 


vo 


r~ 


m \o 








(0 i- 


d 




•* co "^ — 




CN 


>* f^\ 


10 






Q O 


z 


















3 














ro 

O 


























X> 


CM 






O m o o 


O 


o 


in m 








CD 


I- >- 






in oo — cm 


VO 


vO 


<* ^ 


Q- 






C 


CD fO 


o 












ZJ 






1_ 


a. a 


Q 




CO 00 o o 


— 


o 


— o 


O 






ro 
















L. 






LU 
















CO 


















o 






CD 


i_ 






m ro o> <* 


VO 


■^r 


r~ in 


+- 




e 


CT 


i- ro 






co en co ^r 




m 


— CM 






i_ 


(0 


CD 


O 




f\ o o 


VO 


«a- 


o\ oo 


X! 




ro 


3; 


CL S- 


Q 




* * 


* 


* 









u_ 










— CM 


CO 






+- 

in 

•-5 

X) 






X) 


















W CD 














ro 






>-.* 






o in oo o 


CM 


in 


o en 








(D L. 


O 




— -a- o o 




ro 


co r~- 


CO 






Q O 


Z 




— CM 


Kl 


— 




c 






S 
















+- 






XJ 


CN 


. 




in in in o 


in 


in 


o o 









I- > 






rn in o\ vo 


vD 


o 


vo m 


3 






c 


ro 


o 




m ■ a ■ 




• 


• • 


O 




E 


l_ 


CL Q 


o 




fO o o o 


— 


— 


CM — 


-C 




1_ 


ro 




















ro 


LU 
















3 




c 


in 


















o 


CD 


!_ 






cr\ rn r^ oo 


in 


ro 


CN r^~\ 


X) 




z 


tr 


1- (D 






00 CM 00 VO 


o 


o> 


VO CN 


c 






(0 





o 




r- oo vo cm 


r~- 


r~ 


in ho 


ro 




X> 




Q_ >- 


Q 












10 




CI 










— CM 


PO 






3 




ro 


















o 
+- 




CT 


















l_ 


■o 


















ro 


(0 














4- 




u. 


^-^ 






cf\ oo «* ^r 


CO 


CM 


•^- in 


10 






(0 V- 


O 




in r~ in — 




vo 


CM — 









Q O 


z. 




— CM 


ro 


— 


— — 


l_ 






S 
















c 






io 
















i_ i_ 






o\ — oo vo 


^r 


o 


ON O 


-C 




<D Q) 


W 




on rn o in 


CM 


CM 


r~ "?r 


■+- 




X) M- J£ 


n 




cm r~~ rn cm 


n 


vO 


CN VO 






£ O i- 


O 




* 




* 


* 


o 




3 O 


.c 










CM 


■+- 




Z. s 


(- 












X) 



XJ 


































c 








^ 










3 








a: 










O 








o 










i_ 


X) 






s 




















LU 


ui 




-z> 




u 


3 


in 




o 


>- 




• — 




ro 


C 


u 




<c 


(0 




XJ 






V 


X) +- 




s 


XJ 




O 




10 


C 


W 




s: 


in 


i_ 


.c l_ 







o 


+- — 




cr 


CM 





2 O 




-^ 


u 


o u 




< 




> 


E 


>■ 


i_ 




0) 




U_ 


W c 


o 


(O 


1_ 


o 




— +- 






t- 




L. L. 


O 


3 


1 


O 




U_ 


x: a\ 


X) 


O 


>»+- 




1 


to ro 




O 


^ +- o\ <$■ 


c 


Ji 


l- ro 


>4- 




(_ 






(_ ■* "sr cm 


(0 


1- 10 


O t- 


O 




(0 




z 


O in r~ — i 




O ^ 


+- CO 






jr 




o 


5 10 1 1 o 


o 


3 


ro — 


to 




o 






in in in 


m 


X) 


i- E 


1_ 


LU 






h- 


— _j cm r-» — 


CM 




co c 





_l 






< 






— in 


— o 


J3 


00 






or 


< 




< CM 


s: -z. 


E 


< 






Z> 










3 


K 










Q 










z 



X) 



3 C 

O O c 

o or - 

- N IO 



4569 



CD 

o 

E 
ca 

o 

4-* 
TO 

5) 
E 

>» 



CD 



CO 
CD 



CO 



3 




5-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B 



4570 



rural communities. The relatively low status of farm work affects all hired 
farm workers, particularly seasonal workers on the move. 

Technology and the Future Demand for Seasonal Workers 

Mechanization and new technology, particularly in the harvesting of fruits 
and vegetables, is rapidly reducing the requirements for seasonal farm workers. 
The Rural Manpower Center task force, estimating the number of farm worker jobs 
which will be disolaced by 1975 in the harvesting of fruits and vegetables in 
the U.S., has indicated that there will be some 250,000 fewer jobs in 1975 
than 1968. This includes 53,540 fewer harvest jobs in California, 50,774 fewer 
in Oregon, 35,782 fewer in North Carolina, 19,497 fewer in Michigan, 18,271 
fewer in Washington, and 13,553 fewer in Texas. I feel that these estimates 
are conservative. Many of these jobs will be those involved in the harvest of 
grapes, bush and pole beans, and cucumbers. The 1968 seasonal peak employment 
by crop and state is indicated in Tables 2 and 3. 

Most important is the fact that the complementarity in employment will be 
significantly disturbed. Michigan is a good example. Michigan has some 30 crops 
involving seasonal farm workers. Usually farm workers come to Michigan in May 
and June for work in harvesting strawberries and asparagus. From this work they 
move Into the cherry and pickle harvest, which is followed by the tomato and 
apple harvest. This year most of the tart cherries and about 40 percent of the 
cucumbers will be harvested mechanically. All crops considered, during the mid- 
season period from mid-July to mid-August there will be an estimated 10,000 
fewer jobs. This creates a special set of problems for the workers, the growers, 
and for the communities involved. 

Mechanization also creates new jobs; however, most migrants do not possess 

the skills to fill these jobs. A good cherry picker does not necessarily make 

a good cherry harvester operator. In fact, it would appear that most migrant 

6 



4571 



TABLE 2. — Estimated Peak Seasonal Employment, 
by Major Crop, United States, I968 1 



■Crop 


Peak Seasonal 


Emp loyment, 


1968 




2 
Number of Workers 


Oate 


Strawberries 


119,000 






June 


Tomatoes 


84,900 






September 


Beans 


77,900 






August 


Bushberries 


57,500 






July 


App les 


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, 
harvest i ng. 



and 



Bureau of Employment Security, In-Season Farm Labor Reports for the 15th of 
each month, U.S. Department of Labor. 



4572 



TABLE 3. — States Employing More Than 10,000 Domestic Migratory 
Workers at Peak Employment and Number of Workers Employed, 
Periods of Employment, and Month of Peak Employment, 1968 ' 



State 


Peak Number 
Migrants Employed 


Periods of 
Emp loyment 


Peak 
Emp loyment 


Cal Ifornia 


62,500 


J an. -Dec. 


September 


Michigan 


40,000 


Ap r . -Nov . 


August 


Florida 


21,500 


Jan. -Dec. 


February 


Texas 


19,800 


J an. -Dec. 


July 


Ohio 


18,500 


May -Oct. 


September 


New York 


14,800 


May -Nov. 


September 


Oregon 


13,300 


J an. -Dec. 


August 


Oklahoma 


13,000 


J an. -Dec. 


June 


Wash i ngton 


12,500 


J an. -Dec. 


June 


New Jersey 


12,100 


Apr. -Nov. 


August 



Migrants include intrastate and interstate workers. 
Bureau of Employment Security, U.S. Department of Labor. 



4573 



workers do not possess the basic mechanization skills to successfully compete 
for these jobs, and they are being filled by local workers. 

The Migrant in Transition - The migrant farm worker is but one part of the massive 
migration of people from rural to urban areas and from farm to non-farm work. 
From 1960-66 the average annual net migration of farm people to urban areas was 
about 800,000, many of whom were farm workers. For farm workers the move to the 
cities has been more "push" than "pull". There was no other place to go. 
Migrant farm workers have been caught up in this mass movement. 

The hidden hardship in migration is the backmovement, where people move 
back and forth between geographical areas in search of work and an environment 
In which they feel culturally comfortable. 

In Michigan a study of the Mexican American migrant in transition in which 
the various stages of transition have been explored indicates that some 1,000- 
1,500 Mexican Americans drop out of the stream each year and attempt to settle 
In Michigan. Jobs, housing, kinship ties, and the like all play an important 
part in the settling out process. 

Immediate Needs 



Some of the immediate needs of migrant workers are si ml lar to those of other 
rural people; however, the needs of migrants tend to be more acute. 

I. Adequate housing is needed both for migrant farm workers employed in 

agriculture and those who wish to move into non-farm jobs. Migrant hous- 
ing for those employed in agriculture has improved, and growers will 
continue to improve housing as licensing and other forms of encourage- 
ment take effect. 

Providing adequate housing for migrant agricultural workers places 
a special economic hardship upon many growers, especially when the 



4574 



housing is used for only limited periods during the year. Recognizing 
this in Michigan, for example, the state legislature is considering a 
cost-sharing proposal whereby the state would enter into a partnership 
with the grower to upgrade the quality of housing. Cost-sharing in 
housing with the state and federal government participating with the 
grower would appear to be a step in the right direction. 
Improved health, education, and welfare services for migrant workers 
and their families are needed. Already there are special programs of 
this type underway; however, efforts must be made to make them more 
responsive to the needs of migrant people. 

The need for special food and food stamp programs for migrant 
families is obvious, particularly during those periods when jobs are 
not available. The bureaucratic bottlenecks that migrant families 
encounter as they attempt to oarticipate in food and food stamp pro- 
grams is most discouraging. In view of the average income of migrant 
workers and the length of time employed, perhaps it would be In their 
best interest and the public interest to waive the requirements and 
permit all inter-state migrants to participate in these programs. 

Equally important is the need for equity of access to the on-going 
social and other services provided In the communities where migrants 
temporarily reside. The barriers to obtaining these services are mani- 
fold, including language barriers, transportation difficulties, psycholo- 
gical barriers, and the insensitivlty and resistance of local public 
servants. There is a serious lack of coordination among agencies pro- 
viding special migrant services; the overlap could perhaps be avoided 
through the use of state and local coordinating councils as well as 
through the establishment of migrant one-stop service centers. 

10 



4575 



3. Employment services for migrant farm workers should be improved. 
Migrants need better information on the availability of jobs; they 
need assistance in job scheduling. In spite of the surplus of workers 
in general, individual growers may not be able to find an adequate 
supply of workers because of the distribution of workers with particular 
skills at a particular time. 

As migrants search out non-farm work, special employment assistance 
is necessary, not only job Information, but also the bundle of services 
that will assist him in making the transition to a dramatically differ- 
ent type of work in an oftentimes hostile environment. 

4. Training and basic education are paramount needs for the migrant who 
is leaving agricultural enployment, as they are for many workers who 
will be remaining in agriculture. Increasingly, jobs in agriculture 
will require the skilled and the semi-skilled, for both seasonal and 
year-round employment. Migrants should be included in on-going training 
programs as well as programs designed especially for them. Mechaniza- 
tion training which prepares migrant workers for both farm and non-farm 
work is one type of training that appears to offer promise. More 
attention should be given to training migrant workers at their home 
base, which for many Mexican-Americans, means Texas. 

Long-Run Needs 

Other long-range and more conprehensi ve approaches could have a far reaching 
and positive impact upon the future of migrant farm workers and farm workers in 
general as well as the rural poor, which includes many farm operators. 

I. Technology is not without its costs, and a mechanism should be developed 

to guide the rate and direction of technological change in agriculture. 

Inter-departmental and intra-departmental technology councils should 

11 



4576 



weigh the anticipated impact of public investments in technological 
research. The imbalance towards physical science research should be 
redressed in order to encourage more social science research. A product 
orientation should give way to a people orientation, as the human 
consequences of technology are put in proper perspective. 

2. A system of social and economic rewards based upon human resources 
rather than property resources should be encouraged. Along these lines, 
wage supports would be more appropriate than price supports. 

For example, a proposal being considered by the Michigan Agricul- 
tural Labor Commission would provide a one percent handling tax on all 
food, the revenues to be used to subsidize worker wages, improve hous- 
ing, etc. Such a program would permit consumers to help improve wages 
and the cost would be nominal. Perhaps it would also discourage the 
rapid shift towards mechanization as growers attempt to cope with the 
technological treadmill. 

3. Rural people deserve equity of access to a I I public services, and 
organizations and agencies should be sensitized to provide these ser- 
vices to all rural people, including farm workers. The disparity 
between the quality of services offered to rural and urban people is 
further compounded when one considers the quality of services provided 
many rural people who, for a variety of reasons, are beyond the service 
horizon of many rural agencies and organizations. Many rural people 
are untouched by federal, state, and local agencies operating in rural 
America; the purveyors of these services are not psychologically or 
socially geared to accommodate the special needs of many of these 
people, with whom they have great difficulty identifying. 

4. Innovative legislative and administrative Institutions must be designed 
to provide for rural workers the benefits and protection that have been 

12 



4577 



provided for non-farm workers, recognizing the significant differences 
between the farm and non-farm situation. Appropriate avenues to provide 
farm wcrkers the advantages that have been provided non-farm workers 
through social legislation must be devised in order to achieve the same 
"ends" via a more fitting ,: means". 

5. The instability of agricultural employment, due in part to the seasonal 
nature of agricultural work, is a major problem confronting many hired 
farm workers, including migratory workers. Non-casual farm workers 
worked only 135 days doing farm work in 1968; migratory farm workers 
averaged only 30 days of farm work, ftore complementary work opportunities 
must be explored to provide more work days per year for al I of these 
workers. A guaranteed annual wage to help stabilize income should be 
explored further. 

6. Rural people need better manpower services. They need access to the 
whole spectrum of services that could equip them for today's job market, 
including counseling, training, and job information. Recognizing the 
significance of slowing down the flow of people from rural to urban 
areas and the need for rural community development, emphasis should be 
placed upon taking jobs to peoole rather than people to jobs. Various 
incentives for improving employment opportunities in rural America have 
been proposed, and should be considered; however, comprehensive manpower 
services must be coupled with these efforts. To provide the manpower 
services needed by rural America, including migratory farm workers, an 
expanded rural manpower service within the U.S. Department of Labor is 

a must. 
There will continue to be a demand for a limited number of seasonal farm 
workers. Mechanization has made dramatic Inroads upon the labor requirements 

13 



4578 



for some crops; other crops will be hand harvested for years to come. The develop- 
ment of local sources of farm labor supply provides one alternative to the 
migratory movement of people. 

For many migrants there are few alternatives in other forms of work. And 
yet, our society does not accommodate such workers very well. As time passes, 
the number of migratory workers will continue to decline, with only highly 
specialized workers continuing in this type of work. 

The fate of the migrant farm worker is Inextricably interwoven with the 
fate of agriculture and rural people In general. As long as public policy in 
the U.S. is dominated by the drive for cheap food, as long as rural people and 
rural areas are discriminated against in their quest for a fair share of govern- 
mental services and assistance, many rural people, including migrant workers, 
are destined to remain the people left behind. 



U. 



4579 



Excerpts from 

"HUMAN RELATIONS ON MICHIGAN FRUIT AND 
VEGETABLE FARMS," 

By Maurice E. Voland-* 
Department of Sociology- 
Michigan State University 



This is a summary of the project : "A Study of Interpersonal Relations 
Among Managers of Employees of Fruit and Vegetable Farms With Emphasis on 
Labor Management Practices Utilized." This project was conceived by the late 
Professor James R. Hundley of the Department of Sociology at Michigan State 
University. This report is dedicated to his inspiration and memory. 



"The material in this project was prepared under a Grant from the Office 
of Manpower Policy, Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, under 
the authority of Title I of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. 
Researchers undertaking such projects under government sponsorship are en- 
couraged to express freely their professional Judgement. Therefore, points 
of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent the 
official position or policy of the Department of Labor." 



•Assisted by: Charles W. Given and William E. Vredevoogd, Department of 

Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 



4580 



Introduction 

During the past twenty years there have been many investigations and descrip- 
tions of the migrant agricultural labor force. In many cases the reports cast 
the employers of migrants as hard taskmasters, demanding long hours of hard 
work in return for extremely low wages. Few of these studies attempt to analyze 
in an objective manner the conditions of the migrant laborers and their relation- 
ship with employers and other members of the communities in which they work. 

To our knowledge, social scientists have not systematically investigated 

the labor-management relations within agricultural work groups , especially the 

relationship of migrant agricultural labor to their employers. This study was 

conceived to answer the following questions: 

What is the nature of the supervisory problem from the perspec- 
tives of the manager and of the worker? What effect do various 
kinds of interpersonal relationships have on work performance 
on fruit and vegetable farms? What is the effect of various 
management practices on the farm work group? Is it possible 
that both the manager and the worker can change their behavior 
to make the work situation more satisfactory? What is there 
about the work situation that could be changed to further 
accommodate both the farm enterprise and the farm worker? 
What are the interpersonal factors involved in less than full 
labor and farm productivity? What is the nature of conflicts 
and disagreements within the farm work environment? How do 
managers and workers perceive the work situation and its 
problems? What are the complaints on both sides? 

Other studies completed by the Rural Manpower Center at Michigan State 
University found that Michigan farmers tend to neglect labor management prac- 
tices. This study was undertaken to inventory the types of management and 
supervision practices utilized by Michigan fruit and vegetable farmers and to 
determine which of the practices used by these farmers prove most effective. 

For the purposes of this study, a stratified random sample of 100 farms 
that held Migrant Labor Housing Licenses during the 1966 growing season was 
drawn. Interviews were completed with 76 of the original farm operators included 



4581 



in the sample. Of those 2k cases that were not included, 10 had gone out of 
business since the summer of 1966, six had changed their mode of operation so 
that they would not he employing migrant labor during the 196? growing season, 
and eight were out of the state and not available for interview during the 
interviewing period. 

Due to the budgetary limits of this study, no substitution was made for 
these 2k cases. However, the 76 cases included in the study are considered to 
be representative of all farm operations that utilize migrant agricultural labor 
in their farming operations in Michigan. 

The research design called for the selection of a limited number of this 
original sample of farms for re-contact during the harvest season. At this 
time observations of the work flow of the farm and supervision style of the 
farm operator were recorded, and interviews with members of the migratory labor 
force who were working on the farm were conducted. Consequently, a purposive 
sample was drawn from the original sample that would represent proportionally 
by size of crew and crops harvested, all fruit and vegetable farms in the state 
that utilize migrant labor for harvest purposes. Migrant laborer heads of 
households and single males over 16 years of age who were not traveling with 
their families were interviewed on the 38 farms that were included in this 
purposive sample. A total of 238 interviews were completed with migrant laborers. 



* 
PART III 



Summary and Observations 

The brief analysis of the data presented thus far in this report does 
not give the total picture of the farmer-migrant situation in Michigan. Much 
of the rich insight that can be gained from a study such as this does not come 
from "hard' survey data, but is found in the impressions picked up by the field 
staff, intuitive Joining of disparate fragments of data, comments made by 
various respondents and the climate of the total community in which the research 
was conducted. 



4582 



Since this study dealt with structural variables , we did not utilize any 
social-psychological variables that might give us insight into the makeup of the 
individual. However, one of the key intuitive pieces of data the research team 
gained from the field was the fact that the attitude of the farmer toward his 
crew of migrants, and toward migrants in general, is one of the key factors 
leading to satisfaction or dissatisfaction on the part of migrants. The data 
presented earlier bear out again what is generally perceived as being important 
for maintenance of good employer-employee relations : wages and housing. We 
did not measure attitudes of the farm operators in this study. Repeatedly, 
however, the respondents indicated that the way the farmer treated them was 
Just as important, or in some instances more so, than the wages he was paying 
or the housing that he provided. The farmer whom they considered to be kind, 
understanding, sympathetic, concerned, helping and a conscientious businessman 
was adjudged the most desirable man to work for. In most cases this year, the 
wages paid were quite similar for crop and time of the year, this being to some 
degree dictated by the new Minimum Wage Legislation that became effective this 
season. On the other hand, there was a great variation in size, condition and 
quality of housing as well as other facilities offered by the farmer; when the 
migrants perceived that the farmer was interested in them and concerned with 
them as people, they were much more willing to put up with deficiencies in the 
housing than they were when the farmer wasn't perceived so favorably. 

The informal network that exists to tie migrant families and crews together 
over a large geographic area is quick to transmit both positive and negative 
information about a particular farmer. These same informal networks perhaps 
are one of the prime reasons that some farmers find it relatively easy to main- 
tain a full crew, while others never find enough help. This might be demon- 
strated by the fact that the one farm in the sample that demonstrated the 



4583 



greatest holding power in regard to a migrant crew (members of the same families 
had been returning for 20 years) had some of the worst housing that interviewers 
saw during the entire summer - but the farmer was a very likable sort of person. 

Another important factor is the number of months each year that migrant 
labor is required to harvest crops. Those farmers who had only one crop, such 
as cherries, where the picking season rarely exceeded three weeks, seemed more 
concerned for migrant welfare than those farmers who hire different crews through- 
out the summer. This difference seems attributable to two factors. First, the 
majority of single crop farmers were involved in cherry production. The major 
cherry producing area is centered in a small geographic area. Thus, there is 
keen competition for workers during this one short season. This competition 
is limited to a small area, and farmers must go all out in order to lure suf- 
ficient help to harvest their crop. Secondly, the harvesting season for cherries 
is short. The product must be harvested at a certain time with only small 
tolerance for early or late harvest. This also sharpens competition for labor, 
motivating the farmer to utilize all methods at his disposal to obtain a suf- 
ficient quantity of workers. This suggests that the farmer who is dependent on 
one crop for his livelihood (tart cherries) is more conscious of how important 
it is for him to maintain good labor-management relations, and therefore, he 
always attempts to keep his best foot forward so that he will not be caught 
short without a harvest crew. On the other hand, when the farmer requires a 
steady crew for a large portion of the harvest season, it might be said that 
due to increased interaction over a long period of time both the migrant workers 
and the farmers are better able to accommodate to the needs and wishes of the 
other group. 

It seemed significant that farmers who had long industrial employment experi- 
ence were much more aware of the needs of the migrants . Perhaps , having been 



4584 



defined as "labor" more often than not in his industrial experience, he was more 
aware of the special needs and desires of that group. Consequently, when he 
assumed the management role in the farming operation, he was more willing to 
accommodate to the needs of his employees. 

When we look at the communities throughout the state in which the migrants 
work, we sense a great variation among communities in their response to the 
migrant workers. It seemed that where migrants were used for the harvest of 
only one crop (cherries), the community tended to be much more sensitized to 
their needs. It seemed to us that these communities had made greater efforts 
to provide for medical facilities, day-care for children, special recreational 
activities, stocking of special food items in grocery stores and generally a 
more open and permissive atmosphere than was evident in communities where migrants 
were present over a longer period of time. This probably results from the eco- 
nomic dependence of farmers and thus of the larger community on sufficient num- 
bers of migrants in order to successfully and profitably harvest the crops. 
Consequently, they were especially conscious of what was required for maintain- 
ing good migrant-community, and concurrently, mi grant -farmer relations. 

In contrast , where migrants were in the community over a long period of 
time during the season, the community seemed to forget that these people were 
present. In Southwestern Michigan the largest number of migrants are present 
during the strawberry harvest early in the season. It is at this time that 
the communities open up and extend courtesies to the migrants who are present. 
This is the period when religious and community organizations are especially 
active in the communities and the migrant camps , attempting to meet the needs 
of the individuals. However, following strawberry season, the people of the 
community Beem to forget that there still are large numbers of migrants who 
are working and will be working there until late in the fall. Most community 



4585 



and religious organizations seem to curtail their activities or cease operation 
entirely following strawberry harvest. Consequently, as the season progresses, 
it becomes more and more difficult for the migrant to obtain the various ser- 
vices that he might require from the community, and even the businessmen who 
may be willing to take their money have little desire to accommodate the special 
wishes and needs of the migrant labor force. 

Moving on to another important subject, we need to consider the rapid in- 
crease in mechanization in the harvest of almost all horticultural crons in 
Michigan. In the not too distant past, in addition to harvesting fruits and 
vegetables, migrant laborers were required for hoeing and weeding of many crops. 
Today, selective herbicides have been substituted for a large proportion of the 
hoeing, so there is little of this type of work left for the unskilled migrant. 
Technology as well as plant breeding have made it possible to mechanically har- 
vest almost all fruit and vegetable crops grown in Michigan today. The few 
exceptions seem to include strawberries and peaches — and they may not be hold- 
outs for many more years . 

Consequently, as mechanization moves more and more into the harvest of these 
crops, smaller numbers of migrants will be required for harvest. In cany cases, 
one mechanical harvester manned by one to five workers will displace 100 or 
more hand pickers. Two questions plague us here — (l) What will become of those 
who are displaced by machines? and (2) Where will farmers find people who have 
the skills to operate the mechanical harvesters and allied equipment? 

These questions bear directly on the age, educational level, and other 
skills of the migrant group. The Negroes and the Mexican-Americans in our sam- 
ple demonstrate the possibility of breaking out of the migrant cycle. The 
Mexican-American as well as the Negro respondents in this study placed a high 
value on education for their children. The Negro respondents had higher 



3-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 5 



4586 



educational attainments themselves than the other two ethnic groups. Our im- 
pression was that there would still he enough Jobs requiring hand picking during 
the next 10 years to keep the diminishing numbers of Negroes and Mexican- 
Americans who were older, less skilled, and less educated busy. In time, how- 
ever, even these reduced numbers of migrants will no longer be needed. Their 
children seem destined to receive a much better education than they themselves 
had and should be able to fit into the industrial labor market better than their 
parents did. The children have the ability to capitalize on increasing oppor- 
tunity in industrial and service employment, and they should not be forced to 
seek employment in the fields. However, the picture for the Southern white 
respondents in our study does not seem to be as bright. Their low educational 
attainment, low educational aspirations and low commitment to education for 
their children, their negative experiences in the industrial labor market, and 
their high incidence of social deviance seem to suggest that these people and 
their offspring will not fit into the urban-industrial-service economy in the 
future. 

Perhaps, if we consider that many of the Mexican-American and Negro respond- 
ents look upon migratory agricultural work as a way "up and out" for themselves 
or their children, we can understand their higher levels of aspiration. This 
group of respondents was interested in something better for themselves , but 
especially for their children. By and large, our Southern white respondents 
were failures in society. Many of them had industrial employment experience, 
but they had been ejected from the industrial labor force for one reason or 
another, and the doors to re-entry were closed to them. Many of them had marked 
patterns of social deviance and had escaped to the migrant agricultural work 
force because of the cloak of anonymity it afforded them. In short, our Southern 
white respondents seemed to represent that segment of our population who had 



4587 



lost on every count and had no hope of recouping their losses. With this in 
mind, perhaps we should consider our second question — vhere is the farmer to 
find the people to operate his mechanical harvesting equipment during the har- 
vest season? It seems evident that there will not he enough local labor avail- 
able during the harvest season to man this equipment, so outside help will he 
required for some time to come. However, it takes an operator with some mechani- 
cal skill to keep in operation many of' the complex pieces of harvest equipment . 
In addition, due to the high cost and complexity of the harvest equipment and 
the short harvest season, the farmer cannot gamble on breakdowns of the equip- 
ment — and by the same token cannot afford to have standby equipment. 

As far as we can tell, few Mexican-Americans and Negroes have experience 
with machinery. The Southern white members of the sample demonstrated consider- 
ably more experience, hut their social instability is such that they are gen- 
erally poor risks when assigned to the complex mechanical harvesting equipment. 
It will be necessary to help more migrants gain the necessary skills to operate 
the harvest equipment or further modifications of the equipment to require even 
less manpower will have to be made if the farmer is to be able to harvest his 
crop. 

Due to the present low skill level and the high incidence of social devi- 
ance and instability generally present in the migrant work force, the farmer 
will need to become a more innovative manager if he is to retain a competitive 
position in tomo r row's agriculture. He must concern himself with work simplifi- 
cation which will make it possible for him to utilize the unskilled workers 
who will he available to him. He will need to become more aware of his personal 
relationship with his workers in a positive manner. It would appear that ad- 
vancing technology will never make it completely possible to replace hand labor 
for those farmers raising horticultural speciality crops. Thus, these farmers 



4588 



will need not only to sharpen their skills as businessmen , technicians, as plant 
and soil scientists , hut as labor managers as veil. 

From the observations made in this study, it can be concluded that many of 
the horticultural speciality crop farmers in Michigan today do not possess those 
needed skills , and they will fall victim to the advances that are being made in 
agriculture. It impressed this research team that farmers who possessed the 
needed labor management skills to evoke a high level of productivity also main- 
tained hi#i morale and Job satisfaction among their workers. However, farmers 
lacking these labor management skills also seemed to lack one or more of the 
skills that will be necessary to maintain a competitive position in tomorrow's 
agriculture. 



4589 

Senator Mondale. Our next witness is Mr. Robert Gnaizda, deputy 
director of California Rural Legal Assistance. 
Will you please proceed as you wish. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GNAIZDA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CALIFOR- 
NIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Gnaizda. After your latest comment, I am not sure it is neces- 
sary for me to speak at all. I concur with your criticisms and lack of 
faith in the bureaucracy and paternalism that exists. 

The title of my prepared testimony is "The Grapes of Wrath" and 
the Labor Department-sponsored "Harvest of Shame." I would like 
to submit it for the record along with some court briefs, at this point. 

Senator Mondale. We will print the entire statement. 

(The information referred to follows :) 



4590 



"THE GRAPHS OF WRATH" AMU THE LABOR DEPARTMENT-SPONSORED HARVEST OF 

SHAME 

Ry Robert Onaizda, 
Deputy Director, California Rural Le^al Assistance, Inc. 



Three decades ago, John Steinbeck recorded the Joad family's 
futile struggle to earn 15 cents an hour while competing with 
300,000 surplus farm workers brought to California by grower 
promises that outweighed the available jobs in order to de- 
press wages and working conditions. (I have attached the appli- 
cable page as Exhibit 1, because it accurately summarizes 
p resent conditions . ) 

Despite the 1933 VJagner-Peyser Act, and despite some 
glorious rhetoric, the only significant change for the migra- 
tory farmworker since the Thirties is that the grower has 
been joined by one of the most powerful and wealthy, albeit 
benign corporations in America, the federally-supported and 
sponsored State Farm Labor Service (1970 fiscal year budget: 
$21,215,000, and 2000 employee-slots). 

A former California Farm Labor Office employee, and ex- 
mayor of Hollister, recently filed an affidavit with a Federal 
Court in San Francisco ( 250 Farmworkers v. Secretary of Labor 
George Sh u ltz , N.D. Cal. C-70-4S1 AJZ) that conditions for the 
farmworker had not materially changed since the 1930 's and 
that the federally-sponsored Farm Labor Offices were assisting 
the grower in his exploitation of the farmworker. 

"The Farm Labor Office is a grower- oriented, grower- 
dominated and grower-staffed operation. It virtually 



-1- 



4591 



ignores the interest of the farmworker; . . . the farm- 
worker v/ould not suffer at all if the Farm Labor Offices 
in Calif orniet were terminated. In fact, conditions for 
the farmworker would improve if the Farm Labor Offices 
were eliminated. The Farm Labor Offices, for example, 
knowingly refer workers to growers offering unsafe, un- 
sanitary working conditions, and allow unsafe housing 
to be considered a part of the pay of the farmworker. 

"In fact, the Farm Labor Offices do not even serve the 
best interests of many growers. Growers that provide 
prevailing wages and good working conditions do not 
need the services of the Farm Labor Office and seldom 
call upon the Farm Labor Offices. 

"The growers that are most dependent upon the Farm 
Labor Offices are those growers who offer poor working 
conditions and poor wages." 



The plight of the migrant farmworker in California, when 
confronted by the combination of a - Green Giant Company , a 
United Fruit , or a Purex Company (Purex alone grossed $50 mil- 
lion from American agricultural interests in 1969) , and assisted 
by the 100%- federally-subsidized Farm Labor Service, is best 
expressed by 3 Imperial Valley, California, migrant farm- 
workers in affidavits filed in a recent federal court action 
against Secretary of Labor Shultz ( 250 Farmworkers v. Shultz , 
supra. ) Carmen O stated that: 

"On September 2 , 1969 , I and about 35 to 40 other f arm- 
workers were hired at the California Farm Labor Office 
at Calexico to go and work for the Green Giant Com- 
pany in Illinois. They promised that all of us would 
be able to work up to ten hours a day at a $1.65 and 
some even at $2.00 per hour. . . 

"The checks we got were always very little for all the 
work we did. . . L Net pay of $32.05 for 89 hours of 
work or 36 cents an hour: see attached company wage 
receipt, Exhibit 2] They charged us for everything, 
like insurance. . . we also had to pay a lot for food 
and housing and laundry, since their prices were so high. 



-2- 



4592 



The Farm Labor Office had told us we would make a lot 
of money so we could send some home, but there was 
nothing left after all the deductions. 

"We couldn't come home because we didn't have enough 
money after all the deductions, and also because they 
said if left we would break the contract and they would 
deduct the cost of transportation to Illinois from our 
checks. We tried to tell the supervisor they were 
breaking their promises, and he answered if we didn't 
like it, he would fire us, and we would have to find 
a way to come home. We were like slaves . 

"We were brought back to Calexico about the thirteenth 
of October, and said it wasn't right the Farm Labor 
Office did what they do to the people, and they 
took advantage of us, but they, [the Farm Labor Office 
people J just l a ughed at us . " 

Gumberto V testified that: 

"In March or April of 1968, the State Farm Labor Office 
in Calexico had a sign posted in its window saying that 
Green Giant Company needed men to go to their fields 
in Washington State to work cutting asparagus. The 
sign said the workers would make from $25 to $30 per 
day, and would get a $30 advance to send home to their 
families once they arrived. This sounded like good 
pay, and my family in Calexico needed money, so I took 
the job. I figured that I would send most of the money 
that I earned each week home to my family. When we 
came back to the Day Haul Center the next morning, a 

bus owned by a man from Salinas named A was waiting 

to take us to Washington. 

"His bus was old and in very poor condition. There were 
holes in the floor of the bus and fumes from the exhaust 
often bothered us. Once the fumes were so bad that 
the bus had to stop so the workers could get some fresh 
air, and buy pills for our headache pains. Another 
time, outside of Banning, California, the bus broke down 
and the workers had to wait on the side of the road 
until it was fixed. 

"During the whole bus trip we were not given food, 

but rather had to buy our own food with our own money. . . 

"When we arrived in Washington, we found that the camp was 
crowded with people. As our bus from California was 
pulling in, other buses were arriving from El Paso, 
Texas, and Nogales , Arizona. According to my calcula- 
tions, there were at least 500 people in the camp at 



-3- 



4593 



that time. Unfortunately, there was not enough work 
for all of us. . .We were allowed to work only two to 
three hours per day. Some of us were given no work at 
all. Also, they told us after we arrived that we would 
not be given [ the promised] $30 in advance, but 
would have to wait for at least a week before we would 
receive any money at all. . . 

"The work prospects were so bad that many people began 
leaving the camp. One group of workers tried to get 
on a bus, but the bus agency would not sell any tickets 
to workers who wanted to ride south. I saw another 
group of workers waiting at the railroad tracks to 
jump a train heading back to California. 

"... after I got back to Calexico, I went to the 
State Farm Labor Office to try to find a job. I was 
really surprised to see that the State Farm Labor 
Office still had its sign posted asking people to go 
to work for Green Giant in Washington. I began telling 
some of the workers who were standing next to me what 
the wo r king conditions reall y were like up in Washing - 
ton with Green Gian t . Mr. Eddy A.. . .... an employe e 

of the Farm Labor Office, came up to me an d told me 
to sto p saying such things. He began swearing and 
shouting at me, and he threatened to send me to jail . " 

Migrant farmworker Manuel R : 



" [ On August 4, 1967, ] about 200 men and 60 women 
were contracted by the State Farm Labor Office in Calex- 
ico to go to work in the corn cannery in Glencoge , Minne- 
sota, for the Green Giant Company. . . When we arrived 
in Minnesota, we were without work for about one week 
because there wasn't any corn for canning. . . There 
were farmworkers that wanted to return to California in 
any manner that they could, but the company refused to 
bring them back. . . Sometimes we had to work many hours 
in order to have some money left over to send home. 
Once I worked thirty-six hours standing, without any 
sleep, and there were several people who worked more 
hours than I did. 

"When I returned to Calexico, California, I went to the 
Farm Labor Office and complained about what had happened 
to those of us who went up there to v/ork and how we were 
abused by the company, but they [the Farm Labor Office "] 
didn 't p ay any attention to me . . . I have now stopped 
using the Farm Labor Office because of my bad experience 
with them, but every week I hear workers complaining 
about how they are treated by the Farm Labor Office." 



-4- 



4594 

A Breakdown j n j , aw anc i Order: t he California Farm Labor Office 
The California Farm Labor Office is the largest and most 
heavily subsidized of the Farm Labor Services. (It has 449 
employees and received approximately $3.5 million for the fiscal 
year 1970, or 15% of the national total.) Under the administra- 
tion of Secretary of Labor Wirtz, the Farm Labor Service, 
despite its rhetoric, was an ti- farmworker and actively served 
to depress wages and working conditions , primarily through the 
device of referring a surplus of workers to growers and farm 
labor contractors who operated in wholesale violation of the 
minimum wage, and health and sanitation laws. Despite the 
express desire of Secretary of Labor Shultz to up-grade all 
workers, including farmworkers, no changes have been instituted. 
Federal regulations , promulgated many Secretaries of Labor ago , 
promised to the farmworker "jobs which utilize their highest 
skills." (20 CFR 604.1 (F) ) 

"Whenever possible, place workers on jobs which use their 
highest skills or provide the highest earning potential." 
(Calif. Regs., pursuant to 20 CFR 604.1 (K) ) 

"A domestic unemployed [ farmworker ] is entitled to 
the best job we have to offer. . . the best job is that 
job which will provide. . . an opportunity to utilize 
his highest skill . . . has the highest earning potential 
or longest job duration. . . and the most desireable 
working conditions." (Calif. Reg. 2159) 

The California Farm Labor Office, according to its sta- 
tistics, contends that it found jobs for and placed 1.3 million farm- 
workers in 1968, and 1.7 million in 1969. Interestingly, 
there are only 260,000 famiwozkers , including migrants, in 

-5- 



4595 



California. More interesting, the office's statistics show 
a 30% increase in job placements, while actual jobs in agri- 
culture decreased by ten percent. The best proof that these 
so-called statistics are more air than earth is that in 93% 
of the placements, the Farm Labor Office has acknowledged 
that it does not know, much less have a record of, the 
farmworker's name, or address, or social security card. The 
Office also acknowledged that the same unknown worker is 
often counted as 250 placements a year — one for each working 
day. 

The Sonoma [ Wine Country ] Farm Labor Of fa ce is a 
typical California Farm Labor Office and is considered by 
many to be one of the "best" in California. According to the 
Federal Court deposition of its long-time manager, the office 
has never been criticized by any of its supervisory personnel, 
and, in his words, there is absolutely no room for any improve- 
ment. (Deposition, pp. 78-79, 103-105) According to his 
federal testimony: 

( 1 ) "The primary and major purpose of the Farm Labor 
Office is to harvest the crops ." (p. 208) 

(2) none of his fifteen employees speak any Spanish, 
despite 60% of the farmworkers he allegedly places 
speaking only Spanish (pp. 21-23) ; 

(3) all of his primary staff are growers and they 
frequently refer farm workers at undetermined wages to 
their own ranches despite those ranches not having 
either toilets or drinking facilities as required by 
state law (pp. 257-261) ; 

-6- 



4596 



(4) even if 1,000 documented farmworker complaints 
were made about a specific grower violating state 

■ sanitation laws in regard to toilets and drinking 
water, the Farm Labor Office would still- serve the 
grower (pp. 135-138) ; 

(5) his office has a blacklist of so-called trouble- 
some f armworkers , but it is not the function of his 
office to record complaints made by farmworkers against 
growers (pp. 128-133) ; 

(6) even though many workers are not paid the wages 
they are promised, the Farm Labor Office will not ver- 
ify wages (pp. 60-62) ; 

(7) farmworkers can and are knowingly referred to 
growers who unlawfully employ illegal aliens [ wetbacks ] 
(pp. 191-197) ; 

(8) his office refers farmworkers to growers who 
disobey state sanitation laws, such as those requiring 
toilets and drinking water (pp. 55-56, 191); 

(9) despite the harm to 37,500 California farmworkers 
caused by excessive use of dangerous pesticides by em- 
ployers, no farm labor office requires growers to even 
provide a list of pesticides being used (pp. 156-167) ; 

(10) the Farm Labor Office has not provided any coun- 
selling or any testing to any farmworkers, despite 
federal regulations requiring such counselling (pp. 219, 
222,223) ; 

(11) the office frequently meets with growers (pp. 82, 
139-141) , but has never met with any farmworkers or 
ever visited any farmworkers (pp. 115-116) ; 

(12) all jobs, whether they be for a half-hour or for 
two to three months are given the same statistical weight 
and the same emphasis by his office and no type of job 

is given any preference (p. 171) ; 

(13) even though industrial workers are provided with 
a full choice of all available jobs by the Department 
of Employment, the Farm Labor Office believes that a 
farmworker should only be given one job referral, 
selected by the staff, even if it means he might travel 
fifty miles for a non-existent job (pp. 148-154) . 

This "model" Farm Labor Office manager admitted, in effect, 

that the statistics used by the Farm Labor Office to bolster 



-7- 



4597 



its contentions that it serves farmworkers are misleading and 
phony, if not fraudulent. For example, the manager admitted 
that in the typical month of September, 1969, his seasonal 
Healdsburg - Sonoma County Farm Labor Office listed 1,073 
farmworker referrals, but produced the grand total of four 
"regular placements of farm workers." (pp. 236-237) 

Most illustrative, the manager admitted that despite 
his 1969 statistics showing 30,000 office contacts, and 695 
personal field visits to growers, he had developed only 
nine jobs in 1969 that were not otherwise available (Dep. , 
Ex 2-13) 

A_ Possible Solution: A Farm Worker Bil l of Rights 

The cost to the nation of operating the Farm Labor Ser- 
vices in violation of federal regulations cannot be measured 
solely by the $21,000,000 in misused and misdirected taxpayer 
funds. In California alone, for the year 1968, the Farm Labor 
Offices cost the farm workers $62,800,000 in lost wages due 
to their encouragement of growers paying the lowest wages 
rather than the federally-required "highest prevailing wage." 

On February 20, 1970, thirty farm workers met with Sec- 
retary of Labor Shultz in San Francisco, asked him to obey 
his own rules and regulations, and presented to him a Farm 
Worker Bill of Rights that could help end the unseemly govern- 
ment sponsorship and support of "Grapes of Wrath and Harvest 
of Shame " conditions. These rights were based on the present 
federal regulations (This ten-point Bill of Rights is attached 
as Exhibit 3. ) 



-8- 



4598 



I hope that when a farmworker is next invited by this 
Committee it will be to thank the Secretary of Labor for 
obeying his own rules and regulations and for instituting 
this Bill of Rights, rights promised by the Wagner-Peyser Act 
and guaranteed by specific regulations enunciated as long as 
thirty-seven years ago by another Secretary of Labor'. 

Thank you. 



-9- 



4599 



EXHIBIT 1 



The Grapes of Wrath 



"I don' know. Mus' be. Ain't no crop right here now. 
Grnpcs to pick later, an' cotton' to pick later. We're a-movin' 
on, soon's I get these here valves groun'. Me an' my wife an' 
my kids. We heard they was work up north. We're shovin' 
north, up aroun' Salinas." 

Tom saw Uncle John and Pa and the preacher hoisting the 
tarpaulin on the tent poles and Ma on her knees inside, brush- 
ing off the mattresses on the ground. A circle of quiet chil- 
dren stood to watch the new family get settled, quiet chil- 
dren with bare feet and dirty faces. Tom said, "Back home 
some fellas come through with han'bills— orange ones. Says 
they need lots a people out here to work the crops." 

The young man laughed. "They say thcy's three hunderd 
thousan' us folks here, an' I'bet ever' dam' fam'ly seen them 
han'bills." 

"Yeah, but if they don' need folks, what'd they go to the 
trouble puttin' them things out for?" 

"Use your head, why don'cha?" 

"Yeah, but I wanta know." 

"Look," the young man said. "S'pose you got a job a work, 
an' there's jus' one fella wants the job. You got to pay 'im 
what he asts. But s'pose thcy's a hunderd men." He put 
down his tool. His eyes hardened and his voice sharpened. 
"S'pose thcy's a hunderd men wants that job. S'pose thcin 
men got kids, an' them kids is hungry. S'pose a lousy dime'll 
buy a box a mush for them kids. S'pose a nickel'll buy at leas' 
somepin for them kids. An' you got a hunderd men. Jus' offer 
'em a nickel— why, they'll kill each other fightin' for that 
nickel. Know what they was payin', las' job I had? Fifteen 
cents an hour. Ten hours for a dollar an' a half, an' ya can't 
stay on the place. Got to burn gasoline gettin' there." He 
W2S panting with anger, and his eyes blazed with hate. 
"That's why them han'bills was out. You can print a hell of 
a lot of han'bills with what ya save payin' fifteen cents an 
hour for fiel' work." 

Tom said, "That's stinkin'." 

The young man laughed harshly. "You stay out here a 
little while, an' if you smell any roses, you come let me smell, 
too." 



4600 



E XHIBIT 2 
[DF.CLAUACION DE DKKECIIOS DE CAM PESI HOS] 

FARM WORKER KLL OF_ RIGHTS 

The famous labor lav/, the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, 
created 10 OS federally- funded Farm Labor Office':; throughout 
the nation in order to help farm workers get the best jobs 
available. (The State of California, through the Department 
of Human Resources Development, operates forty-two Farm Labor 
Offices at a cost to the federal government of over three 
million dollars a year.) The Farm Labor Offices no longer 
help the farm worker. They only help the grower, especially 
the grower who off err; bad wages and illegal working conditions. 
Thus, the Farm Labor Officer, constitute a federal subsidy to 
growers who do the least to protect the health and economic 
well-being of their workers. 

WHEREFORE, The Farm Workers of Cali fornia , in order to 
protect their health and well-being and that of their children, 
hereby respectfully demand that the U.S. Labor Department 
either close all California Farm Labor Offices or compel the 
Farm Labor Offices to operate in accordance with the Wagner- 
Peyser Act by adopting the following Ten Point FARM WORKER BILL 
OF RIGHTS: 

1. Appoint a committee of six to oversee the California 
Farm Labor Offices --- the six to consist of two farm workers, 
two growers, one church leader, and an ^.".sistant Secretary of 
Labor ; 

2. Require growers using the Farm Labor Office to submit 
a full and complete list of all dangerous pesticides which are 
being used, so that if a worker is injured he will be able to 
receive immediate and effective medical assistance. [At present 
] r >0 of every 1 "DO farm workers arc injured by pesticiees.] 

3. Require all growers to guarantee that they will pay 
the prevailing wage, rather than the lowest v.'age in the area. 
[This would boost California farm worker wages by over fifty 

million dollars a year.] 

4. Require growers to guarantee, before requesting workers 
that they will provide at least twenty hours of work a week 
whenever a worker must travel thirty or more miles to and from 
work . 

5. Require growers to submit a statement in writing that 
they will obey state health and safety laws by providing toilets 
and drinking water, especially for women and children. 

6. Refuse to send -workers to growers who knowingly hire 
wetbacks.' and other illegal foreign workers who depress American 
workers' wages ond working conditions. [Wetbacks in California 
alone earned 131 mi 3. 3 ion do3 3ars last year.] 



4601 



7. Compel each Farm Labor Office to hire at least one 
Spanish-speaking person per office. [Virtually no employees 

speak Spanish despite 7CK-. of the farm workers speaking on]y Spanish.] 

8. Compel Farm Labor Offices to en-.p3.oy farm workers as 
bell as growers. [At most, offices only growers and their families 
are employed. ] 

9. Prohibit the Farm Labor Office from sending a surplus 
of workers to a job. 

10. Require the Farm Labor Office to allow workers to see 
the entire list of farm jobs available so that they can choose 
the best one. [7vt present workers are sent to the growers that 
offer the lowest wages and the worst working conditions, .since 
these growers have the most difficulty recruiting workers.] 



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



4602 



G?SZ:-' t C;AMT CO.Vy'ANY 
ir su:u?. w.inh: ova sV>>5 

STATS/.V.NI OP HGUkS EARNINGS 
AND DiliUCIlONS 



CO 

M 

m 

M 
EC 
X 

w 







O C- CD O O r-i 
CVi CQ 04 . Ci lO LO 



CO 

to 



4603 



250 FARM WORKERS SUE TO COMPEL FAIR EMPLOYMENT PLAN OR TO CLOSE 
CALIFORNIA FARM LABOR OFFICE 

Today, March 5, 1970, 250 California farm workers from 
10 counties, armed with 39 affidavits from farm workers throughout 
California, brought suit in Federal District Court at San Francisco 
against Secretary of Labor George Shultz and the California Farm 
Labor Office. 

The suit, a class action brought on behalf of California's 
260,000 farm workers, seeks to either close all 42 federally- 
funded California Farm Labor Offices or compel them to operate 
under a Fair Employment Plan by July 1, 1970. (See Exhibit B of 
complaint for Plan) . The Plan requires joint farm worker-grower 
control. It prohibits the referring of workers to growers who 
refuse to provide toilets and drinking water, the highest prevailing 
wages, and a guarantee of 40 hours work. 

The suit charges that the Farm Labor Office is "grower- 
controlled, grower-dominated, grower-staffed, anti-farm worker 
and knowingly refers workers to growers who refuse to obey State 
laws" (see Exhibit A, affidavit of former Farm Labor Office employee) . 

Plaintiffs allege that the Farm Labor Office's refusal to 
obey their own rules and regulations has cost California farm workers 
$62,800,000 .a year in lost wages and"California taxpayers 
$25,000,000 in unnecessary welfare costs" (paragraph 10 ). 

Plaintiffs contend that farm worker wages and working 
conditions are depressed by the existence of the Farm Labor Office 
since it subsidizes growers who violate minimum health and wage 
laws. Further, plaintiffs, contend that the Farm Labor Office uses 
phony, inflated employment statistics to bolster its inaccurate claim 
of helping farm workers. For example, its statistics show it 
producing 10 times as many farm jobs in 1968 as 1966, despite 
farm labor employment decreasing by 25% during this period. 
CParagraph ll). 

California Rural Legal Assistance attorneys term the 
proposed Fair Employment Plan America's first FARM WORKER BILL 
OF RIGHTS since it guarantees to farm workers the basic rights 
presently available to most industrial workers, including the 
right to a decent job at a fair wage. 



4604 



GLICK, GNAIZDA, REYNOSO, 
YEGHIAYAN, ABASCAL, ALTSHULER, 
BRENNAN, DELEVETT, FRETZ , 
LIVINGSTON, MC CABE , POWELL, 
WILSON, and YNOSTROZA, 
California Rural Legal Assistance 
1212 Market Street 
San Francisco, California 
Telephone: (415) 863-4911 

LOUIS GARCIA, ALFONSO GONZALES, 
ROBERT E. GONZALES 

Mexican-American Political Association 
Mexican-American Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 
1231 Market Street 
San Francisco, California 
Telephone: (415) 626-8100 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 



250 SANTA CLARA, SONOMA, 
STANISLAUS, IMPERIAL, SANTA 
BARBARA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, 
MADERA, YUBA, SUTTER and BUTTE COUNTY 
.FARM WORKERS; SAN BENITO COUNTY 
CONSUMERS COOP., INC.; and the 
MEXICAN-AMERICAN POLITICAL ASSOCIA- 
TION, individually and on behalf of 
a class of similarly situated 
persons , 



Plaintiffs , 



GEORGE SHULTZ, U.S. SECRETARY OF 
LABOR; AL NORTON, Regional Director, 
Farm Labor & Rural Manpower Service; 
LUCIAN B. VANDERGRIFT, Secretary, 
State Human Relations Agency; WILLIAM 
TOLBERT, Director, California Farm 
Labor Service Division; LOUIS BRAUN, 
MILTON EISLEY, HARRY FREDERICK, JOSEPH 
MIGUEL, RON RODRIQUES , OCTAVIO ARMENTA 
WILBUR CHUBBUCK, H. PAT CROW, RICHARD 
LEMMON, local California Farm Labor 
Office Managers, 

Defendants. 



CIVIL ACTION NO. 



INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS 
ACTION FOR DECLARATORY 
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 
(REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE 
ACTION OR LABOR RELATI ONS ) 



JURISDICTION 
1. This civil class action for injunctive and declaratory 
relief arises under 29 U.S.C. § 49, et seq. (Wagner-Peyser Act 



4605 



1 I of 1933) and the regulations of the Secretary of Labor promulgated 
2\ pursuant to the Act. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked 
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question) , § 1337 (Commerce) , 
S 1343 (Civil Rights) , § 1346 (United States Defendant) , § 1361 
(Mandamus) , and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Denial of Constitutional Right 
Under Color of Law) . The amount in controversy exceeds the sum 
of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. A declaration of 
rights is sought under the Declaratory Judgment Act 28 U.S.C. 
SS 2201 - 2202. 

CAUSE OF ACTION 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



2. This class action, pursuant to the Wagner-Peyser Act 
of 1933 (the first major employee bill of rights enacted in the 
United States) is brought by over 250 California farm workers 
from ten agricultural counties , the Statewide Mexican- 
American Political Association and the San Benito Consumers' 
'Coop, on behalf of California's 260,000 farm workers. It seeks 
to compel the defendants (the United States Labor Department and 
the California Farm Labor Services Division) to either enforce 
and obey their specific statutory mandate and duty to actively 
assist and protect farm workers by instituting a Fair Employment 
Plan or to terminate the operation of California's 100% federally- 



22 | funded Farm Labor Office as of July 1, 1970, as provided by 

23 federal law. (20 C.F.R. § 602.20-22) 

24 3. Thirty-seven years ago, Congress enacted the Wagner- 

25 Peyser Act in order to provide, inter alia, full and complete 

26 protection to all workers including farm workers . As part of 

27 I this worker Bill of Rights, Congress created, 29 U.S.C. § 49, 

28 1 et seg. , 100% federally-funded, federally-regulated, state- 

29 1 administered, Farm Labor Offices: 

30 1 "To ensure insofar as practicable that workers are 

placed on jobs which utilize their highest skills." 
31 | (20 C.F.R. 604.1(f)) ; 

32 I — 

-2- 



4606 



1 | "Whenever possible place workers on jobs which use 

their highest skills or provide the highest earning 

2 potential." (California Farm Labor Management 
Manual § 2106(5), pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 604. l(k)); 

3 

"A domestic unemployed [farm worker] is entitled 

4 to the best job we have to offer .... The best job 
is that job which would provide ... an opportunity 

5 to utilize his highest skill . . . Has the highest 
earning potential or longest job duration ... The 

6 most desirable working conditions ..." (Id, Section 
2159(3), emphasis added); and 

7 

"To make no referral to a position where the services 

8 to be performed or the terms or conditions of em- 
ployment are contrary to Federal, State, or local 

9 law." (20 C.F.R. 604. l(j)) 

10 4. No federal funds of any kind shall be provided to any 

11 State Farm Labor office that fails to "adhere to the basic 

12 standards set forth as United States Employment Service policies" 

13 [or fails to] "maintain an organization and procedures necessary 

14 to carry out effectively such policies." (20 C.F.R. § 603.4, 

15 emphasis added) 

16 5. In summary, plaintiffs contend that the California Farm 

17 Labor Office, in violation of its legally-imposed duty , knowingly 

18 refers farm workers to employers who: 

19 . a. pay substandard wages substantially below prevailing 

20 wages ; 

21 b. request twice as many workers as are required in 

22 order to further reduce wages; 

23 c. offer only an hour's wages a day; 

24 d. unlawfully employ illegal aliens (Wetbacks) to 

25 compete with local workers; 

26 e. refuse to comply with State laws requiring toilets 

27 and drinking water; and 

28 f» endanger the health of workers by unlawfully using 

29 massive doses of toxic pesticides. 

30 6. Furthermore, the Farm Labor Office has refused and 

31 continues to refuse to provide to workers information as to: 

32 a) jobs and the wages available; and b) pesticides used by the 

-3- 



4607 



1 particular employer. This refusal to provide basic employment 

2 information is compounded by the lack of an adequate number of 

3 Spanish-speaking employees despite 70-80% of the working force 

4 speaking Spanish. 

5 7. California's federally- funded, three million dollar 

6 a year, forty-two office Farm Labor Division has repudiated its 

7 specific federal obligations and its own rules and regulations, 

8 supra . It is today (in the words of a former Farm Labor Office 

9 employee and ex-mayor of an' agricultural community) : 

10 "grower-oriented, grower-dominated, and grower- 

staffed. 

11 

"The farm worker would not suffer at all if all the 

12 labor offices in California were terminated. In fact, 
conditions for the farm worker would improve if the 

13 farm labor offices were eliminated. The farm labor 
offices, for example, knowingly refer workers to 

14 growers offering unsafe, unsanitary working conditions 
and allow unsafe housing to be considered a part of 

15 the pay of the farm worker. 

16 "In fact, the farm labor offices do not even serve 
the best interests of many growers. Growers that 

17 provide prevailing wages and good working conditions 
do not need the services of the farm labor office and 

18 seldom call upon the farm labor offices, 

19 "The growers that are most dependent upon the farm 
labor offices are those growers who offer poor working 

20 conditions and poor wages, 

21 "In effect, the farm labor offices act as a form of 
subsidy to those growers who refuse to compete in the 

22 open market place." (Attached hereto, marked Exhibit A 
and incorporated by reference herein is the Affidavit 

23 of said former Farm Labor Office employee, ex-mayor of 
Hollister, and former farm labor contractor.) 

24 

25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



8. Plaintiffs have specifically set forth, paragraphs 19 
to 35 , infra , the defendants' violations of their own rules 
and regulations. The operation of the Santa Rosa Farm Labor 
Office is typical. It is staffed .exclusively by growers and theii 
relatives. Despite 70% of the farm workers speaking Spanish, 
none of the employees speak any Spanish. It refuses to provide 
workers with a guarantee of even an hour's work. It specifically 
refuses to provide workers with the names of toxic pesticides 

-4- 



4608 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 



20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 



used by growers in order that. the one in every six workers injure^ 
each year can receive adequate and effective medical assistance. 
It knowingly refers workers to growers who refuse to provide 
toilets or drinking water and who unlawfully employ illegal 
aliens (Wetbacks) . 



9. The effect of these "anti-farm worker" unlawful Farm 
Labor Office practices is to "depress the wages and working 
conditions" of local workers and to, in effect, "subsidize" and 
encourage growers who violate the law. (Affidavit of former 
employee, Exhibit A, supra ) 

10. The aggregate cost to California's taxpayers and farm 
workers of the Farm Labor Office's unlawful practices exceeds 
one hundred and twenty million dollars a year: Farm workers 
annually lose $62,800,000 as a result of the Farm Labor Office 
referring them to growers who pay the lowest wages rather than 
'the "highest prevailing wage"; California welfare costs for 
Farm Labor Office-created underemployed and underpaid farm 
workers exceeds $25,000,000 per annum; and medical costs and. 
19 lost wages for the 37,500 California farm workers injured by 
pesticides each year, upon information and belief, is in excess 
of $37,000,000 per annum. 

11. The damage caused to farm workers and the extent of 
Farm Labor Office responsibility is obscured by fraudulent 
California Farm Labor Office statistics that show it producing 
and referring five times as many farm jobs as there are farm 
workers (1,393,810 alleged placements in 1968 despite the exist- 
ence of only 260,000 farm workers) . The 1968 1,393,810 figure 
is more than ten times the number of placements that occurred 
during the year 1966 when the program was administered by 
different directors (134,975 placements in 1966). This alleged 
ten-fold increase in so-called farm worker "placements" occurred 
32 1 despite an approximate 25% decline in the total number of farm 

-5- 



4609 



worker days employed during 196 8; further, this alleged ten-fold 
agricultural increase occurred while nona gricultural placements 
decreased by 20% from 1966 to 1968. (California Statistical 
Abstract, 1969, at 46) 

12. On October 22, 1968, July 9, 1969, December 19, 1969, 
and February 19 and 20, 1970, the plaintiffs formally requested 
the termination of California Farm Labor Offices and formally 
submitted to the named defendants specific information setting 
forth the California Farm Labor Office's' fraudulent misuse of 
farm worker directed funds for the exclusive benefit of growers 
who pay the lowest wages while refusing to provide health, safety 
and sanitation conditions in accordance with applicable State 
and federal regulations. (Specifically , for example, California 
Farm Labor Offices sending workers to employers: a) who provide 
no toilets or drinking water, b) spray their fields with toxic 
pesticides that the California Department of Public Health 
contends is responsible for at least 37,500 California farm 
worker injuries each year, and c) refuse to guarantee one hour's 
work even where a worker travels 100 miles to the job. 

13. On each and every occasion, including a personal farm 
worker San Francisco meeting with Secretary of Labor George 
Shultz on February 20, 1970, the defendants specifically refused 
to investigate these charges or compel adherence to their own 
rules and regulations and statutory mandate requiring that farm 
workers be provided with jobs that "utilize their highest skills 
or provide the highest earning potential" and that no worker be 
referred "to a position where the ... conditions of employment 
are contrary to Federal, State, or local law" or fails to provide 
"the most desirable working conditions." 

14. As a result of the defendants' specific refusal to 
comply with their statutory obligations and resultant danger 
to farm worker safety, health and economic well-being, the 

-6- 



4610 



plaintiffs seek the termination of federal funding for California' 
Farm Labor Office, or that a Fair Employment Plan be 
created to oversee said Office, under the joint, cooperative 
control of- growers, farm workers and Labor Department representa- 
tives, in order to ensure that applicable rules and regulations 
are effectively enforced. The Fair Employment Plan is attached 
hereto, incorporated by reference herein, and marked Exhibit B. 
The Plan sets forth three main provisions, all in accordance with 
present federal and state regulations. It seeks to ensure that 
farm workers secure the "best jobs" that "utilize their highest 
skills or provide the highest earning potential" are not in 
violation of any "Federal, State or local law", and provide "the 
most desirable working conditions." (20 C.F.R. 604.1) 

DEFENDANTS 

15. Defendant George Shultz is Secretary of the United 
States Department of Labor and in said capacity he is responsible 
for the funding and administration of the California Farm Labor 
Offices. Defendant Al Norton is Regional Director of the U.S. Farn 
Labor and Rural Manpower Service. Defendant Lucian B. Vandergrift 
is the Secretary of the State Human Relations Agency, and in said 
capacity has administrative control over California Farm Labor 
Offices. Defendant William Tolbert is the Director of the Farm 
Labor Service Division. Defendants Louis Braun, Milton Eisley, 
Harry Frederick, Joseph Miguel, Ron Rodriques, Octavio Armenta 
Wilbur Chubbuck, H. Pat Crow, Richard Lemmon are local Farm Labor 
Office managers. 

PLAINTIFFS 

16. Plaintiff San Benito County Consumers' Cooperative, 
Inc. , is a non-profit corporation of approximately 100 low-income 
farm workers from San Benito County many of whom use or have used 
local farm labor offices. (Attached hereto, marked Exhibit C, 
incorporated by reference herein, is an affidavit from the 

-7- 



4611 



President of said corporation setting forth the unanimous vote 
of the membership on February 9, 1970, to close the Farm Labor 
Offices. ) 

17. Plaintiff 250 California farm workers are farm workers 
from ten California counties (Santa Clara, Sonoma, Stanislaus, 
Imperial, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Madera, Yuba, Sutter, 
and Butte Counties) requesting the termination of Farm Labor 
Offices due to their depressing wages and working conditions. 
(Attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, marked 
Exhibit D, in a sealed envelope for the court only, are the 
originals of petitions signed by said workers, most of whom fear 
for the loss of their jobs should their names be disclosed. 

(In order to protect their identity they are referred to as "250 
California Farm Workers.") 

18. Plaintiff Mexican-American Political Association is 
'California's largest Mexican-American organization and represents 

the interests of farm workers in general, 75 to 85% of whom are 
Mexican-Americans . 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

19. California's 42 Farm Labor Offices are fully -funded 

by the U.S. Labor Department. Affidavits have been secured from 
some fifteen counties setting out the unlawful practices of the 
Farm Labor Offices. The affidavits (Exhibits E-AM) attached 
to the Order to Show Cause, are hereby fully incorporated by 
reference herein. Their substance is specifically set out in 
the following paragraphs. 

20. SANTA CLARA, SAN BENITO, SANTA CRUZ ; The Farm Labor 
Offices in these counties, as in most of California, "virtually 
ignore the interests of the farm worker, and, on any occasion 
where the two interests must be balanced, will balance the 
interests in favor of the grower." (Affidavit of Frank Valenzuela 
Exhibit A) The affidavit of Robert Guerrero, marked Exhibit E, 

-8- 



4612 



is typical of the results of this unfair balance. After one job 
he was referred to in Hollister he complained to the Farm Labor 
Office about the grower. The clerk replied that they "had lots 
of trouble, with that particular [employer] and that they had to 
refer many people to him because so many quit or were fired. The 
clerk said nothing about discontinuing service to the grower. I 
think that this is because the Farm Labor Office does not care 
what the grower is like. They send farm workers no matter what." 

21. MONTEREY COUNTY (SALINAS VALLEY) : The Salinas Farm 
Labor Office Day Haul center is infamous among farm workers. 
It is, according to so-called Farm Labor Office statistics for 
196_8, responsible for over 100,000 farm worker placements each 
year, or a sum almost equal to the total number of California 
farm worker placements in 196_6.. On a typical day, 1,000 workers 
gather at this fenced-in Farm Labor Office-operated area, known 
as "El Corral" [Bull-pen] by the workers. 

22. The very facilities operated by the Salinas Farm Labor 
Offices refute and belie its own rules, to provide "The most 
desirable working conditions." Despite complaints from farm 
workers sine* 1 1967, and a lawsuit, it still refuses to provide 
drinking water or benches or heat to the more than 1,000 male and 
female farm workers who gather at 3 a.m. and often wait three 
hours to secure a half -day's employment. Only Farm Labor Office 
personnel stationed on the premises, in an area marked "Employees 
Only," have access to such amenities. (Attached to the Order to 
Show Cause is a Declaration admitted in a lawsuit Munoz v. State 
Department of Employment , decision for the farm worker, July, 
1969, marked Exhibit H) 

23. The extent of the Salinas Farm Labor Office's role in 
depressing working conditions is illustrated by the 1968 survey 
of 107 farm workers admitted into evidence in Munoz , supra . 

It showed that every Farm Labor Office referral was to a grower 

-9- 



4613 



who violated State law by refusing to provide toilets or drinking 
water (1,869 violations in one-year period from 107 workers). 
(Attached to the Order to Show Cause is a Declaration admitted into 
evidence in Munoz , supra, marked Exhibit I) 

24 . IMPERIAL COUNTY : The Calexico Farm Labor Office 
facilities are reputed to be the most impressive in the Nation, 
offering both toilets and drinking water to its workers. On a 
typical 3 a.m. , three thousand men gather for two thousand jobs. 
Most --•75% according to January, 1970, Calexico survey by Roy 
Armenta--are not even American residents. According to this 
January 1970 survey of 12 5 farm workers: 

A. 85% have been referred by the Farm Labor Office to 
growers who provide less than a day's work; 

B. 95% were sent to employers who unlawfully refused to 
provide toilets or drinking water; 

C. 71% were sent to employers who treated them unfairly or 
discourteously; 

D. None of the 125 workers ever received any job assistance 
or counseling from the Farm Labor Office or observed any Farm 
Labor Office employee ever investigate wage or working conditions; 

E. Only 3% of the workers felt that the Farm Labor Office 
was trying to assist them. (Affidavit of Roy Armenta, with 
survey, attached to Order to Show Cause and marked Exhibit J) 

25. The Farm Labor Office's indifference to the exploitation 
of the farm worker is evidenced by its referral of Carmen Padilla 
Olguin to "Green Giant" Company in Illinois on September 2, 1969. 
As an inducement to travel 2,000 miles, Olguin, and forty other 
Calexico workers were promised by the Farm Labor Office $16.50 
minimum per day. During the first full two weeks of work, 
working 89 hours, he received, after deductions, $32.05 or thirty 
six cents an hour. As a result he became a virtual prisoner in 
Illinois unable to afford transportation home. When the forty 

-10- 



4614 



1 workers finally returned to Calexico six weeks later and 

2 formally complained to the Farm Labor Office, "They just laughed 

3 at us." Affidavits of Gilberto Valenzuela and Manuel Ramos 

4 confirm and allege similar exploitation by the Farm Labor Office 

5 and "Green Giant" Company in Washington State and Minnesota. 

6 (Affidavits, including "Green Giant" wage statement, attached to 

7 Order to Show Cause, and marked Exhibits K, L, and M) 

8 26. SONOMA AND NAPA COUNTIES : On February 11, 1970, a 

9 delegation of farm workers met with the office managers and area 

10 supervisor of the Farm Labor Offices in Santa Rosa, California, 

11 to request compliance with field and sanitation laws. The Farm 

12 Labor officials admitted that they do not ask employers about 

13 working conditions prior to making referrals nor do they check 

14 the field conditions for compliance with the law. When asked by 

15 farm workers as to what the officials thought was the function of 

16 the Farm Labor Office they replied: "...our main objective is to 

17 facilitate the harvesting of the crops." (Affidavit of Emilia 

18 Telles - Exhibit N) 

19 The inefficient operation of the Farm Labor Offices is 

20 best exemplified by the affidavit of Vartkes Yeghiayan; this 

21 affidavit contains the following statement made by Mr. Donald 

22 Mills, Manager for the Sonoma County Farm Labor Association (a 

23 private, grower-owned association) : 

24 "if the Sonoma County Farm Labor Offices were doing 

their job properly, there would be no need for the 

25 Association to exist. Why would growers form their 
own association and tax themselves but for the fact 

26 that the Farm Labor Office was being run very 
inefficiently... If I were given this money 

27 ($200,000 to run the Sonoma County Farm Labor Office] 
I would serve the farm workers on a silver platter 

28 and every farm worker in Sonoma County would have a 
job and I would send them to work in a limousine." 

29 

30 
31 
32 



27. MADERA COUNTY : Three affidavits, Exhibits U, V, and 
W, are typical of the complaints received about the operation of 
the Madera Farm Labor Office. Workers are referred to farms 



-11- 



4615 



which provide no toilets, handwashing facilities or drinking 
water. Workers are referred to non-existent jobs or are referred 
to growers who did not ask for the services of the Farm Labor 
Office. Domingo Valdez , for example, in his affidavit, marked 
U, stated that he was referred to a grower who told him that the 
work was finished and that he had not asked the Farm Labor Office 
for any help. 

28. KINGS COUNTY : Affidavits from Kings County, marked 
Exhibits X and Y, demonstrate the indifference to farm workers 
displayed by the Farm Labor Office. Farm workers there were 
sent on a round trip 125 miles to an alleged job only to find 
that there was no. work available. On the next day the Farm Labor 
Office insisted that they return to the same job. The second day 
the workers received only a half -day of work and then were paid 
only 20 cents a bucket instead of the 25 cents promised. The 

.Farm Labor Office took no action to secure any money for the 
first day or the difference in the promised wage on the second 
day. A check back five days later showed that the Farm Labor 
Office was continuing to refer workers to this employer and still 
promising that 25 cents a bucket would be paid. 

29. The Farm Labor Office serving the largest poverty county 
in the United States sent 36 workers on a bus for five hours to a 
job. They were in fact not taken to any employer at all, but 

to a contractor of farm labor services. The place they were 
taken to already had workers there who had had no work for 
several days. In spite of promises that they would be paid $1.65 
an hour and be given 6 days of work a week, only three hours of 
work was provided (in a different crop than that advertised) . 
The workers were then told there "may be work tomorrow or maybe 
in a few days." The workers did not earn enough to pay bus fare 
home. (Declaration of Michael Onofrey, Exhibit Z, Los Angeles 
County) 

-12- 



4616 



1 30. STANISLAUS COUNTY : Five affidavits, marked Exhibits 

2 AA-AE, are typical of complaints received about the Operation of 

3 the Stanislaus Farm Labor Service. The workers were all referred 

4 to extremely low paying jobs, far below minimum wage, and were 

5 referred to farms which provided no toilets, handwashing 

6 facilities, or drinking water. Don Alafa, for example, in his 

7 affidavit, stated that he was sent to an apricot field where the 

8 piece rate wage was only the equivalent of 35 cents an hour. 

9 31. BUTTE, YUBA & SUTTER COUNTIES ;' The operation of the 

10 Farm Labor Offices in Butte, Yuba and Sutter have been the 

11 subject of substantial farm worker litigation ( In re Botelho , 

12 incorporated as exhibit in Munoz v. State Department of Employ- 

13 ment ) and complaints. Over 99% of the agricultural employers, 

14 according to a 1968 survey of 150 employers and 100 workers 

15 incorporated in Munoz , supra , committed over 1,200 health, 

16 sanitation and minimum wage violations. Despite said widespread 

17 violations, the Farm Labor Office as of mid-February, 1970, still 

18 refused to terminate referrals to said growers and continued to 

19 compel workers to travel as much as one hundred miles to one 

20 grower even though neither wages nor working conditions were 

21 guaranteed. (Attached to the Order to Show Cause, and marked 

22 Exhibit AF, is an affidavit by Edgar Diaz.) 

23 32. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY : On Thursday, February 19, 1970, 

24 a delegation of farm workers met with Office Manager and Area 

25 Supervisor of the Farm Labor Office in Santa Maria, California, 

26 to request compliance with federal and state law. The Farm Labor 

27 Office officials "admitted that they do not ask employers about 

28 working conditions when employers call in with job openings, and 

29 the Farm Labor Service does not make field checks for compliance 

30 with the law. We asked why the Farm Labor Service does not check 

31 for compliance, and Mr. Spencer said, 'If we did this they'd 

32 chop our heads off.' We asked who would and he said, 'The 

-13- 



4617 



growers and the powers above us.'" (Affidavit of Israel Torres, 
makred Exhibit AG) 

33. PESTICIDES : On December 10, 1969, the defendant Human 
Relations Agency, Department of Public Health, issued a compre- 
hensive, legislatively-ordered report on pesticide danger to farm 
workers. It reported that at least 150 of every 1,000 farm 
workers, or 37,500 Statewide, are adversely affected, including 
death, hospitalization and loss of work, by excessive, uncon- 
trolled use of pesticides of unknown toxicity. The report 
stated: 

"First, a large percentage of pesticide-related 
injuries involve serious, disabling illness; 
secondly, like other kinds of work-related 
illnesses, pesticide poisoning is largely pre- 
ventable and; thirdly, we have reason to believe 
that the reports of illness which we receive do 
not accurately reflect the true magnitude of 
the problem..." (at p'. 4) 

"During this same period, the accidental deaths 
of 32 other adults [plus 34 previously mentioned 
as resulting from occupational fatalities due 
to agricultural chemicals] and 85 children were 
attributed to pesticides and other agricultural 
chemicals, making a total of 151 accidental 
deaths." (at p. 2) 

34. In order to protect the health and safety of California 
farm workers? plaintiffs, in accordance with applicable State and 
federal regulations (20 C.F.R. § 604.1 and § 604.5), formally 
requested of Farm Labor Offices from Imperial, Santa Clara and 
Sonoma, protection from uncontrolled and unknown use of 
dangerous pesticides. Each office, in accordance with federal 
regulations, was requested to condition job referrals upon 
employers providing, lists of pesticides used. The purpose was 

to expedite medical treatment for injured workers (one of every 
six injured each year according to defendants' study of 
December 10, 1969). Defendants have refused to do so or to make 
any effort of any kind to facilitate medical assistance to 
injured farm workers. (Attached to the Order to Show Cause, 

-14- 

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



4618 



1 incorporated by reference herein, and marked Exhibits AK, AL, 

2 and AM, are copies of unanswered letters written to said Farm 

3 Labor Offices.) 

4 35. UNEQUAL TREATMENT ; On information and belief, 

5 although California Farm Labor Offices refuse to bar growers from 

6 using their services, no matter how flagrant or frequent are the 

7 unlawful violations of regulations by such growers, the Farm 

8 Labor Offices move quickly to refuse to refer, i.e., blacklist, 

9 any farm worker who has violated any regulation. For example, 

10 workers who fail to appear for jobs are often refused additional 

11 referrals; growers, on the other hand, who request three times as 

12 many workers as they need, or provide only an hour's work for 

13 workers traveling 100 miles, are encouraged to continue to use 
14 | the Farm Labor Office referral -facilities despite their unlawful 

15 A activities. 

16 A VIOLATION OF LEGAL DUTY 

17 H 36. Defendants have willfully, arbitrarily and capriciously 

18 | failed in their clear duty to comply with the Congressional 

19 1 mandate to protect the health and economic well-being of the farm 
201 worker. Further, defendants have wilfully, arbitrarily and 

21 | capriciously violated their binding and unequivocal rules to 

22 provide: a) "The most desirable working conditions," '::>) "To 

23 ensure insofar as practicable that workers are placed on jobs 

24 which utilize their highest skills," c) "To make no referral to 

25 a position where the . . . conditions of employment are contrary to 

26 Federal, State, or local law," and d) "Whenever possible place 

27 workers on jobs which ... provide the highest earning potential." 

28 37. Said arbitrary and unlawful actions of the defendants 

29 have resulted in discrimination against the poor, particularly 

30 minority groups who constitute 86% of the farm workers referred 

31 by the State Farm Labor Office. Said discrimination constitutes 

32 a denial of due process and equal protection in violation of the 

-15- 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



4619 



Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United 
States . 

CLASS ACTION 

38. This is a proper class action within Rule 23 of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The named plaintiffs represent 
the class of farm workers in California who are denied the bene- 
fits of the Wagner-Peyser Act due to the defendants* refusal to 
comply with said Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 
The members of the aforementioned classes are so numerous that_ 
their joinder is impracticable. Nonetheless, members of the 
class have common interests in the questions- of law and fact to 
be litigated herein. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of 
the class, and litigation by them will fairly and adequately 
protect the interest of the class. The legislation of which 
plaintiffs complain is generally and equally applicable and 
.applied to every member of the class, making relief as to all 
appropriate. 

CONTROVERSY 

39. There is an actual controversy now existing between 
parties to this action as to which plaintiffs seek the judgment 
of this court. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of the legal rights 
and relationships involved in the subject and controversy. 

40. Plaintiffs, and the class they represent, have incomes 
substantially below the minimum needed for even a subsistence 
level of existence. They will suffer irreparable injury and 
severe economic deprivation by reason of the continued unlawful 
conduct of the defendants. 

41. Plaintiffs, and the class they represent, have no plain 
adequate or speedy remedy at law to redress such injury and 
deprivation and therefore bring this suit for declaratory and 
injunctive relief as their only means of securing such relief. 



16- 



4620 



WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS, on behalf of themselves and all 
others similarly situated, pray that this court: 

A. Temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoin 
defendants from refusing to require that employers using the 
Farm Labor Office services provide a description of use of 
pesticides in fields to which workers are to be sent; 

B. Preliminarily enjoin defendants from refusing to imple- 
ment the Fair Employment Plan For Operation of California Farm 
Labor Offices set out in Exhibit B, attached to this complaint,' 
and hereby incorporated by reference herein; 

C. Permanently enjoin defendants from refusing to either 
continue the Fair Employment Plan set out in Exhibit B beyond 
two years, implement some other similar plan to affirmatively 
guarantee that farm workers will.be referred to the best jobs 
available at the highest wages and best lawful working conditions 
for a fixed minimum number of days of work, or, in the alternative 
terminate all federal funding to the California Farm Labor Offices 

D. Permanently enjoin the defendants from treating as a job 
placement any referral which results in a job of less than one 
week's duration at the highest prevailing wage; 

E. Declare that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated 
are by virtue of the applicable statutes and regulations entitled 
to be referred only: 

1) to jobs that meet applicable health, sanitation, 
and safety standards as determined by Farm Labor 
Office procedures and spot checks, 

2) to jobs providing a fair minimum of guaranteed 
hours of work at the highest prevailing wage, 

3) to jobs chosen by the farm worker from lists 
of all available jobs. 

F. Maintain jurisdiction of this matter; 



-17- 



4621 



G. Allow plaintiffs their costs and grant them and others 

similarly situated such relief as the court may deem just and 

appropriate. 

Dated: March 5, 1970. 

GARCIA, A. GONZALES, R. GONZALES, 
• GLICK, GNAIZDA, REYNOSO, YEGHIAYAN, 
ABASCAL, ALTSHULER, BRENNAN , DELEVETT, 
FRETZ, LIVINGSTON, MC CABE , POWELL, 
WILSON and YNOSTROZA 



By • JWb,jAjW 

ROBERT L. GNAIZDA 



Qf\)\ouk ft. )%^ 



MARTIN R. GLICK 



VARTKES YEGTpAVAN 




•18- 



4622 



VERIFICATION 

I, the undersigned, am one of the attorneys for the plain- 
tiffs in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing 
Individual and Class Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 
and know the content thereof; and that the same is true of my own 
knowledge except as to the matters which are therein stated upon 
information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to 
be true. 

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is. 
true and correct. 

Executed on March 4, 1970, at San Francisco, California. 



fo\^A/w 



ROBERT L. GNAIZDA 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 



4623 



EXHIBIT A 

AFFIDAVIT 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 

) ss. 
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) 

I, FRANK VALENZUELA, being first duly sworn, depose 
and say: 

I, Frank Valenzuela, am presently Acting Director of 
the Community Organization Department of the Economic Opportunity 
Commission of Santa Clara County and reside in Santa Clara 
County and have continuous official contact with the California 
Farm Labor Offices. 

I am the former Mayor of Hollister, San Benito County 
and a former farm labor contractor. 

During the years 1966 - 1967 I was employed by the 
federally- funded California Farm Labor Office. I worked in the 
Santa Clara, Imperial, and Santa Cruz County Offices- and also 
have familiarity with the offices in Monterey and San Benito 
Counties . 

In my opinion, based upon my experiences with the Farm 
Labor Office, it is a grower-oriented, grower-dominated and 
grower-staffed operation. It virtually ignores the interests 
of the farm worker; and on any occasion where the two interests 
must be balance3, it will balance the interests in the favor 
of the grower. 

The farm worker would not suffer at all if all the farm 
labor offices in California were terminated. In fact, conditions 
for the farm worker would improve if the farm labor offices 
were eliminated. The farm labor offices, for example, knowingly 
refer workers to growers offering unsafe, unsanitary working 
conditions and allow unsafe housing to be considered a part of 
the pay of the farm worker. 

In fact, the farm labor offices do not even serve the 
best interests of many growers. Growers that provide prevailing 
wages and good working conditions do not need the services of 



4624 



the farm labor office and seldom call upon the farm labor offices . 

The growers that are most dependent upon the farm labor 
offices are those growers who offer poor working conditions and 
poor wages. 

In effect, the farm labor offices act as a form of 
subsidy to those growers who refuse to compete in the open market 
place. 

An example of this occurred in the Gilroy Farm Labor 
Office. The appropriation for the farm labor office is in part 
dependent upon the number of so-called "hires" that an office 
secures over a period of a year. On one occasion, for example, 
an apricot grower offered piece rates that were so low that 
none of the workers referred could earn even the minimum wage. 
The grower informed the farm labor office on each day for 
approximately ten working days that he needed approximately ten- 
workers. However, because of the extremely low wages, workers 
refused to work more than one day and therefore new ones were 
sent out each day. As a result, over a ten day working period 
the Gilroy Farm Labor Office recorded in excess of 100 "hires." 

Thus, in a sense the farm labor office is best served, 
from its point of view, by assisting the worst growers since 
these growers will provide them with the best statistics based 
on the highest turnover of workers . 

Farm labor offices have, at least over the last ten 
years, primarily assisted those growers who violate the law 
and offer the worst wages. For example, the Gilroy Farm Labor 
Office on one occasion received a job order from an employer 
to pay twenty cents a bucket for grapes. The grower, however, 
when the workers appeared, refused to pay twenty cents a 
bucket and offered only sixteen cents a bucket, a price below 
the prevailing wage in the area at the time. The Farm Labor 



4625 



Office was informed about this and said that it was acceptable 
for the grower to do so since the grower offered the excuse 
that although he said he would pay twenty cents a bucket, it 
only pertained to one field and not to the other fields in which 
grapes were being picked. 

The grower dominance of the farm labor offices is best 
expressed and illustrated by the staffing pattern at the farm 
labor offices. It hires primarily growers and attempts to 
screen out pro-labor persons and bilingual persons who might 
assist the Mexican-American farm worker. 'For example, despite 
the fact that I was a farm labor contractor, a former Mayor 
of Hollister, fully bilingual, had two years of college, had 
been a probation officer and law enforcement officer, my 
application for employment was refused based upon my reputation 
of being pro-farm worker. However, as soon as I filed a 
written complaint with then State Senator Farr, I was informed 
within twenty-four hours by Mr. Jack Rocca, a coastal area 
supervisor then and now, that a vacancy had just occurred and 
I therefore received the job. 

Whenever vacancies occur in farm labor offices , local 
growers play a major role in determining who shall be selected. 
For this reason, the farm labor office is often referred to as 
just another arm of the Farm Bureau which works to the disadvantage 
of the farm worker. 

I have set forth below a few of the examples showing 
the indifference of the farm labor office to the farm worker. 

1. Watsonville Farm Labor Office: The Division of 
Industrial Welfare began to check the social security numbers 
of workers employed by growers since it was known that large 
numbers of growers were hiring entire families unlawfully on 
one social security card. The growers immediately complained 
to the local farm labor office which, without any authority, 



4626 



demanded that the Division of~mdustrial Welfare "lay off" 
the growers since it would be putting an unfair burden on the 
growers to have to comply with the social security laws. 

2. The farm Labor offices are aware that many growers 
in the Gilroy-Hollister-Santa Cruz area employ entire families 
on one card and yet it continues to refer workers to these 
growers . 

3. The farm labor office has made it a policy over the 
years through radio, TV announcements, and various news 
releases to recruit hundreds of workers for a small number of 
jobs. In other words, the farm labor office engages in over 
advertising and produces results that compare to those in The 
Grapes of Wrath when thousands of workers drove hundreds of 
miles for a small number of jobs and were therefore forced to 
compete with each other thereby lowering wages for all. 

4. The farm labor office, frequently engages in 
intensive recruitment of families for jobs that only last one 
day and in which far more families apply than for which there 
are jobs. 

5. The farm labor office knowingly refers workers to 
growers who fail to provide toilet facilities, drinking water, 
or other sanitary conditions required by state law. 

6. On many occasions, I've seen farm workers come to 
the farm labor office and complain that the wages they were 
provided with by the grower were substantially lower than the 
job order the farm labor office accepted. On each occasion the 
farm labor office has summarily and perfunctorily informed the 
farm worker that he should leave the office and stop complaining 
since the farm labor office is not a law enforcement agency. 
The farm labor office personnel even refused to secure any in- 
formation that might be of assistance to the farm worker in 
securing his wages through the labor commissioner. 



4627 



7. Although many growers use extensive amounts of 
pesticides which on some occasions at least, are harmful to the 
farm workers, the farm labor office has never concerned itself 
in any fashion with the use of pesticides by growers. 

8. At present, the Gilroy Office of the Farm Labor Office 
is engaging in an assistance program to growers in cooperation 
with the federal government that will adversely affect each 

and every local farm workers' job opportunities this coming year 
despite the fact that there is a present shortage of work for 
farm workers and most farm workers have suffered a reduction in - 
both wages and hours worked over the last three years. 

9. Since I left the farm labor office, I have had 
continuous contact with the local farm labor offices in Santa 
Clara County. There have been no substantial changes in the 
farm labor office that have benefited the farm worker. In fact, 
the situation for the farm worker has worsened since the farm 
labor office was recently given independence from the State De- 
partment of Employment. 

10. In summary, the farm labor offices are presently 
operating in a fashion designed to depress wages and working 
conditions, and .weaken the bargaining power of local farm workers. 
This anti-farm worker policy was first developed under the Bracero 
Program where the farm labor offices would encourage the im- 
portation of braceros, while local workers were going without 
jobs, in order to make certain that wages remained at an 
artificially low rate. 

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing 

is true and correct. 

Executed on Q& I / > "70, at San Jose .California. 

v <=^ FRANK VALENZUELA —\ 
Subscribed and sworn to before mfe this // T" "d ay of ^ ^-"* SvJL970. 




SARAH A. MARTINEZ ■ / v„ "' < VtW PUBLIC 

NOTARY PLiBLIC-O-.Urv-.'.J.A / 



V 



OFFICIAL SEAL ■ / / . / . U Yl \ 
daui MARTINEZ /■ •._''' ' n.A 1 --.. _. ae , 



~ > '\','-) SANTA CLWA C')J .Y 
^C.-y Kyi a nnvss:on tt?;r<;s ?eb. i3. IS72 

S<J0 WjinftKsM 0'-. San lo;o, Jl'"'. P\M 



4628 



EXHIBIT B 

1 I! FAIR- EMPLOYMENT PLAN FOR OPERATION OF CALIFORNIA 

2 I FARM LABOR OFFICES PURSUANT TO WAGNER-PEYSER ACT 
OF 1933 AND REGULATIONS RELATED THERETO 



3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



ORDER 

Commencing July 1, 1970, no federal funds shall be 
appropriated by the federal defendants, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §49, 
et seq . , for the operation of California Farm Labor Offices until 
the defendants shall develop and institute a full and complete af- 
finitive action plan to protect the health, safety, and economic 
well-being of California farmworkers in accordance with 29 U.S.C. 
§49, et seq . , and regulations related thereto. Said affirmative 
action plan shall include no less than the following protections 
for farm workers : 

1. A Committee of Five composed of two farm workers, 
two growers, and a U. S. Labor Department representative shall 
oversee and examine the operation of the California Farm Labor 
Office for a period of not less than two years and each local Farm 
Labor Office shall have at least 50% representation from the farm 
worker community on its advisory staff. (Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 
§604.12 which guarantees representation to farm worker and other 
community organizations.) 

2. No employer shall be permitted to use the services 
of the Farm Labor Office: 

a. unless said person is in fact a direct 
employer of labor and no farm labor contractors or other private 
employment agencies that secure a fee either from the employee or 
employer shall be permitted to directly or indirectly use said 
farm labor office services (pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §604.1 (f) and 
(k) , which guarantees workers the best job available at the 
highest prevailing wage) ; 

b. until said employer shall file with the Farm 



4629 



Labor Office a certification under penalty of perjury that he is 
fully aware of applicable federal, State and local farm worker 
health, sanitation and safety laws and is in full and complete 
compliance with said laws; (pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§604 .1 ( j ) and 
604.5 protecting farm workers from violations of any federal, 
State or local laws) ; 

c. unless said employer shall file a current 
certification under penalty of perjury (simultaneously with the 
filing of each job order) setting forth a full and complete „ 
description of all pesticides being used, the quantity per acre 
and a certification that local health officials consider his 
fields free of any pesticide danger to workers; (pursuant to 

20 C.F.R. §§604. l(j) and 604.5); 

d. unless said employer shall guarantee in writing 
a job of at least 40 hours duration during the ensuing seven day 
period at the highest prevailing wage paid for comparable employ- 
ment (pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §604. l(k) and State Farm Labor Office 
Regulation §2106(5) providing for jobs at "the highest earning 
potential") . 

3. Each local California Farm Labor Office shall be 
prohibited from operating or servicing any employers until it 
shall institute a regular policy and procedure, pursuant to 20 
C.F.R. §604. 1(f) , (j) and (k) , whereby: 

a. at least 10% of all employer job order 
specifications each month shall be personally investigated 
(pursuant to State Farm Labor Office Regulation §§2104, 2106(10), 
2139(3), 2139(4), and 2140 requiring personal investigations and 
familiarity with agricultural conditions by Farm Labor Office 
personnel) ; 

b. a full and complete list, in Spanish and 
English of all available jobs, including specifications as to 
wages, period of guaranteed employment, and working conditions, 

-2- 



4630 



1 including pesticides used, shall be publicly posted at each Farm 

2 Labor Office (pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §604. 1(f), (k) and State 

3 Farm Labor Office Regulation &2172) ; 

4 c. Day Haul Centers operated directly or indirectly 

5 by Farm Labor Offices shall be prohibited from servicing any per- 

6 sons that are not in full compliance with paragraph 2, supra ; and 

7 wages for employees secured through said Day Haul Centers shall 

8 be computed from time of entrance on the bus to time of return to 

9 Day Haul Center (pursuant to - 20 C.F.R. §604.1 (f) , (j) and (k) and. 
10 State Farm Labor Office Regulations §§2159(3) and 2153); 

j j d. employers who have been found within six months 

12 of a job order to have violated applicable federal, State or 

13 local health, labor, or safety laws shall be prohibited from 

14 directly or indirectly using or benefiting from any Farm Labor 

15 Office services (pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §604. l(j) and State Farm 

16 Labor Office Regulations §§2153, 2160(6) and 2160(7) empowering 

17 local Farm Labor Offices to restrict their services only to those 

18 in full compliance with federal, State and local laws); 

19 e. new employment policies shall be devised, 



20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



effective immediately, to increase the employment of farm workers 
and Spanish-speaking personnel at the local Farm Labor Offices in 
order to more fully and adequately advise and counsel workers as 
to the best available jobs (pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 604.1(f), 
(j) and (k) , 604.12, 604.8(h) and State Farm Labor Office 
Regulation §2159) . 



-3- 



4631 



EXHIBIT C 



AFFIDAVIT 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 

) ss. 
COUNTY OF SAN BENITO ) 

I, JUAN ZAMORA, being first duly sworn depose and say : 

I am the president of the San Benito County Consumers' Corporation. This 
corporation has approximately two hundred members. At a general membership 
meeting on February 9th, 1970 we discussed the concern of the corporation in 
obtaining decent wages and good working conditions for farm laborers. We 
decided that the farm labor office has failed to help farm laborers find such 
decent wages and working conditions. A vote was taken regarding the member- 
ships' interest in bringing a law suit to close the farm labor office because 
of its failure to serve farm workers. Seventy-five members voted in favor of 
the proposed law suit, no member voted against the law suit, ten members 
abstained.' Therefore, it is the feeling of the San Benito County Consumers' 
Corporation that the exploitation of farm workers with the assistance of the 
farm labor office should cease immediately. 



/st>f*-siCsS*rl ■>— 




SUSBCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS // ^ D AY OF FEBRUARY, 1970 
HOLLISTER, CALIFORNIA 



(iit/kt.t^L?C/<tJ_ A/JJu/a -'C/ 



NOTARY PUBLIC 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



4632 



GLICK, GNAIZDA, REYMOSO, 

YEGHIAYAN, ABASCAL, ALTSHULER, 

BRENNAN, DELEVETT, FRETZ, 

LIVINGSTON, MC CABE, POWELL, 

WILSON, AND YNOSTROZA, 

California Rural Legal Assistance 

1212 Market Street 

San Francisco, California CLE"' r 

Telephone: (415) 863-4911 

LOUIS GARCIA, ALFONSO GONZALES, 
ROBERT E. GONZALES 

Mexican-American Political Association 
Mexican-American Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 
1231 Market Street 
San Francisco, California ' 
Telephone: (415) 626-8100 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

250 SANTA CLARA, SONOMA, -^i ^. ^ . _ 
STANISLAUS, IMPERIAL, SANTA 
BARBARA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, 
MADERA, YUBA, SUTTER and BUTTE 
COUNTY FARM WORKERS; ET AL. , 



Plaintiffs, 
vs. 

GEORGE SHULTZ, U.S. SECRETARY 
OF LABOR; ET AL. , 

„ Defendants. 



3 1 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 



PLAINTIFFS' POINTS AND 
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 
OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 



I. 

JURISDICTIONAL 
Farm workers recently brought suit against the federally- 
funded Florida State Farm Labor Offices pursuant to the very 
employment section of the Wagner-Peyser Act involved herein. 
Gomez v. Florida State Employment Service . 417 F . 2d 569 (5th 
Cir., 1969). Gomez and other farm workers alleged that they were 
deprived by State employment service officials of wages and 
working condition benefits promised by the act and regulations. 
The Fifth Circuit unanimously held that the court had juris- 
diction, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §49, et seg_. , 42 U.S.c'. §1337, 



4633 



42 U.S.C. §1343 and 42 U.S.C. §1983, the jurisdictional sections 

presented herein. 

Moreover, the court held that the complaint against the 

State Farm Labor Office stated a claim for which relief could 

readily be granted. 

"We start with the proposition that there can be 
no doubt that the regulations of the Secretary of 
Labor were intended to 'protect the interests of 
the workers. The conditions were deplorable.... 
There were no standards. The Secretary was concerned 
about preventing the use of the federal resources 
to help prolong these conditions and to subvert 
other efforts to improve the conditions of the 
workers . In words attributable to the Secretary 
of Labor, the regulations were said to be designed 
to prevent 'the public employment service from 
being utilized to send workers over long distances 
to employment providing quarters dangerous to their 
health and safety.' ... The Secretary's concern 
with workers, their wages, living and transporta- 
tion conditions as being at the heart of the Secre- 
tary's purpose in promulgating more effective 
standards as attested by the attorney general's 
paraphrase:" (at 575, emphasis added.) 



■ "Thus from the legislative history and from 
the regulations themselves it is plain that they 
were intended to confer an interest upon migrant 
farm workers such as plaintiffs here." (at 575) 



II. 

RELIEF 

The legal remedies sought by the plaintiffs, either the 

cutting off of federal funds to the California Farm Labor Office 

or compelling it to meet its statutory and regulatory obligations 

were discussed in Gomez , and the court held that both remedies 

are readily available: 

"It is unthinking that Congress, obviously 
concerned with people, would have left the 
Secretary with only the sanction of cutting off 
funds to the state . . . Congress more and more 
commits to individuals, acting as a private 
attorney general, the effectuation of public 
rights through relief to individuals." (417 
F.2d at 576) . 

See also Munoz v. California Department of Employment 

(#191631, July 31, 1969, unpublished opionion, Sacramento 

-2- 

36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- t 



4634 



Superior Court) in which the court held that the State 
defendants herein had an affirmative obligation to personally 
investigate agricultural field sanitation and safety conditions 
before referring farm workers. The decision was based on 
undisputed evidence showing that: 1) every farm worker referred 
by the State Farm Labor Office was referred to a grower who 
violated fundamental State sanitation laws, such as absence 
of toilets (1,869 violations proved), and to growers who violated 
minimum wages (481 violations) ; and 2) the Farm Labor Office 
itself flagrantly violated State sanitation and safety laws 
by refusing to provide or require any drinking water or safe 
buses to farm workers . 

III. 

IMPORTANCE OF IMMEDIATE RELIEF 

The Fifth Circuit in Gomez , supra , eloquently stated the 

harm being caused to the plaintiffs by Farm Labor Offices that 

fail to protect their rights: 

"The aim of the plaintiffs through appropriate 
judicial remedies, is to secure for themselves 
the fundamentals of human dignity. They seek to 
protect their right to decent housing and sani- 
tary living conditions so they and their children 
may be free of disease. They seek to protect 
their ability to work for the wages which Congress 
has in effect determined to be the minimum to- 
which they are entitled. They seek sanctions for 
having been deprived of some of these few pro- 
tections designed by Congress to lift them out 
of economic-sociologic, peonage. Such fundamental 
human, highly personalized rights are just the 
stuff from which Section 1983 claims are . to be 
made." (417 F.2d at 579) 

The 1970 agricultural year is just about to commence in 

California. It is already in full swing in Imperial County. 

The number of farm worker jobs will quadruple in the next 45 

days. Therefore, immediate relief is essential for protection 

of the fundamental rights of these workers, including protection 

of their health and safety. 

-3- 



4635 

IV. 

THE WAGNER-PEYSER ACT AND THE 

REGULATIONS FULLY GUARANTEE THE 

RELIEF SOUGHT HEREIN 

In the alternative to cutting off federal funds to the 
State Farm Labor Offices, a right clearly available to the 
Secretary of Labor, ( Gomez , supra and 20 C.F.R. §602.20 & 22) 
plaintiffs have sought (see Exhibit B attached to the complaint) 
to compel a Fair Employment Plan to oversee the Farm Labor 
Offices by a committee of farm workers, growers and U. S. 
Labor Department officials in accordance with the Wagner-Peyser 
Act and federal regulations and State Farm Labor Office 
Regulations promulgated thereunder. These regulations clearly 
bestow and gurantee in unequivocal and specific fashion the 
right of American farm workers to the "best jobs available" and 
the highest prevailing wages in accordance with federal, State 
and local laws. The regulations specif ically d=ny growers the 
use of any Farm Labor Office service if they are in violation 
of "any federal, state or local law." Set forth below is a 
compendium of the applicable federal regulations enacted pur- 
suant to the Wagner-Peyser Act and the California Farm Labor 
Office Regulations promulgated in accordance with said federal 
regulations. 

Federal Regulations : 

"Each State desiring to receive the benefits 
of the Wagner-Peyser Act shall submit detailed plans 
for carrying out the provisions of the act in ac- 
cordance with the instructions . . . prescribed by 
the Secretary of Labor. (20 C.F.R. §602.20) 

"[Each State must] Submit a statement that 
the State agency will adhere to the basic standards 
set forth as United States Employment Service 
policies . . . and will maintain an organication 
and procedures necessary to carry out effectively 
such policies." (20 C.F.R. §603.4) 

-4- 



4636 



"It is the policy of the United States Employment 
Service: .... (20 C.F.R. §604.1): 

"To ensure so far as practicable that workers 
are placed on jobs which utilitze their highest 
skills." 20 C.F.R, §604. 1(f) 

"To make no referral as a result of which a 
charge would be made either to the worker or 
the employer for filling the job." (20 C.F.R, §604,1 (h). 

"To make no referral to a position where the 
services to be performed or the terms or conditions 
of employment are contrary to federal. State or 
local law." (20 C.F.R. §604.1 (j) 

"To recruit no workers for employment if the 
wages, hours, or other conditions of work offered 
are substantially less favorable to the individual 
than those prevailing for similar work in the 
locality." (20 C.F.R. §604. 1 (k) 

"It is the policy of the United States Employ- 
ment Service ... to actively cooperate with State 
health agencies in programs affecting agricultural 
workers." (20 C.F.R, §604.5) 



State Regulations Pursuant to Federal Regulations : 

The following regulations are from the State Department of 
Employment, Local Office Manual: Farm Placement Operations; 
Management and Supervision: 

"Whenever possible, place workers on jobs which 
use their highest skills or provide the highest 
earning potential." (§2106(5)) 

"To make no referral to a position where the 
services to be performed or the terms or condi- 
tions of employment are contrary to Federal, 
State, or local law." (§2106(9)) 

"To recruit no workers for employment if the 
wages, hours, or other conditions of work offered 
are substantially less favorable to the individual 
than those prevailing for similar work in the 
locality." (§2106(10)) 

"A domestic unemployed worker ... is entitled 
to the best job we have to offer . . . and which 
is not in violation of any Federal or State laws 
or regulations. The best job is that job which 
would provide the applicant with one, or a combina- 
tion of the following factors: 

a. An opportunity to utilize his highest skill . 

b. Has the highest earning potential or longsst 
job duration. 

c . The most desirable working conditions , crop 
activity, housing facilities, transportation 
arrangements or accessability to the job." 
(§2159(3)) 

/// /// 

-5- 



4637 



"Do not accept orders under the following conditions: 

(b) If services are to be performed or 
conditions of employment are contrary to 
Federal, State or local law." (§2139(3)) 

"Discontinue referral immediately if you find 
that any order already taken contains factors 
making it unacceptable under policies for 
order taking. Contact the employer and attempt 
to get him to remove the unacceptable factors; 
if he will not, advise him you must cancel 
the order." (§2160(6)) 

"Recruit no workers for employment if the 
wages, hours, or other conditions of work are 
substantially less- favorable to the individual 
than those prevailing for similar work in the 
locality." (§2160(7)) 

"An order is substandard if the wages offered, 
the hours of work, or working conditions are 
substantially below the standard in your com- 
munity for the type of work. 

When you receive a substandard order tell 
the employer which factors are substandard. 
If he declines to change the order, tell him 
there is only a limited chance the opening 
can be filled and the Department will make 
no attempt to recruit workers ." (§2153) 

"Where there are numerous quits of a parti- 
cular employer, interview workers to determine 
the reason. If quits seem to be attributable 
to the employer or his representative, discuss 
the problem with the employer and seek to 
achieve a remedy to the problem." (§2176 (1) (e) ) 

"The . . . farm labor office seeks to aid . . . 
farm workers from wage loss from lack of job 
opportunity " (§2103) 

"Provide the applicant any information which 
may increase his opportunity for agricultural 
employment." (§2110(9)) 

"It is the joint responsibility of the local 
office and the employer to keep orders current 
and to review the orders as often as necessary 
to insure that they reflect an accurate need 
of workers and the conditions of employment 
being offered." (§2139(4)) 

"An agricultural order ... II]nvolves recording 
information about ... I the] order and an em- 
ployer which will tell [W] hat attractions 

the job and the working conditions offer an 
applicant." (§2140) 

"To the extent possible, each placement 
interviewer should visit key agricultural 



-6- 



4638 



1 establishments to keep his occupational 
knowledge up to date." (§2104) (Emphasis 

2 where underlined.) 
Dated: March 3, 1970. 

3 Respectfully submitted, 

4 GLICK, GNAIZDA, REYNOSO, YEGHIAYAN, 

ABASCAL, ALTSHULER, BRENNAN, DELEVETT 

5 FRETZ, LIVINGSTON, MC CABE, POWELL, 

WILSON and YNOSTROZA 

6 

7 

By * vv ./^M,A\ 
8 Robert L. Gnaizda 



11 



9 

10 Martin R. Glick 



Robert L. G 



'AJl^ M_c,.(L^-_; 



12 VARTKES YEGHIAYAN <f" 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 

-7- 



4639 



GLICK, GNAIZDA, REYNOSO, 
YEGIIIAYAN, ABASCAL, ALTSilULER, 
BRENHAN, DELEVETT , FRET 2 , 

LIVINGSTON, MC CABE, POWELL, C ! ."' : i' ?A!.. 

WILSON, and YNOSTROZA, p i" | rr rj 

California Rural Legal Assistance ' *"* ' " 

1212 Market Street . ,. 

San Francisco, California ■ . "• *< 1 n '3 '-J 

Telephone:" (415) 863-4911 



CLERK, U. S. DiC-T. COL-RT 

v-.Wj I ii/i..u.«"_-u 



LOUIS GARCIA, ALFONSO GONZALES, 
ROBERT E. GONZALES 

Mexican-American Political Association 
Mexican-American Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 
1231 Market Street 
San Francisco, California 
Telephone: (415) 626-8100 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
250 FARM WORKERS, et al . , 

Plaintiffs, 
vs. 



GEORGE SHULTZ, U.S. SECRETARY 
OF LABOR, et al. , 

Defendants. 



CIVIL ACTION NO. C-70 481 AJZ 
REPLY BRIEF 



The Court requested a clear statement of issues from the 
parties. Therefore Part I, immediately following^ contains the 
proposed order, and an explicit point by point breakdown of each 
part of that order stating [1] the precise regulations involved, 
[2] the actual practice which is out of compliance with the 
regulations, with documentation, [3] the feasibility of compliance 
with the law, and [4] a one sentence summary of the language of 
the proposed order . 

Part II is "irreparable injury" — setting forth the urgency 
of action to prevent injury from pesticide poisonings and 
unhealthy sanitary conditions and setting forth the enormous cost 
to California farm workers of continued non-compliance with law. 

The remaining sections other than the last one deal with 



4640 



l 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
6 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



defendants' affidavits and statistics--to show that these suppor t 
plaintiffs' case. The final section contains the legal authority 
for plaintiffs' proposed preliminary injunction requiring defen- 
dants to obey their own rules. 



PROPOSED ORDER 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants be restrained and 
enjoined during the pendancy of this action from: 

A. Refusing (1) to require and record on each employer 
order form information concerning health and sanitation facilities 
and pesticide use at the job site, (2) to post in a conspicuous 
place this information along with information concerning wage 
offered, anticipated job duration, and the approximate location of 
the job, and (3) to reject any job order out of compliance with 
law. 

B. Refusing to verify wage and working condition 
information received from employers by checking these conditions 
during routine field visits, by declining to serve employers, 
found out of compliance with law, until the unlawful condition 
is corrected, and by developing a plan to suspend service to 
employers found to be repeated violators. 

C. Providing any service to farm labor contractors or 
other persons who receive any fee or charge for providing workers 
to another. 

D. Accepting any order listing a wage below the pre- 
vailing wage, including any piece rate order which does not 
guarantee that each worker placed will receive no less than the 
prevailing wage. 

E. Refusing to form a state advisory council and 
advisory councils in local communities served, such committee to 
be fairly and equally representative of the interests of both 
farm employers and employees. 



4641 



F. Refusing to require minimum job durations and pay 
on orders placed, depending upon the nature of the order, but 
not to bo less than 8 hours on pool placements and one week on 
regular jobs v/hich are not cancelled by the employer prior to 
the time the referred employee arrives at the job site. 

I 
POINT BY POINT BREAKDOVJN OF PROPOSED ORDER 

A. HEALTH AND SANITATION VIOLATIONS (TOILETS 
AND DRINKING WATER) 

1. Regulations 

It is the policy of the United States 
Employment "Service. . .To make no referral to 
a position where the services to be performed 
or the terms of conditions of employment are 
contrary to federal, State or local law. 
[20 C.F.R. §604. l(j), see also identical 
State Reg. §2106 (9) ) .2 

State regulation §2159(3) further amplifies this. It 
states that a domestic farm worker "is entitled to the best job 
we have to offer [including] " The most desirable working 
conditions . " (emphasis added) . 

State regulations specifically prohibit accepting any 
job orders from growers who violate any applicable laws: "Do not 
accept orders under the following- conditions : . . .If services 
are to be performed or conditions of employment are contrary to 
federal, State or local law (§2193(3))." 

State regulations specifically require the Farm Labor 
Office to include on its employer' s job orders: "the conditions 



The Proposed Order with captions is attached to this brief. 

2 
State regulations are found in the State Department of 
Employment, Local Office Manual: Farm Placement Operations 
Management and Supervision . 

/// 



1 

2 
3 
4 

5 
6 
7 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
1G 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



4642 



of employment being offered." (§2139(4))", and to "record. . . 
information about. . .the order and an employer which v/ill tell, 
what attractions the job and the working conditions offer an 
applicant (S2140) 

iMost significantly, State regulations require that "each 
placement interviewer should visit key agricultural establishments 
to keep his occupational knowledge up to date." (§2104) 

And in Munoz v. State Department of .Employment (Sac. Sup* 
Ct., #191631, July, 1969) the Sacramento Superior Court held that 
the very defendants herein had an affirmative duty to verify 
health and sanitation conditions before accepting a job order due 
to 90% of all growers violating toilet and drinking water 
requirements. (1/869 health and sanitation violations proved 
in one year in Salinas Valley) . 

2. Actual Practice 

Despite these regulations mandating the defendants to 
verify working conditions and prohibiting the use of their free 
services by law violators, the Director of the State Farm Labor 
Service and the long-time manager of the Sonoma County Farm 
Labor Office testified that their policies were: 

(a) Never to verify agricultural working conditions 
(Dep., Eisley 55-56); 

(b) Never to inquire of employers as to actual working 
conditions (Dep., Eisley, 55-58); 

(c) Never to refuse service to an employer even if they 
received "1,000 complaints" from Santa Rosa workers. (Dep., 
Eisley, 136-138) . 

Affidavits (E-AN) further verify the defendants' refusal to obey 
their own rules and regulations. 

3 . Feasibility of Obeying Their Own Rule s 

Obviously the mere existence of the rules is sufficient 
proof of feasibility. Ha-.-ever, the defendants' farm labor 



-4- 



4643 



managers on deposition admitted that actual field verification 
of working conditions was totall y feasible. 

Eisley, the Manager of the Santa Rosa Office, testified 
that in 1969, his office made 695 separate, personal field visits 
to growers' and that on the average each grower was personally 
visited at his farm twice a year for about an hour each time 
(Dep. , 49-58). Moreover, he admitted that the majority of the 
available space on the employer job order form he uses relates 
exclusively to working conditions, including whether toilets and 
drinking water are available (Dep., 159-163). 

Despite State Farm Labor Office policy being not to 
obey their own rules, Pat Crow, the manager of the Imperial Farm 
Labor Office admitted that he violates State policy and does 
verify toilets and drinking water violations by personally 
checking on their existence during grower field visits (480- 
3600 field visits a year) (Dep. , Crow, 62-68) . 

The Imperial County Sanitarian admitted that his office 
cannot effectively enforce field sanitation laws, that he requires 
the assistance of the Farm Labor Office to effectively enforce 
these laws, and that it is quite feasible for the Farm Labor 
Office to verify if applicable health and sanitation laws are 
being obeyed. (Ex. AW) See also the affidavits of other 
County Sanitarians supporting the 'Imperial County Sanitarian's 
position that county agricultural health departments are under- 
staffed, require the active assistance of the Farm Labor Office, 
and believe the Farm Labor Office has the expertise, to be fully 
effective. (Ex. AX, AY). 

A striking illustration of the feasibility of the 
defendants' assuming their regulatory responsibility as to 
working conditions is contained in the attached February, 1970, 
Farm Labor Service bulletin to farm workers, Ex. AQ. The 
government promises the farm worker a good job, then guarantees 



4644 



1 to him seventeen specific rights as to housing alone, and then 

2 ends with the following unequivocal admission of responsibility 

3 and acknowledgement of feasibility: 



4 If your employer does not provide these 

[seventeen] things, tell the Farm Labor 
Representative at the nearest local office 
of the State employment service. 



5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

31 

32 



4 . Proposed Order 

The proposed order to protect the health of farm workers 
would simply prohibit defendants from failing to secure health 
and sanitation assurances when job orders are placed, from 
refusing to verify working conditions during the field visits 
which they routinely make, and from failing to institute a plan 
to withhold service from employers who violate the law. 

B. PESTICIDES 

1. Regulations 

The applicable regulations are set forth supra , 

"A. Health and Sanitation Violations," at p. 3. In addition, 

the regulations require the Farm Labor Office "to actively 

cooperate with State Health agencies in programs affecting 

agricultural workers" (20 C.F.R. §604.5); to provide the farm 

worker with job orders that reflect. . .the conditions of 

employment being offered" [State Reg., §2139(4)]; and to: 

Discontinue referral immediately if you find 
that any order already taken contains factors making 
it unacceptable. . .contact .the employer and attempt 
to get him to remove the unacceptable factors . " 
[State Reg., §2160(5), emphasis added] and: 

It is the policy of the United States Employment 
Service. . .to refer young workers [25% of all job 
placements involve persons under 21] to jobs which 
are not injurious to their health and welfare. . ." 
(20 C.F.R. 604.6, emphasis added). 

2 . Actual Practice 

The State defendants all testified at deposition that 
it is their policy, despite their employer job order form 
requiring information as to working conditions: 



4645 



(a) 11 ever to inquire of growers as to any matter 
relating to the use of pesticides; 

, (b) N ever to verify if a grower is unlawfully spraying 
his fields with toxic pesticides while employing workars , 
despite the State Farm Labor Office making forty thousand (40,000) 
personal field visits to growers in 1969 (Dep. , Eisley, 154-167). 
3 . Feasibility 

The State's total refusal to obey its own regulations 
as to protecting farm workers from unlawful and hazardous working 
conditions exists despite: 

(a) its employer job order forms making specific reference 
to "working conditions." (Dep., Eisley, pp. 159-163); 

(b) its personnel making 40,000 annual personal, separate 
field visits to growers; 

(c) Pat Crow, its Imperial Farm Labor Office manager 
admitting that it was totally feasible for his office to inquire 
of and verify pesticide usage (Dep., p. 52); 

(d) its own December, 1969, study documenting that 37,500 
farm workers annually (12% of all farm workers) are harmed by 
extreme, uncontrolled use of pesticides. 

The ease with which pesticide information could be 
supplied to farm workers is illustrated by the prevailing practice 
in California field and tree crops'. No cannery will accept any 
crop until the grower supplies the cannery with full information 
as to when he commenced the use of pesticides, the dates of use, 
the exact quantity and quality of pesticides, and the exact 
locations of such use (attached hereto as Ex. BI is a copy of 
such form, plus a typical contract) . Set forth below is part of 
said form: 
/// 

/// 
/// 



-7- 



4646 



o 


1 




- 




E 

G 
G 

S 


"T 


— 


- 


— 


- 


- 


- 




- 


-- 


- 


- 


- 


■■- 


- 


■ 


- 


E 




u 


* 






































§ 5 










































I g 


>* 


■ 


t' s - 
| 2 £ 


o 




































n. 


il! 

<6< 














• m 




















i, 

u 

-o 
r: 
D 

C 

o 

E 
<- 

D 

o 
1. 

1- 


o 

o ! 
| ] 

i 


i 

•i 


s 


































1 




o 

y 

"<3 


B 




II 


j 


































1 1' 


o 


| 


~* 


5 


































5 

E 


S 



o 



o 



o 



4. Proposed Order 

The proposed order to protect the safety of farm workers 
would enjoin defendants from failing to secure pesticide infor- 
mation at the time an order is placed. 

C. ILLEGAL FEES 
1 . Regulati on 

It is the policy of the IJnited States Employment 
Service to make no referral as a result of which a 
charge would be made either to the worker or the 
employee for filling the job. (20 C.F.R., 560-:. 1(h)) 



4647 



2 . Actual Practice 

Both farm office managers deposed, Milton Eisley and 
Pat Crow, testified that they make referrals to farm labor 
contractors. (The Calexico Farm Labor Office manager testified 
that 30% to 503 of all office referrals — 150,000 to 200,000 per 
year--wcrc to middleman -contractors who own no land and grow no 
crops). [Dep. , Crow, 38, 44; Dep., Eisley, 204-205]. Pat Crow 
testified that these middlemen are then paid by growers at, for- 
example, 25 cents a head for each hour of work done or 5 cents 
a box for each box picked by a worker [Dep. , 43] . Thus if the 
Farm Labor Office sends 100 workers to a contractor-middleman and 
the workers work 8 hours, the contractor-middleman receives a 
charge from the employers of $200.00 a day. A direct referral 
from the Farm Labor Office to the actual employer would have 
enabled the farmer to pay each worker $1.90 an hour, instead of 
$1.65. Mr. Eisley testified that, though they might tell an 
applicant about the jobs of higher pay, they would make referrals 
where the contractor was in effect taking a cut from the farm 
worker's pay: 

Q. Would [you] refer workers out at $1.65 an 
hour to a farm labor contractor if other employers in 
the area were paying more than $1.65 to identical workers? 
. . .[Dep. 207] 

A. Yes. 

Pat Crow testified that he wasn't aware of any regulation having 
to do with use of the farm labor service by a middleman [Dep. 
41, 42] . He stated that information about what the grower is 
paying the contractor and the nature of their arrangement was 
irrelevant [Dep., 44]. This practice probably accounts for the 
many referrals made below the $2.00 to $3.00 an hour wage the 
State Farm Labor Office bulletin describes to be the general pre- 
vailing wage. [Cal. Annual Farm Labor Report, 1968, p. 20] . 

3 . Feasi bility 

Implementation would present no problem whatsoever. The 

-9- 



1 

2 

3 
4 
5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
10 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



4648 



Farm Labor Office would accept orders only from those who owned 
or leased the crop or land to be worked upon, just as they are 
doing now with 502 to 705 of the orders placed. During operation 
of the foreign labor program, the defendants refused to allow labc 
contractors to use their services to receive foreign labor but 
would only refer them to legitimate growers. [20 C.F.R., 
§§602.9 et seq.) . 
4. Proposed Order 

The proposed order, in the language of the regulation, 
enjoins the defendants from referring workers to persons who 
receive money for providing workers to another. 

D. PREVAILING WAGE 

1. Regulations 

It is the policy of the United States Employment Service 
to recruit no workers for employment if the wages, hours, or 
other conditions of work offered are substantially less favorable 
to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in 
the locality. 20 C.F.R. §604.5 [Similar state regulation is 
§2106(10)] 

2. Actual Practice 

The farm labor managers have required nothing more than 
minimum wage on hourly pay orders placed with them. [Dep. , 
Eisley, 173; Dep., Crow, 71). Farm Labor Offices Chief Tolbert 
testified that his offices make no inquiry and wish to receive 
no information concerning wages actually being paid. [Dep. 66-68] 
He further testified that when they do compute prevailing wage, it 
is computed solely from orders placed with their offices without 
regard to wages offered by growers who do not need to resort 
to the placement office to find workers. [Dep., 80]. Pat Crow 
testified that he makes no computation whatever on prevailing 
wage. [Dep., 78), [See also Ex. AO: affidavit of California's 
second largest strawberry grower that growers who pay poor wages 



10- 



4649 



do use the Farm .Labor Service] . 

In actuality, however, the Farm Labor Office routinely 
accepts orders at below the minimum wage. Just about half the 
orders placed specify no hourly wage at all. [Dep. , Eisley, 233] 
These orders offer v/orkers a "piece" rate, e.g. 16 cents a box 
for tomatoes or $4.00 a bin for apples picked off the ground. 
[Dep., Eisley, 172-182; Dep., Crow, 72-73]. In deposition both 
Farm Labor Office managers and director Tolbert testified that 

neither they nor their staff members had any idea what number 

3 
of bins or boxes a good worker could pick in an hour. [Dep., 

Eisley, 174, 177-179; Dep., Crow, 72-73]. Thus the Farm Labor 

Office in Santa Rosa has accepted $4.00 a bin jobs in apples 

although even the best worker cannot pick more than 2 bins (3,000 

lbs) of apples in an 8 hour day. [One bin holds 30 boxes of 

apples] . [Ex. BK; Dep. , Eisleyj 172-182] . Payroll records are 

never checked by Farm Labor Office employees. [Dep., Crow, 66; 

Dep. , Tolbert, 67] . Mr. Eisley testified that his office would 

not conduct a countywide survey of piece rates even if a legitimat 

group of farm workers presented. to his office documentary evidence 

that the growers by whom they were employed during the year were 

paying average piece rate wages of only $1.10 per hour. [Dep., 18 

Pursuant to the Wagner-Peyser Act the Secretary of Labor 

has instituted regulations requiring, if foreign labor is to be 

used, that each v/orker receive no less than the prevailing, hourly 

wage. Those regulations deal specifically with the piece rate 

gimmick: 



There is good reason to doubt the accuracy of this testimony as 
several of the Santa Rosa Farm Labor Office staff members are 
growers or are related to growers. For'example, Mrs. Blasi 
referred workers to her own ranch. There wore 40 referrals to 
the Blasi Ranch by the Santa Rosa Office, some on the piece rate 
[Dep. , Eisley, 257-260] [See Exhibits BQ and BR, affidavits of 
workers who were referred to the Blasi Ranch and received no 
work] . 



-11- 



2] 



9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 



4650 



Piece rates shall be designed to produce hourly 
earnings at least equivalent to the hourly rate 
specified [prevailing wage] and no workers shall be 
paid less than the specified hourly rate. The 
computation of makeup pay shall be made on a pay 
period basis and makeup pay shall be paid to each 
.worker whose average hourly earnings in the pay 
' 'period do not equal the specified hourly rate.. 
1(20 C.F.R. §602.10b(2)) 
i 
3. Feasibilit y 

About half the orders now placed specify an hourly rate. 

[Dep., Eisley, 233]. The only change then would simply be a 
requirement that each employer promise that he will pay no less i 
than the prevailing hourly rate for each worker referred. As 
mentioned previously, the Labor Department and State of Calif orniJ 
have previously operated such a system in connection with 

importation of foreign labor. 

4. Proposed Order 

The proposed order would specifically prohibit defendants 

from allowing growers to subvert the prevailing wage by listing 

only piece rate pay. 

E. LIST OF AVAILABLE JOBS 



1. Regulations 

' The regulations require that each farm worker be given the 
maximum exposure to all available jobs, rather than to only one 
job. The Farm Labor Service's industrial counterpart, with whicl 
it generally shares rental space and a common entrance, requires 
that all available jobs be posted. [Dep., Tolbert 134]. The 
Farm Labor Service refuses to do so. [Dep., Tolbert, 132-133]. 
The regulations, however, state that the Farm Labor Office must: 
"Provide the applicant any information which may increase 
his opportunity for agricultural employment." [§2110(9), emphas 

added] . 

"A domestic unemployed worker. . .is entitled to the 

best job we have to offer . . .'12159(3), emphasis added]. 

"The. . .farm labor office seeks to aid. . .farm 



-12- 



4651 



workers from wage loss from lack of job opportunity. . ." (S2103) 

2 . Actual Pr actice ' • 

Practically every Farm Labor Office refuses to make public 
a list of pertinent information about pending jobs. Bill Tolbert 
stated that even though he knew that jobs arc listed for all 
v/orkers except farm workers , he would not change this practice. 
[Dep., 132, 133, 105, 106]. The Farm Labor Offices have an 
obsession with their statistics, constantly seeking to inflate . 
them. Thus Tolbert testified that he wouldn't list all jobs 
because the office might occasionally lose a statistic if the 
farm worker found the job from the blackboard. He testified that 
"Well, certainly, that [statistics] is part of the game." [Dep., 
133] . 

Thus a farm worker entering a Farm Labor Office cannot 
find out the location of available jobs. He cannot read for 
himself the wages that are being offered or the likely duration 
of the job or the type of work or any other specific information. 
He can only learn what the office employee decides to tell him. 
[Ex. A] Frank Valenzuela, former Farm Labor Office employee, 
stated in his^af f idavit, that the offices are grower-dominated 
and oriented. Thus v/orkers are frequently referred to the worst 
jobs (long distance away, poor pay or working conditions, thin 
crop) because that grower has the' hardest time recruiting on 
his ov/n. [Ex. A] Grower Tom Driscoll confirms this. [Ex. AO] . 
In Santa Rosa (see footnote 3 supra ) , Farm Labor Office employees 
refer workers to their own ranch and director Bill Tolbert, an 
orange grower for 20 years in Ventura county, testified that he 
sees nothing wrong with it. [Dep., 100]. 

3 . Fea sibility 

Imperial County Farm Labor Office director Pat Crow 
testified on deposition that, even at the Calexico day haul 
where 1/4 of all California placements occurred in 19G9, ho 



■13- 



4652 



requires growers to list on one of his £ive giant blackboards 
their name, crop activity, wage, expected job duration, and 
sometimes place of employment. [Dep. , 29, 30, 35]. The black- 
boards are adjusted every day to record accurate information. 
[Dep, 3G] . Milton Eisley in Santa Rosa testified that all this 
information is available on a board facing away from workers 
who come to the counter. [Dep., 151-52] Simply by turning the 
board at an angle the information on available jobs would be 
visible to all who are seeking the best available job. [Dep. , 152 
4 . Proposed Order 

In accordance with disclosure regulations and duty to 
provide the best job, the proposed order restrains defendants 
from refusing to make public to each worker the full range of 
available jobs and pertinent information pertaining to the jobs. 
F. ADVISORY COUNCILS 

1. Regulations 

Federal regulations require that each local Farm Labor 

Office, as well as the State Farm Labor Office, maintain formal 

relationships with farm workers and growers through the creation 

of advisory councils: 

Each State agency shall maintain a State advisory 
council. . .and shall maintain local advisory councils, 
in such communities and constituted in such manner as 
the State agency deems necessary to promote and assist in 
the carrying out of the services and activities 
described in those regulations. (20 C.F.R. §602.17, 
emphasis added) . 

It is the policy of the United States Employment 
Service. . .To cooperate with other agencies of 
government and private and community organizations 
to improve the employment process and to participate 
in community programs for the same purposes. (20 
C.F.R. §604.12) 

2 . Actual Practice 

The vast majority of the Farm Labor Offices have no 
advisory councils. Eisley, the Sonoma County Farm Labor Office 
manager, testified that: 



-14- 



4653 



(a) His office has no advisory council, does not want 

one and sees no purpose in having one. 

; (b) Seven years ago his office had an advisory council. 

and " all of its members were growers. [Dep., 119-121]. Pat Crow's 

1 
testimony was that he saw no use for advisory committees. [Dep., 

109]. 

3. Feasibility 

None of the defendants deposed questioned the feasibility 
of advisory councils, pursuant to federal regulations. One, 
Eisley, stated that in fact he used to haveone, consisting solely 
of growers. [Dep., 119-120]. Host federally-funded programs, 
such as OEO Legal Service programs, have statewide and local 
advisory councils .that meet regularly. 

4 . Proposed Order 

The order suggested is in the words of the regulations 
requiring the state and local areas to form representative 
advisory councils. 

G. MINIMUM JOB DURATION 

1. Regulations 

An order is substandard if. . . the hours of work . . . 
are substantially below the standard in your community 
for the type of work. [§2160(7)] 

It is the joint responsibility of the local office 
and the employers to keep orders current and to review 
the orders' as often as necessary to insure that they 
reflect an accurate need of workers and the conditions 
of employment being offered. [§2139(4)] 

The Farm Labor Office seeks to aid. . .farm workers 
from wage loss from lack of job opportunity [§2103]. 

A domestic unemployed worker. . .is entitled to the 
best job we have to offe r. . .[§2159(3), emphasis added]. 

2 . Actual Pract ice 

The Farm Labor Office will accept any order regardless 
of the duration of the job. Milton Eisley testified that it is 
a placement even if there is only 30 minutes of work. [Dep. , 
16G] . Pat Crow testified that ten minutes was sufficient [Dep., 



•15- 



1 

2 
3 

4 
5 

6 
7 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



4G54 



84]. Furthermore a farm applicant is often given no information 
about the expected duration of the job he is being sent to. 

Secondly, there is no requirement that a grower call in 
and cancel his order if the grower independently fills the job. 
Thus if a farm worker drives 50 miles to a job which was filled 
the day before, the worker gets nothing and forfeits his 
gasoline money. [Affidavits A, E-Z] . 

There are numerous affidavits filed with the court 
citing the frequency with which this occurs. Gilberto Valenzuela 
[Ex. L] was referred to a job in the state of Washington. When 
he arrived he found about 500 workers in a camp there. Fortunate 1 
workers were given 2 to 3 hours work a day. Some were given no 1 
work at all. Gilberto Valenzuela returned to Calexico and 
told other workers about to be sent to the same job in Washington < 
what the conditions were really like. Upon doing so he. was 
.scolded and threatened by a farm labor office employee [Ex. L, 
p. 3] . Others include Robert Guerrero [Ex. E] , — 15 minute job; 
Antonio Lopez [Ex. F] — no work at all when he arrived at job; 
Survey in Calexico of 125 workers [Ex. J] --90% had been sent to 
jobs with less than a full day's pay causing loss for the day's 
efforts; Domingo Valdez [Ex. V]--125 mile round trip to employer 
who had no buckets and Michael Onofrey [Ex. Z] — 5 hour bus ride 
for 36 workers given no more than 3 hours work each. 

As shown by Exhibits A, K, L, M, and Z, employers fre- 
quently ask for more workers than they can possibly use so that 
they will be certain to get enough of them, so that they pick out 
the ones they like best, and so that they can deal quickly and 
effectively with any worker who ventures to complain about 
promised wages or lack of proper sanitation. 
3 . Feasibility 

When employers placed orders with the Department of 
Labor for foreign workers they were required to show that they 



-16- 



■ 



4655 



had offered U.S. .workers guaranteed jobs'. The guarantee was for 
3/4 of the work days in the period. Thus, since the minimum 
order was six weeks, guaranteed jobs had to be offered for a full 
month . If the employer then failed to provide the month's work, 



he was obligated to pay the worker just as if he had worked the 

4 
full month. 

It would be no problem for the Farm Labor Office to simply 
refuse to accept job orders of less than a specified minimum. 



The full regulation is as follows: The offers to U.S. workers, 
shall Guarantee each worker the opportunity for employment for at 
least three-fourths of the workdays of the total period during 
which the work contract and all extensions thereof are in effect, 
beginning with the - first workday after the worker's arrival 
at the place of employment and ending on the termination date 
specified in the work contract, or its extensions, if any. For 
purposes of the work contract, a workday consists of 8 hours 
of any day except Sunday, New Year's Day, July 4, Labor Day, 
Thanksgiving, or Christmas. If. the worker, during such period, 
is afforded less employment than required under this provision, 
the worker shall be paid the amount which he would have earned 
had he, in fact, worked for the guaranteed number of days. 
Where wages are paid on a piece rate basis, the worker's average 
hourly earnings shall be used for the purpose of computing 
amounts due. under this guarantee. In determining whether the 
guarantee of employment has been met, any hours which the 
worker fails to work during a workday when he is afforded the 
opportunity to do so by the employer, and all hours of work 
performed, shall be counted in calculating the days of 
employment required to meet this guarantee. If, before the 
expiration date specified in the work contract the services of th 
worker are n5 longer required for reasons beyond the control 
of the emoloyer (due to an Act of God, such as frost, flood, 
drought, earthquake, hail, forest fire, or other natural 
calamity of such character as to make the fulfillment of the 
contract imoossible) , and this fact is determined by the 
Regional Administrator, the work contract may be terminated 
and efforts will be made to transfer the worker to other 
comparable employment. If such transfer is not effected, the 
worker shall be returned to the place of recruitment at the 
emoloyer' s expense. In either event deductions for transportati 
and subsistence en route from the place of recruitment to the pla 
of employment made pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section 
shall be refunded. Whenever the contract is terminated under 
this provision, the employer shall be responsible for the 
three-fourths guarantee for the period beginning with the first 
workday after the worker's arrival at the place of . employment 
and ending with the date the work contract is terminated, and 
the emoloyer shall pay the worker all other amounts due under the 
contract. (20C.F.R. §602 . 10a (h) ) . 

/// 
/// 

-17- 



4656 



4 . Proposed Order 

The order in light of regulations prohibiting "substandard" 
job orders offering no job duration beyond a few minutes or hours 
and mandating that orders be "kept current" restrains defendants 
from accepting job orders which do not specify at least a day's 
work on the daily placements and a week of work on full 
applications and from refusing to require payment unless the 
employer timely cancels the work order. 
/// 
/// 
/// 

/// 
/// 
/// 
/// 
/// 
/// 
/// 

/// 
/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// ' . 

/// 

/// 

/// ' 

/// 

/// 
/// 
/// 



-18- 



4657 



IRREPARABLE INJURY 

Although the agricultural season in California never ceases 
altogether, the months of lowest activity are February, March and 
April. The season actually begins in Hay as the total placements 
(using defendants' own statistics) double from April and then 
increase seven-fold by July. [Crow dep. Exs. B and C] Unless 
relief is afforded now, no help will be forthcoming to California 
farm workers until the 1971 growing season, causing incalculable 
physical and financial harm to these workers. 

The Court can take judicial notice that federal and state 
sanitation requirements are designed to protect the health of the 
workers. Exhibits- AR-AV specifically cite the danger. Fred 
Singh, Imperial County sanitarian, warned that two cases of 
typhoid fever in 1968 resulted from the practice of using a common 
drinking cup: "Many of the fields in Imperial County are not 
complying with health and safety code regulations. There are many 
who use a large drum of water and an empty beer or other can. We 
recently found a crew of 60 people using only six drinking cans in 
one day, we checked four crews and found all of them in violation. 
[Ex. AR] Doctor Barnett Cline, a specialist in epidemiology, 
states in his affidavit that the use of a common drinking cup by a 
large number of workers could result in transmission of tuber- 
culosis and infectious hepatitis. He further states that failure 
to provide toilets and handwashing facilities or provision of 
dirty, effectively useless toilets, "constitutes a grave potential 
danger to the health of the consumer of agricultural products. It 
would result in transmission of common diseases such as amoebinsis 
typhoid and paratyphoid fever, infectious hepatitis, and bacillary 
dysentary." [Ex. AS] Dr. Russell Williams, senior physician on 
the Monterey County Hospital Staff and a specialist in internal 
medicine with 29 years' experience, also testifies to the grave 



-11 



4658 



danger to workers and consumers from sanitation violations, 
pointing out the high incidence of such diseases in Mexico where 
vegetables may be unwashed and stating that sharing of oris can 

will result in "transmission of tuberculosis, trench mouth, and 

i 

even syphilis -- the latter would result when a worker has an ope 

lesion of the mouth." [Ex. AU] Dr. William Werner, a practicing 

physician, reaffirms these medical opinions. [Ex. AT] In addi 

tion to these more severe diseases, California farm workers stant 

to lose countless hours of work from such diseases as common cole 

measles, etc., if existing federal and state laws are not prompt 

enforced. 

If anything, non-enforcement of pesticide laws presents 

even greater immediate danger to the farm worker. On December 1 

1969, the defendant Human Relations Agency (Department of Public 

Health) , issued its comprehensive report on pesticide danger to 

the farm worker. It reported that at least 150 of every 1,000 

farm workers, or 37,500 statewide, are adversely affected, 

including death, hospitalization and loss of work by excessive 

uncontrolled use of pesticides of high toxicity. 

"First, a large percentage of . pesticide-related 
injuries involve serious, disabling illness; 
secondly, like other kinds of work-related 
illnesses, pesticide poisoning is largely pre- 
ventable and; thirdly, we have reason to believe 
that the reports of illness, which we receive. do 
not accurately reflect the true magnitude of 
the problem...." [Report of Human Relations 
Agency, Department of Public Health, December 
10, 1969, at p. 4.] 

Furthermore, the statistics are lower than actuality. The Publi 

Health Department states that "only a fraction of pesticide 

poisonings co.rie to the attention of offical agencies under prese 

circumstances . " The 1966 Public Health Report stated that "the 

severity of illness caused by agricultural chemicals is indicate 

by the greater frequency with which workers were expected to los 

time from work with such illness, as well as by the greater 



-to- 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 
I 
11 

12 

13 

) 
14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

3J 30 

31 

32 



4659 



frequency with which they arc hospitalized, compared with occupa- 
tional illness from all causes." l Occu p ational Dise ase in 
California Attributed to Pesticides and Other Agricultural 



Chemicals — 19 6 6.] 



Of all the pesticides that are now used in the United 
States, the most toxic is the organic phosphate family, which 
includes Tepp, parathion, thimet, phosdrin, demeton, EPN, and 
methyi-parathion. Originally developed by the Germans during 
World War II as the central ingredient in nerve gas, organic 
phosphate chemicals were converted for agricultural use after 
1945. As the Technical Bulletin for Physicians points out, "it 
is the phosphate ester [organic phosphate] pesticides with which 
the physician should be most familiar. Among them are the most 
hazardous of all pesticides...." [State Department of Public 
Health, Diagnosis and Treatment of Phosp h ate Ester Pesticide 
Poisoning, Technical Bulletin for Physicians, p. 2.] A single droi 



of Tepp on the skin can prove fatal. Parathion, the roost widely 
used of the organic phosphates, is at least 120 times more toxic 
to the human skin than is DDT. An oxygen analog of parathion, 
paraoxon, which can form as a residue on foodstuffs sprayed with 
parathion, is 10 times more toxic than is parathion, Thimet 
and phosdrin are also more powerful than parathion, and are 
approximately 130 times more toxic than DDT. At least 55 million 
pounds of highly toxic organic phosphates were used in the United 
States in 19 67, approximately a quarter of which were used in 
California. 1,152,819 pounds alone were applied in Imperial 
County, California, in 1967, as compared with only 369,691 pounds 
of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (including DDT) — or three 
times the quariity of less toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons applied. 
[State Department of Public Health, Occupational Disease in 
California Attributed to Pesticides and Other Agricultural 



Chemicals — 19 67 , p. 3.] 

-Zl- 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 



4660 



This injury rate is likely to climb even higher in the 
future. The growth of pesticide injuries in California has been 
paralleled by an increase of the use of pesticides in agriculture, 
particularly of organic phosphate compounds. From 1960 to 1966, 
the use of organic phosphates increased by at least 160%, as 
compared with a growth of 25% for all other pesticides. With the 
prohibition of the use of DDT in California and in other parts 
of the United States, organic phosphates will be used even more ■ 
frequently in the future, and, unless adequate steps are taken, 
the pesticide injury rate will increase correspondingly. As the 
State Department of Public Health concluded in its December 10th 
report: 

"It has been predicted by pest control specialists 
that as the usage of DDT and other persistent 
organochlorine compounds is eliminated, increasingly 
great amounts of organophosphate pesticides will be 
used both on the farm and in the home. Since the 
members of this latter family of chemicals are 
generally more toxic to humans than are the organo- 
chlorines it is possible, or even likely that 
we will witness an increase in the incidence of 
both occupational and home pesticide morbidity." 
[State Department of Public Health, A Report to 
the 1970 Legislature on the Effects of the Use of 
DDT [and] Similar Pesticides on Human Health and 
the Environment, Part III, p. 2 .] 

• 
Defendants' Exhibit 3, submitted by Dr. Milby, an employee 

of. defendants, elaborates on the Public Health Findings. He points 

out that in a house to house survey in Tulare County of 1,120 farm 

workers, 176 of them reported seeing a physician for pesticide 

poisoning symptoms occurring on the' job. He also notes that. in a 

control group of 100 non-farm workers, "only one person reported 

seeing a physician for any of the symptoms in question." As a 

cientist, he points out that he is not prepared to draw conclu- 

ions about other California counties until further studies have 
oeen completed. 

In addition to the demonstrable danger to both farm workers 

nd consumers from pesticide poisoning, the financial harm to the. 

60,000 plaintiffs is substantial and undisputed. Since the 



4661 



complaint does not seek damages and is in no v/ay a punitive 
action, expeditious relief is of the essence. Each day of delay 
means an unrecoverable loss in money alone of an estimated 

$500,000. .[See Complaint, 1110, alleging loss of wages of 

I • 

$99,800,000 per year.] A major portion of the lost v/ages, v;hich 

can never be recovered, relates to the unlawful fee charging of 

California farm workers by farm labor contractors and the unlawful 

referral of workers to the lowest paying jobs and to jobs paying 

below the minimum wage. The other portion of the lost wages is 

attributable to the lost wages caused by pesticide poisonings and 

communicable diseases, such as typhoid and tuberculosis, caused 

by lack of toilets and the use of one drinking cup by as many as 

60 field workers. . 

/// -.•'.-. 



/// 

v+ 

/// 
/// 
/// 

20 /// 

21 /// 

22 /// 

23 /// 

24 /// 

25 /// 

26 /// 

27 /// 

28 /// 

29 /// 

30 /// 

31 /// 

32 /// 



-zS~ 



4662 



. • . in 

THE STATE DEFENDANTS' AFFIDAVITS ARE MISLEADING 
AND IN FACT SUPPORT PLAINTIFFS ALLEGATIONS 

The State defendants have submitted affidavits which they 
assert cast "doubt upon plaintiffs' case." They argue that pre- 
liminary relief should therefore be denied. Careful examination 
of the text of the affidavits shows them to be either supportive 
of plaintiffs or half-truths or in one or two instances clearly 
internally inconsistent and incorrect. 
A. Health Officials 

One-third of the State defendants' affidavits relate to 
local health directors ' statements that they have discovered 
innumerable toilet and drinking water violations, that virtually 
every California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) complaint led to 
a finding of such a violation, and that they are understaffed and 
unable to perform their statutory job. (For example: Def. Ex. 7, 
757 violations found in Salinas Valley in fiscal year '68 and 
'69; (b) Def. Ex. 10-A', all of CRLA 19 69 complaints valid but no 
action yet taken in Madera County; and (c) Def. Ex. 8, Sonoma 
County Field Sanitation "short-handed. . .and operating at 70% 
of authorized staff.") ' ..'. 

What the State defendants fail to discuss is that the very 
affiants they interviewed have stated and believe that: (a) the 
Farm Labor Office is an essential link in successful enforcement, 
since, in effect, the "brandishing of the carrot is more successfu 
than the threat of the stick"; (b) the Farm Labor Office has the 
personnel and the expertise to enforce the law; and (c) the local 
field health departments are wholly understaffed, particularly in 
agriculturally-dominated areas . - - 

Exhibit AW was submitted by Fred Singh, Imperial County 
Environmental Health Director, also one of defendants' affiants. 
He states: "It is not difficult to make a visual inspection whil 



-24- 



:: 



4663 



these men (Farm Labor Office) are in the field. They also can 

verify if water, drinking cups (single service) , toilet, and hand 

washing facilities are at the site." Singh also recommends that 

the Farm Labor Office take an active role in sanitation enforce- 

\ ■ 

ment by, in addition to checking conditions, requiring an affidavit 

of compliance from employers who use the service and cutting off 

those who violate their affidavit. James 0. Mankin, Stanislaus 

Health Director, strongly urges Farm Labor Service participation 

in health enforcement. He is also one of defendants' affiants 

Def. Ex. 5). He states: "In some ways the Farm Labor Service 

office would be in a better position to obtain (sanitation) 

information because they know when farm work will begin in which 

fields." [Ex. AX] See also Exhibit AY. 

B. Pesticide Report 

The State affidavit from the chief State doctor in charge 

of the pesticide study (State Ex. 3) reaffirms and explains 

plaintiffs' allegations that 150 of every 1,000 ' farm workers are , 

injured by toxic poisoning each year, and that this is 1,500% 

higher than for a control group of non-agricultural workers from 

the same area. [See p. 22, supra ] . Apparently, the only purpose 

of this defendant affidavit is to inform the Court that the State 

is planning an even more comprehensive study which will not be 

ready for more than a year (mid-1971) . 

C. Attempt to Impeach Prior Affidavits 

State investigators contacted numerous affiant farm workers 

refusing to consult the farm workers' attorneys to be present 

during the interviews. Regino de Leon states in his affidavit 

that State investigators visited his home three times and ordered 

him to appear at the Farm Labor Office in order to sign an 

affidavit (Ex. AV) . Although Mr. de Leon informed the investigato 

that the Farm Labor Office referred people to substandard jobs and 

that the Farm Labor Service was not really necessary, no affidavit 



-25- 



4664 



from Mr. de Leon was submitted by the State. Affidavits attached 
to the Protective Order issued by this Court and Exhibits BA and 
BB show that as much as two hours was spent by other State 
investigators in the homes of farm workers who submitted affidavit 

( The total result of these State investigations was that 
the State submitted so-called counter-affidavits — Felix Guzman 
Ganoa, Dario Lerma (and the Lerma family) , Richard Montalvo, 
Ricardo Mejia, and Domingo Valdez. 

1. Felix Guzman Ganoa 

Mr. Guzman's original affidavit stated that he had had bad 

experience with the Farm Labor Office when he went there to apply 

for a job [Ex. AA] . In his affidavit submitted to defendants, he 

stated that he is generally a crew foreman and has had great 

success using the Farm Labor Office. In his new affidavit, Mr. 

Ganoz states : 

I am signing this third affidavit to clear up the 
confusion arising from my first two affidavits. . . 
What I want to make clear is that I have absolutely no 
complaint at all about the way the Farm Labor Service 
Office has helped me in the past get workers for my 
boss . . .The only problem I ever had was when I went 
to the Farm Labor Office in January of this year to 
find a job for myself . As I said in both my affidavits, 
the only job they referred me to paid only 65 cents a 
tree to prune large old trees. Because of the condition 
of the trees, I would not be able to make any money 
pruning these trees and I thought I could find a 
better job on my own. [Ex. BL] 

2. Dario Lerma and Family 

The Lermas and Apolenar Marin both originally filed 
affidavits stating they had been referred to a grower on two days. 
The first day there was no work so they lost a full day. The 
second day they were promised 25 cents a bucket and received 
only 20 cents. [Ex. X and Y] . In their affidavits to the 
State Raymond and Ignacio Lerma state they have never been to the 
Farm Labor Office. They were obviously just frightened by the 
State investigator's presence. Their father, Dario Lerma, states 
in his affidavit given to the State investigator that he went to 



-26- 



4665 



1 the Farm Labor Office "with my 4 sons, Ignacio, Raymond, Armando, 

2 and Paul." Apolenar Marin, relates in his new affidavit [Ex. BA] 

3 that he too was contacted by a State investigator who "became 

4 upset py my refusal (to. sign a paper) ." Marin reaffirms his 



5 earlier affidavit and found the actual referral cards proving 
I 

6 conclusively the truth of the original affidavits. The referral 
. . 

7 cards are attached to the Marin affidavit [Ex. BA] . Further 

8 corrobation is submitted in affidavits of the VISTA worker to 

9 whom the Lermas originally complained and in affidavits of two 
other farm workers. [Ex. BN and BO]. The Lerma family simply 
decided it would be best to tell the State investigator what he 
obviously wanted to hear. [See also Ex. BB] . 
3. Richard Montalvo 4. Ricardo Mejia 5. Domingo Valdez 

These three affidavits submitted by defendants do not 
contradict the earlier ones they submitted. [Ex. U, V r W] . In 
any case, Domingo Valdez and Ricardo Mejia have checked and again 
affirm their affidavits as originally submitted [Mr. Montalvo 
could not be located] . [Ex. BC and BD] . 
D. Support for Farm Labor Office Operations 

The remainder of the State affidavits relate primarily to 
so-called affidavits of support. The primary one, Exhibit 17, is 
from Mrs. R. G. Crabtree, president of the Cuyama Valley Women. 
It states : .._.-. . . - 



10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 



The women of our community are thankful to the 
Farm Labor Service for getting us_ jobs in the planting 
and harvesting of tomatoes. (Emphasis added). 

This is a knowingly misleading affidavit. Mrs. Crabtree 
is not a farm worker, and, most important, her husband is an 
official with the company that owns the entire town of Cuyama and 
most of its agricultural valley (he is an Atlantic-Richfield 
field manager) . 

The typical State affidavit is from Pedro Reyes, Ex. 12. 
All he states is that "during the strawberry season in 1969 [the 



-27- 



4666 



Farm Labor Office contacted him] to offer jobs to youth in the 
summer months." (Emphasis added) . Nothing in his affidavit 
suggests support of the Farm Labor Office. And for good reason. 
He does not support the Farm Labor Office. See plaintiffs Ex. BM 
in which Mr. Reyes states that he personally knows that the Farm 
Labor Office refers workers to bad' jobs and that he has read the 
Fair Employment Plan and believes it to be essential for farm 
workers . 

Even the self-serving State affidavit of its own former 
Farm Labor Office employee, William Abeytia, Ex. 18, fails to 
support the Farm Labor Office. Despite the State writing the 
affidavit, the affiant refused to sign without first making 
three separate references in his affidavit to the need for the 



Farm Labor Office to improve its. services. See his supplementary 
affidavit [Ex. BP] in which he reiterates the need for improvement 
states his familiarity with the Fair Employment Plan and his belie 
that the Fair Employment Plan is feasible and necessary for the 
farm worker. 

The State's last affidavit, Ex. 32, Valentin Benitez, 
fully supports and documents plaintiffs' position that virtually 



every farm worker is dissatisfied with the Farm Labor Office and 
wishes it to either be radically improved or closed. Specifica] 
the affiant merely states that every farm worker at a meeting 



Before the Court for preliminary injunction is only the question 
of granting relief which will secure better wages and working 
conditions for farm workers, as guaranteed by, and pursuant to, 
federal and State regulations. The Court, therefore, does not 
at this time have to reach the question of whether farm workers 
would benefit from the termination of the Farm Labor Office 
should it continue to refuse to obey its own rules arid 
regulations. However, plaintiffs would like to point out to 
the Court the following: 

a. the President of the second largest strawberry grower 
in California, and a member of four major California statewide 
grower organizations, submitted an affidavit stating that: "it 
is my opinion that all parties concerned would be benefitted by 
either terminating the Farm Labor Offices or putting them into 
receivership to be operated and overseen by a committee composed 
(footnote continued on next page) 



-28- 



4667 



he attended wished the Farm Labor Office* to be closed and so 

affirmed in writing, with the sole exception of himself. And 

that he refused for only one reason: the American Counsul had 

previously advised him not to sign any papers because "I could 

be deported. . .[and I was told] 'to stay out of trouble." The 

affiant further states that all signatures were wholly voluntary 

and that no one suggested that he sign: 

I told someone there that I could not sign the 
petition because I was an inuni grant and did not 
want any trouble. I have not had any trouble 
from anyone about this . (Emphasis added) . 



Footnote 1 continued from p. 28: .' 

of farm workers, growers, and Labor Department officials. 

"At present the operation of California Farm Labor Offices 
primarily benefits only one limited group, those growers who 
either violate wage and working- condition laws or pay the lowest 
wages. Growers who pay prevailing wages and offer good working 
conditions generally have no need for the recruitment mechanism 
of the Farm Labor Office ^Ex. AO, emphasis added) . 

±>. In San Benito County, the farm workers voted 75-0 (ten 
abstentions) to close the Farm Labor Office because it gives 
them only the worst jobs. (Ex. C) 

c. In Santa Barbara County, seventy farm workers were 
asked on March 9, 1970 (by a person independent of the plaintiffs 
or their counsel) to fill out unsigned questionnaires as to whom 
they believed represented their "interests in getting higher 
wages and better working conditions, California Rural Legal 
Assistance or the Farm Labor Service?" No comments were made 
before the balloting. The results were 70 for CRLA, none for 
the Farm Labor Service. (Ex. BG) 

d. A January, 1970 survey of 125 Imperial County farm 
workers showed 121 of the workers to be opposed to the Farm Labor 
Office. (Ex. J) 

e. Gilbert Lopez, as President and on behalf of the 
Mexican-American Political Association of Imperial County, asked 

-CRLA to seek to either reform or close the Farm Labor Office. 
(Ex. BH) . 

f. The Trabajadores Adelante, a farm worker organization 
with vast membership in Santa Clara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, and 
Monterey counties asked that the Farm Labor Offices be closed 

(Ex. BF) . . . • • 

g. Paulino Pacheco, a Santa Barbara farm worker , 
circulated a petition among farm workers to close the Farm Labor 
Office on February 9, 1970. "Virtually all of the farm workers 
who saw it signed it immediately and it was full, by the next 
day." (Ex. BG) . 

/// ' 

-29- 



1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



4668 
. . iv 

MISLEADING STATE JOB STATISTICS 
In 1966, the State Farm Labor Office allegedly placed. 
134;97$ farm workers. By 1968, despite a 25% decline in agricul- 
tural employment and no additional funding, this "job placement" 
figure rose tenfold to 1,393,810. -In 1969 it rose an additional 
25% to an alleged 1,714,900; and it is expected to reach two mil- 
lion by 1971. Based upon these "rising" statistics the California 
Farm Labor Office, despite mechanization and the entrance of 
billion dollar agri-business corporations such as United Fruit 
and Purex, maintained its federal funding at 15% of all federal 
Farm Labor Service funds ($3.5 million for 1969). 

The depositions of the defendants unequivocally prove that 
the statistics are meaningless and misleading. In 1969, 15 of 
every 16 so-called job placements (1,554,578) were of unknown, 
unnamed farm workers for whom not even a social security card 

number was available. (Dep. Tolbert, 87-88; Dep. 24). of the 

i 
remaining 1 of 16 , employment applications were not taken in a 

majority "of cases, and in many cases the names of the workers 

are wholly unknown. (Dep. Eisley, 168-172, 184-190, 214-226) 

The vast majority (at least 93%) of the jobs are of a 
duration of 1/2 hour to one day. (Dep. Eisley, 168-172; Dep. 
Crow, 48-51). At least four hundred thousand (400,000) of the 
job placements relate to non- Americans (Mexicans residing both 
temporarily and permanently in Mexico ) [Dep. Crow, 104] 

One worker could be responsible for 250 job placements a 
year since "pool placements" are counted each day for each worker 
even where he works continuously for the same employer (Dep. Crow, 
84-86) . 

If the Farm Labor Office refers one family of six persons 
to a job and they quit after a half hour due to below minimum 
wages, they count as six job placements. And if another family 



-30- 



4669 



is sent out the same afternoon to the same grower and is fired aft 
a half hour, that counts as six more job placements. And if a 
different family quits each day due to bad wages and working, 
conditions, each job is still counted. Thus, if the same grower 
receives a new family of six each day for a twenty day harvest 
period, the Farm Labor Office considers it 120 job placements 
(6x20) , even though the workers quit due to below minimum wages 
or absence of toilets. (Dep. Eisley, 214-222; Dep. Crow, 84-86) 

All statistics are given the same weight (Dep. Eisley, 
167-168) . In the Calexico Office alone, for example, 463,000 
job placements- were secured for 1969. (Calexico' s total popula- 
tion is 9,000.) The Farm Labor Office, however, took the names, 
or has the names, of farm workers in only 530 job placements or 
in only 1/10 of one per cent of all so-called job placements. 
(Dep. Crow, Ex. B&C) At least eighty per cent (80%) (368,000) 
of the so-called job placements were of non-Americans (Mexicans 
residing in Mexico) . (Dep. Crow, 104) And in half of all the 
job placements (231,000, an employment 'fee, usually 25 cents per 
hour worked, was, in effect, deducted from the workers' wages in 
violation of 20 C.F.R. § 604.1(h), prohibiting any charge to 
either the employer or the employee. (Dep. Crow, 38,44) 

In 1969, the entire statewide Farm Labor Office, according 
to its statistics, produced only 9,395 real (or regular) agricul- 
tural placements and many of these so-called real placements 
were duplications or consisted of one day or even half -hour jobs. 
(Dep. Eisley, 167-172, 214-222) . The Santa Rosa Office, for 



Crow admitted that he does not know if all of these persons 
actually received jobs, since all he does is count the number 
of persons on the bus without asking their names, before it 
leaves the Calexico Farm Labor Office. He does not verify actual 
employment (Dep. Crow, 80; Dep. Tolbert, 87,88) 

///// 

///// . . 



-31- 



4670 



example, developed only nine new agricultural jobs for the entire 
year 1969 and did absolutely no counseling, testing or upgrading 
of farm workers. (Dep. Eisley, 222-224 and attached to Dep.- 

Ex.- 2-13) . - 

1 • 

'Thus, 449 State Farm Labor" Office personnel, receiving 

3.5 million dollars in 1969, produced, assuming the validity of 
their statistics, only 9,395 real jobs, many of which are dupli- 
cations or of less than one day's duration.' (Dep. Eisley, 225- • 
226) . In a real sense, each Farm Labor Office person therefore 
placed workers on only twenty real jobs a year or l/10th of a 
job per working day.— 



2 

In Gubser v. Department of Employment (Farm Labor Service), 

76 Cal. Rptr. 577 (D.C.A.,5, 1969 ) , the court criticised 
the State defendants' phony and misleading Farm Labor Office 
statistics. In upholding the dismissal of a California Farm 
Labor Office official for encouraging inflated, false statistics 
the court stated: 

"[accurate statistics] would seem to be an inherent 
duty of supervising. . .particularly where the Department 
of Employment, the state government and the federal 
government all relied upon such reports to carry out 
the program." (at 580) 

"Both the federal and state governments rely upon 
field worker recruitment and employment records to 
determine where field offices shall be located, the 
number of employees necessary to staff the various 
stations, and the amount of money to fund the project. 

" To argue that a supervisor has no duty to see to 
it that the basic statistics upon which the entire 
project is grounded are truthful, is to overlook 
the purpose of the program ." (at 579, emphasis added) 



-32- 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



4671 



■- v 
DEFENDANTS AT DEPOSITION TESTIFY IN EFFECT THAT THEY 

ARE GROWER- CONTROLLED AND ORIENTED 

1 The plaintiffs, in summary, alleged in their complaint 
i 
that the California Farm Labor Offices are grower dominated and 

controlled, are anti-farm worker, depress wages and working 

conditions and justify their existence through the creation of 

ballooned statistics. Affidavits of their former employees and 

a large grower support this., (Ex. A,A0,BP) The depositions of 

the Sonoma County and Imperial County Farm Labor Office managers 

substantiate each and every charge. 

The Sonoma County manager, for example, testified that: 

a. " The primary and major purpose of the Farm Labor 

Office is to harvest the crops." (Dep. 208) 



b. None of his fifteen employees speak Spanish although 
•as much as 60% of the workers speak Spanish only; (Dep. 21-23) 

c. All of his primary staff people are growers, refer 
workers- to their own ranches, pay non-minimum guaranteed wages, 
and may not even have toilets or drinking water; (Dep. 257-261) 

d. He meets with growers formally and informally, but 
neither he nor any staff member has ever met with any farm 
workers; (Dep. 82, 115-116, 139-141) 

e. His office made 695 personal field visits to growers 
in 1969, but never checked, and never will check or ask these 
growers, if they provide toilets or drinking water; (Dep. 49-57) 

f . His office cannot concern itself with pesticide dangers 
to workers; (Dep. 156-167) 

g. His office has never done any testing or counseling 
of any farm workers (Dep. 219,222,223) despite federal regula- 
tions specifically requiring counseling and testing (20 C.F.R. 
604.3 & 604.8) ; 

h. His office has a blacklist of bad workers but does 



-33- 



4672 



1| not record complaints made against growers (Dep. 128-133); 

2 J i. Refused to answer as to whether his office would 

3 continue to serve a grower even if "1,000" documented complaints 
were received. (Dep. 135-138) . 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

" 

18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



T 

, The Iniperial County Manager testified that: 

i 

a. Only 265 non-day haul jobs were found for farm workers 

/ 
by the Calexico office in 1969; (Dep. Ex B&C) 

b. 80 to 90% of the day-haul activities (dealing with 
over 98% of the placements) is putting residents of Mexico into 
U.S. jobs; (Dep. 104) 

c. Workers are sent to Arizona on a bus — 100 miles or 
more and to Blythe, California — 118 miles for jobs that cannot 
last more than one day and may be as little as a few minutes; 
(Dep. 45,46,84) 

d. No counseling is done despite federal regulations. 
(Dep. 92) 



-34- 



4673 



VI 

.« NON-ACTION BY THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS 
The State defendants take the position that plaintiffs' 
allegations are insufficiently specific and in any event they 
owe no duty to California farm workers. The federal defendants 
admit that the State may have a duty, but deny that the federal 
government, despite its regulations and 100% funding, has any 
definable duty. 

The federal defendants suggest that as a direct result of 
this lawsuit, they are considering the possibility of considering 
an investigation of plaintiffs* undisputed charges and that these 
non-actions: "are expected to be completed within a reasonable 
period of time at which time the Secretary will make a determina- 



tion whether to proceed. . . with informal discussions or . . . 
with notice of hearing." (emphasis added) 

The federal defendants fail to mention that the very matter 
at issue herein was first specifically referred to them on 
October 22, 1968 , and their only response was a perfunctory "thank 
you for calling this to our attention." And the federal defendants 
fail to mention that on July 9, 19 69, Secretary of Labor Shultz 
was specifically and formally notified as to the exact matter 
at issue by the plaintiffs and refused to even send a perfunctory 
letter of response, despite the threat of litigation if no respon 
was forthcoming. 

And the federal defendants fail to mention that their own 
rules and regulations require them to either reform or terminate 
any state Farm Labor Office that fails to "maintain an organiza- 
tion and procedures necessary to carry out effectively such 
policies." (20 C.F.R., §§ 603.4, emphasis added) - 



^hese very federal defendants argued strenuously and success- 
fully that they had the necessary power to implement the 
Philadelphia Plan .regulations establishing minority hiring 
quotas in the construction industry, Contractors Assoc, of 



-35- 



4674 



Eastern Pennsylvania v. Secretary of Labor , 38 L.W. 2503 (E.D.Pa, 
March, 1970) . Their suggestion here that they may decide to 
act in the future belies their argument that they lack the 
power 1 to do so now. See also Banzhaf v. FCC , 505 F.2d 1032 
(D.C.icir. 1968) upholding the right of the FCC to require anti- 
smoking TV and radio editorials based solely upon the broad man- 
date that the FCC should "protect public health." 

/' 



6 


/// 


7 


/// 


8 


/// 


9 


/// 


10 


/// 


11 


/// 


12 


/// 


13 


/// 


14 


/// 


15 


/// 


16 


•/// 


17 


/// 


18 


/// 


19 


/// 


20 


/// 


21 


/// 


22 


/// 


23 


/// 


24 


/// 


25 


/// 


26 


/// 


27 


/// 


28 


/// 


29 


/// 


30 


/// 


31 


/// 



32 /// 



-36- 



4675 



II 

2 THIS COURT HAS LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS 

3 TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES AND REGULATIONS 

4 ■ i Neither the state nor the federal defendants raise any 

5 question relating to this Court's full jurisdiction to hear and 

6 decide the issues in this case. Their primary contention is that 

7 "defendants have violated no duty owed to the plaintiffs." 

8 [Brief, I. A.] 

9 The case is reasonably straightforward. In the preceding 

10 section plaintiffs have set out each of the state and federal 

11 laws and regulations imposing duties upon the federal and state 

12 defendants. The foundation of this complaint is that defendants 

13 have ignored these laws and regulations to the detriment of 

14 workers and to the unfair benefit of employers. The violations 

15 range from permitting middlemen ^to earn a fee for the service the 

16 Farm Labor Office is supposed to provide free of charge to winking 

17 at orders which provide less than the minimum wage. The offices. 

18 have refused to assume any of their statutorily mandated duties 

19 to protect farm workers from violation of health laws and pesti- 

20 cide laws. Ihey have been unwilling to set up advisory committees 

21 to even listen to farm, workers although required to do so and make 

22 no less than 30 visits every month in every office to talk with 

23 growers. And Farm Labor Office Director Tolbert asserts that 

24 defendants will never be willing to just make available to workers 

25 a list of job openings to allow a worker to choose a good job 

26 for himself. Only government officials totally immunized from 

27 judicial review could reasonably claim that this course of conduct 

28 breaches no duties owed to workers. 

29 In two closely related cases both a California Superior 

30 court and the United States Court- of Appeals have affirmed that 

31 the Wagner-Peyser Act and regulations pursuant thereto impose duti 

32 upon the state and federal defendants. 



-37- 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



4676 



; In Munoz v. State Department of Employment , Sac. Sup.Ct. 
f 191631, (July 1969) , these same state defendants argued that 
they had no responsibility for enforcement of health and sanita- 
tion laws and could not be required to check field conditions 
before; referring a farm worker to a job. The Court held that the 
regulations do create such a duty -and that the -Department could 
not penalize a worker who refused to report to a job which had 
not been checked for health and sanitation compliance. 

In Gomez v. Florida State Employment Service , 417 F.2d 
569 (5th Cir. 1969) Chief Judge John R. Brown stated the question 
to be "whether [farm] workers have rights and remedies under 
which they can get relief in Federal Courts when they are deprivet 
of the protection and benefit of the wages and working conditions 
promised by the [Wagner-Peyser] Act and regulations by state 
officials — state officials charged with the protection of the 
worker's interest." The Court held that the Act does vest farm 
workers with the right to bring civil actions against both 
governmental and private defendants to secure enforcement of 
rights — • 

They seek to protect their right to decent housing 
and sanitary living conditions so they and their 
children may be free of disease. They seek to pro- 
tect their ability to work for the wages which 
Congress has in effect determined to be the minimum 
to which they are entitled. They seek sanction for 
having been deprived of some of those few protections 
designed by Congress to lift them out of economic- 
sociologic peonage. Such fundamental, highly per- 
sonalized rights are just the stuff from which 
S 1983 claims are to be made. Id. at p 579. 1/ 



Defendants urge that Gomez is distinguishable because it dealt 
with interstate commerce. In the first place there is direct 
testimony that this case deals with interstate and international 
commerce. Practically every day of the year workers are sent fron 
the Calexico day haul to Ari.zona on buses. (Dep. Crow, 45) Three 
affiants testify they were sent from Imperial County to Illinois 

[Ex. K] , Minnesota (Ex. M] , and Washington [Ex. L] . Pat Crow 
testified that 400,000 residents of Mexico are referred to Cali- 
fornia jobs each year by his office alone. [Dep. Crow, 104] 
Further, it is clear that even farm labor placement activities 
in the 89 California offices which concern jobs wholly within 



-38- 



4677 



An analogous situation was presented in Western Addition 
Community Organization v. Weaver , 294 F.Supp. 433 (N.D.Calif. 
196 8) . The court restrained a Redevelopment Agency from proceed- 
ing with displacements of local residents pursuant to an urban 
renewal program until the Agency had submitted to the Secretary 
of Housing and Urban Development a satisfactory relocation plan 
which was approved by the court. In response to the argument 
that the granting of the injunction would mean that the court was 
attempting to administer the complexities of urban redevelopment, 
the court pointed out: 

Our decision simply means that the court can and 
should see to it that the Secretary complies with the 
requirements of the federal statute, and his own 
regulations, not merely in form but in substance, and 
that the administrative discretion vested in him by 
law is not arbitrarily abused, as in this case, but 
is reasonably exercised with some substantial basis 
in fact to support it. Such is the traditional 
function of the court upon review of administrative 
action of the kind here involved. Id. at p. 441. 

Defendants here have made a similar argument to that in 

Western Addition , Supra — that this Court cannot review the 

practices of the Farm Labor Service because to do so would be to 

"supervise" the operation. They cite for this proposition Brown 

v. Board of Trustees of La Grange Independent School Dist . , 187 

F.2d 20 (5th Cir. 1951). In that case, decided three years 

before the United States Supreme Court decision in Brown v. 

Board of Education , the court refused to review the operation 

of a local school district. It hardly needs extensive analysis 

of more recent cases to demonstrate that this reluctance on the 



1 (Cont'd) 

California nonetheless affect interstate commerce. In any event, 

•however, the applicable laws and regulations which defendants 

have violated apply without regard to interstate or intrastate 

impact. 

///// 
///// 



-39- 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 



4678 



2/ 

part of the courts has been overcome in the last twenty years.— 

It is clear that courts have not hesitated to fashion 
appropriate relief when a governing body or a public or private 
agency I refuses to act to protect health, safety, and rights 
accorded. citizens by law. One of the most striking examples is 
in the area of prison reform where courts have been reluctant to 
review practices by penitentiary systems, parole boards, and other 
agencies responsible for incarceration and rehabilitation of con- 
victed criminals. Nevertheless, when prisoners in two Arkansas 
prisons made showings - that the prison system failed to provide 
rehabilitation and operated in a fashion which militated against 
their reform, the court ordered appropriate relief. The relief 
was immediate and sweeping: • v - 

Respondents will be ordered to made a prompt and 
reasonable start toward eliminating the conditions 
that have caused the court to condemn the system 
and to prosecute their efforts with all reasonable 
diligence to completion as soon as possible. The 
lives, safety, and health of human beings, to say 
nothing of their dignity, are at stake. The start 
must be prompt, and the prosecution must be vigorous. 
The handwriting is on the wall, and it ought not to 
require a Daniel to read it. Unless conditions at 
the penitentiary farms are brought up to a level of 
constitutional tolerability , the farms can no longer 
be used for the confinement of convicts.-.. 

At the moment respondents will be ordered to submit 
to the court and to counsel for petitioners not later 
than April 1 of this year a report and plan showing 
what, if anything, they have done up to that time 
to meet the requirements of the court, what they plan 



See, e.g., Board of Public Instruction v. Braxton , 326 F.2d 616 
(5th Cir. 1964) , in which the Court of Appeals affirmed a district 
court holding requiring court approval of plans for faculty 
assignment, budget allocations, actual spending, employment con- 
tracts, construction projects, curricula, and other policies and 
programs. In Kelley v. Altheimer, Ark. Public School Dist. #22 , 
378 F.2d 483 (8th Cir. 1967) the court sets out a plan of operatio 
the school is required to follow, including filling of vacancies, 
salaries, construction equalization and transportation. See also, 
Sanders v. Ellington , 288 F.Supp. 937 (M.D. Tenn. 1968); 
United States v. Cook County School District #151 , 404 F.2d 1125 



(7th Cir. 1968) 
/// 



32 /// 



-40- 



4679 



to do, and when they plan to do it. 

If the initial report is approved, the court may 
require additional reports from time to time and 
may require specific information in certain areas. 
If the initial report is not approved, it will then 
become necessary for the court to consider what 
specific steps it will take to implement its 
declarations... Holt v. Sarver, 38 L.W. 2463 (D.C. 
Ark. Feb., 1970) "37" 



Some other areas in which courts have acted in granting similar 
affirmative relief are as follows: 

1. Rate Setting — ICC v. Aberdeen RR , 393 U.S. 87 (1968) [the 
Supreme Court reversed an ICC decision relating to computation 
of rail freights and directed different calculations using 
comparative cost instead of territorial average cost, and required 
determinating on commuter deficits, interchanging cars, and empty 
freight car return ratios to be handled differently. The Court 
quotes from Burlington Truck Lines v. United States , 371 U.S. 156, 
that administrative expertise must not be allowed to become "a 
monster which rules with no practical limits on its discretion 
. . .We cannot bridge the gap by blind reliance on expertise 
which in this instance would be a mere assertion that no difference 
means a substantial difference." (at pp. 92 and 95)] 

2. Housing — Gautreaux v. Chicago Public Housing Authority , 37 
L.W. 2482 (Feb. 10, 1969) [Text of court's order not set out with 
opinion reported at 296 F.Supp. 907] [Low-income residents of 
Chicago brought suit against the City of Chicago to enjoin site 
locations and waiting list requirements which were out of compli- 
ance with law. The detailed Court Order requires the Housing 
Authority to build 75% of all new public housing in specified 
areas of the city, requires 700 new houses in one area before any 
building elsewhere, and requires in 30 days submission of a plan 
setting out new tenant policies.] 

« 
3., Employment — Asbestos Workers v. Vogler , 407 F.2d 1047 (5th Cir. 
1969) " [To deal with future hiring practices the Court further 
"ordered the development of objective, trade-related membership 
criteria and procedures, excluding as criteria relationship to or 
recommendation by present members or other persons employed in 
the trade, and excluding also any membership vote. The order 
additionally required Local 53 to objectively determine the size 
of its membership with reference to the number of skilled asbestos 
workers reasonably calculated to meet present and future industry 
needs in its geographic area.] 

4. Reapportionment — Connor v. Johnson , 265 F.Supp. 492 (S.D. Miss 
1967 3-judge court), aff'd 386 U.S. 483, 87 S.Ct. 1174 (1967). 
["There is no alternative. . .The equity powers of this court 
must be exercised and we must proceed to order a reapportionment 
. . .After exhaustive deliberation, including the consideration 
of all reasonable alternatives which have occurred to us, we now 
proceed to lay out districts for the election of Senators and 
Representatives in the Mississippi Legislature so that the 
2,178,141 inhabitants will as nearly as possible be equally rep- 
resented in compliance with the one man one vote principle. . . 
Id. at p. 494.] 

Chavis v. Whit comb , 38 L.W. 2104 (S.D. Indiana July, 1969) . 
[The court struck down multi-member districts, holding that large 



-41- 



4680 



2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 | 

17 

18 1 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 



Farmworkers have long been the most neglected employee 
group in the United States, excluded from benefits now thought to 
be automatic by most Americans ; It is particularly distressing 
when protection is given them — as by the Wagner-Peyser Act — and 

State and Federal officials not only refuse to enforce the law, 

i 

but also adopt practices which serve only to depress wages and 

.... / 

working conditions . 

We respectfully urge this Court to enter the order as 
prayed for. ' . _ - 



Dated: April 16, 1970 



Respectfully submitted, 

GLICK, GNAIZDA, REYNOSO 
MC CASE, YEGH.IAYAN, ABASCAL, 
ALTSHULER, BRENNAN, DELEVETT, 
FRETZ, LIVINGSTON, POWELL, 
YNOSTROZA, and WILSON 



By_ 



Bv . 



' Martin R. Glick 



Robert L. Gnaizda 



3 (Cont'd.) 

ghetto areas in Marion County, Indiana must be separately repre- 
sented even though the multi -member districts technically accorded 
one-man, one-vote representation. The Court asked the Governor 
to call a Special Session of the Indiana General Assembly to 
draft districts in compliance with the Court's opinion.] 

5. Zoning — In re Girsh , 38 L.W. 2465 (Pa. S.Ct. Feb. 1970) [The 
court required that the city zoning law include permission for 
construction of apartments.] 

6. Police Assignments — Baker v. St. Petersburg , 400 F.2d 294 (C.A. 
5, 1968) [Black and white police officers reassigned by court 

due to past situation where black officers policed black areas 
only.] 

7. Fair Labor Standards — Fagot v. F.lintkote , 38 L.W. 2265 (E.D. 
La. 1969) [In spite of Fair Labor Standards Act provisions settinc 
out certain remedies and not mentioning any civil action remedy 
for employees, the court held as a matter of equity that such 
civil action should be permitted in the public interest. ] 

/// 



32 /// 



-42- 



4681 



Attachment A 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 



250 FARM WORKERS, et al. , 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

GEORGE SHULTZ, U.S. SECRETARY 
OF LABOR, et al. , 

Defendants. 



CIVIL ACTION NO. C-70 481 AJZ 



PROPOSED ORDER 



The matter having come on regularly for hearing on 
April 22, 1970, Martin R. Glick and Robert L. Gnaizda appearing 
for plaintiffs, William Bradford, appearing for State defendants 
and David R. Drdan appearing for federal defendants; and good 
cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants be restrained and 
enjoined during the pendancy of this action from: 

A. Refusing (1) to require and record on each employer 
order form information concerning health and sanitation facilities 
and pesticide use at the job site, (2) to post in a conspicuous 
place this information along with information concerning wage 
offered, anticipated job duration, and the approximate location 

of the job, and (3) to reject any job order out of compliance 
with law. 

B. Refusing to verify wage and working condition 
information received from employers by checking these conditions 
during routine field visits, by declining to serve employers 

36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 11 



4682 



J found out of compliance with law, until the unlawful condition 
is corrected, and by developing a plan to suspend service to 
employers found to be repeated violators. 

VC. Providing any service to farm labor contractors or 
other persons who receive any fee or charge for providing workers 
*| to another. 



7 

8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



D. Accepting any order listing a wage below the pre- 
vailing wage, including any piece rate order which does not 
guarantee that each worker placed will receive no less than the 
prevailing wage. 

E. Refusing to form a state advisory council and 
advisory councils in local communities served, such committee to 
be fairly and equally representative of the interests of both 
farm employers and employees. 

F. Refusing to require minimum job durations and pay 
on orders placed, depending upon the nature of the order, but 
not to be less than 8 hours on pool placements and one week on 
regular jobs which are not cancelled by the employer prior to. 
the time the referred employee arrives at the job site. 

Dated: 



United States District Court Judge 



-2- 



4683 

ATTACHMENT B 
SUMHBiRY OF PLAINTIFFS' SEVENTY-THREE EXHIBITS 

Set forth below are brief summaries of plaintiffs' 

exhibits, almost "all of which are affidavits. (A star (*) is 

affixed, to any that are not affidavits.) The summary begins with 

those thir'ty-three exhibits submitted subsequent to the 

il 
filing of defendants' briefs, and ends with those forty exhibits 

previously submitted with the Complaint and Order to Show Cause. f 

Ex A0- Affidavit from California's second largest strawberry 
grower contending that only growers that violate the law or pay 
boor wages use the Farm Labor Office and asking for either the 
termination of the Farm Labor Office or for joint grower-farm 
worker control. 

Ex AP- Affidavit from a Catholic Priest, in disguise, that one 
im3nth~ago (March 19, 1970) he personally investigated the Salinas 
Farm Labor Office and was referred to a large grower who did not 
provide toilets ar drinking water and that the bus in which he 
was transported with nineteen women and men was a dangerously 
defective bus. 

Ex AQ*- Farm Labor Office leaflet dated February, 1970, given 
to 'farm workers. It unequivocally promises seventeen guarantees 
as to working conditions and unequivocally tells the worker to 
complain to the Farm Labor Office if dissatisfied- 

Ex AR*- 1968 Typhoid Fever outbreak among farm workers ^Im- 
perial C ounty due to many of the fields in Imperial County _not 
complying with the health and safety code regulations. . . Typhoid 
is transmitted by feces and urine, Singh [Defendant s Sanitarian, 
see Def. Ex 9] explained. Unclean hands brought about by lack 
of facilities in the field will . . . [transmit] the typhoid, 
(March 25, 1968, statement of Singh). 

Ex AS: Sworn testimony of specialist in epidemics that the 
absence of toilets causes typhoid fever, hepatitus, etc. , and 
"could give rise to epidemic spread of disease, and constitutes 
a grave potential danger to the health of the consumer. 

Ex AT- Sworn testimony of Monterey-Salinas physician that the 
"absence of toilet and hand-washing facilities for field workers 
picking fruit and vegetable crops constitute a potential health 
hazard to the eventual consumer" and to the field workers. 

Ex AU: Sworn testimony of the senior physician for the Monterey 
County (Salinas) Hospital that the absence of toilets and proper 
drinking water can result in the transmission of typhoid fever and. 
tuberculosis. 

Ex AV- Affidavit of Santa Clara farm worker harassed by State 
investigator. Visited three times at home and ordered to appear 
at Farm Labor Office to sign affidavit which he did while affirming 
his objection to Farm Labor Office. 

Ex AW: Affidavit of Imperial County Sanitarian contending that 
he' is understaffed and that the ideal agency to enforce field 



4684 

conditions is the Farm Labor Office. 

Ex AX • 

- - ' Affidavit of Stanislaus County Sanitarian stating that 
the Farm Labor Office has the expertise to enforce, and is the 
Ideal agency to enforce, field conditions. 



Ex - AY : Afridav4t of California sanitarian stating that the Farm 
Labor Office is the most appropriate agency for the enforcement of 
field sanitation laws. 

Ex^AZ: Sworn testimony of Imperial County field foreman and bus 
driver that he is permitted by the Farm Labor Office to pick up 
workers despite driving his bus in violation of State safety- 
requirements — no brakes — and that he was fired for complaining 
about, unsafe buses. 

Ex » BA ; Affidavit of Kings County farm worker confirming his 
prior affidavit as to being referred to unlawful jobs by the Farm 
Labor Service, documenting such referrals by attaching State 
referral card, and alleging that the State investigator became 
angered when he asked for permission to contact his lawyer (CRLA) 
and even after such request to contact his lawyer the State inves- 
tigator insisting o n his signing an affidavit without an attorney 
being present . ~" ' ' 

Ex - BB; Affidavit setting forth anxiety and confusion caused 

to Kings County Spanish-speaking farm worker by State investigator. 

Ex: BC: Affidavit of Madera farm worker stating that despite the 
State investigator, everything he previously stated as to the 
Farm Labor Office's- bad jobs is true and he so informed the 
investigator. 

Ex - BD: Affidavit of Madera farm worker stating that despite the 
State investigator everything he previously stated as to the poor 
conditions offered by the Farm Labor Office was true and he so 
Informed the investigator. 

{■*♦ BE: Affidavit of Santa Barbara resident Miguel Canas that 
he took an independent survey of local farm workers and all 
favored CRLA to represent them in getting decent wages and - 
working conditions (70 for CRLA, none for Farm Labor Office). 

■ Ex - BF; Affidavit of President of four-county farm worker group 
stating that his organization in February, 1970, complained about 
the Farm Labor Office and asked CRLA to file suit to close the 
Farm Labor Office. 

Ex - BG: Affidavit of Santa Barbara farm worker stating that he 
circulated a petition in February, 1970, to abolish the Farm Labor 
Office and that virtually every farm worker he showed it to 
eagerly and immediately signed it. 

Ex - BH: Affidavit of President of Imperial County Mexican- 
American Political Association asking-in February, 1970, for 
CRLA to force the Farm Labor Office to provide decent jobs or to 
have it done away with. 

Ex - BI ; Cannery-Grower contract requiring full list of pesticides 
used, including dates, locations, quantity and type. 

Ex - BJ ; Affidavit of Imperial County farm worker stating that the 
Farm Labor Office refers him to out-of-county jobs at wages less 
than promised and under false working conditions. 



4685 



Sworn testimony of community worker that 1-2 bins of apples 
Is the most that a good worker can pick off the ground in 
an 8 hour day, thus yielding a maximum pay of $1.00 an 
hour per worker. 

Affidavit clarifying two previous affidavits, one for 
plaintiffs and one for defendants. The affiant had 
"absolutely no complaint" when using the Farm Labor Service 
as an "e mployer , but did have a problem when he was seeking 
a job for himself. 

Affidavit of Latin American Social Organization president 
stating that his affidavit for defendants that the Farm 
Labor office helps youth was correct but stating that 
adult workers have trouble getting decent jobs from the 
Farm Labor Service. 

Affidavit of VISTA work'er from Connecticut independently 
verifying the truth of the original Lerma and Marin 
affidavits which defendants sought to cloud. 

Affidavits of two farmworkers corroborating original 
Lerma and Marin affidavits and Exhibit BN. 

Exhibit of Farm Labor Office employee who filed affidavits 
for defendants endorsing as workable and desirable sections 
of the "Fair Employment Plan" sought by California farm 
workers. 

Affidavit of farmworker referred by Farm Labor Office 
staff to ranch owned by Farm Labor Office staff. 
The job was inadequate pay and insufficient work. 

Affidavit of farmworker referred to ranch owned by lady 
in Farm Labor Office who sent him there. He found no 
work available when he got there. 

Affidavit of farmworker sent to non-existent job. The 
farmworker complained and was told by the Farm Labor 
office manager that he was a "trouble maker" and was 
blacklisted. 

Affidavit of Napa County farmworker referred to $9.50 
a bin job and paid only $7.50. There were no toilets 
or drinking water. 

Affidavit of investigator checking on Ex BT , above, 
and finding no toilets or drinking water and finding 
that grower was still promising $9.50 per bin. 

Affidavit of community worker-investigator that most 
of Farm Labor Office staff members were farmers and 
requirements of job guarantee they will always be farmers. 



4686 



SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS' PRIOR FORTY (40) EXHIBITS 
( All of Which Are Affidavits, Unless Noted By a * ) 

j . . 

Ex A Frank Valenzuela, former Farm Labor Office employee and 
farm labor contractor, setting forth specific allegations 
that Farm Labor Office is grower-controlled, anti-farm ' 
worker and should be closed or radically reformed since 
i% presently depresses wages and working conditions. 

Ex B The Fair Employment Plan.* 

Ex C Farm worker President of Plaintiff San Benito Consumers' 
Coop, setting forth 75-0 vote by farm worker membership 
"to close the farm labor office because of its failure to 
serve farm workers." 

Ex D List of 250 farm worker plaintiffs from ten California 
counties.* 

Ex E- Santa Clara farm worker alleging Farm Le.bor Office 

referred him to non-existent jobs and to jobs in violation 
of state laws and refused to honor his complaints about 
- these non-jobs. 

Ex F Santa Clara farm worker being referred to large company 
1,000 miles from home, being paid one dollar an hour, 
complaining to Farm Labor Office and being told by it 
that "Salinas Strawberries was very strong; that the 
Farm Labor Office couldn't do anything [and] that Salinas 
Strawberries had many lawyers and could put us in jail." 

Ex G • Santa Clara farm worker referred to non-existent jobs by 
the Farm Labor Office, 

Ex H Mexican-American documentation of Salinas Farm Labor Office' 
refusal to provide drinking water or usable toilets to 
its day haul farm workers, representing 90% of all job place- 
ments. 

Ex I Mexican-'American documentation of 1,869 health and 

sanitation violations by growers using the Salinas Farm 
Labor Office. 

Ex J Imperial County farm worker study of 125 Imperial Farm 
Labor Office referrals. Ninety-five per cent of 
workers referred to growers who refused to provide toilets. 
Only 3% of the 125 workers felt the Farm Labor Office ever 
tried to assist them; all demanded changes and many re- 
ported being laughed at or abused when they reported 
violations to the Farm Labor Office. 

Ex K Imperial farm worker and forty others sent 2,000 miles to a 
1969 Green Giant Co. job at 36 cents an hour and being 
lauqhed at when he complained to Farm Labor Office. 

Ex L Imperial farm worker being referred in 1968, 1,000 miles 
- to a non-existent Green Giant job, complaining to Farm 
Labor Office and being threatened "to send me to jail" if 
I did not "stop saying such things." 



4687 



Imperial farm worker being referred, in 1967, with 260 
male and female workers, 1,500 miles to a non-existent 
Green Giant job, complaining to Farm Labor Office but 
"they didn't pay any attention to me." 

February 11, 1970 statement by Farm Labor Office super- 
visor that primary purpose of Office is to harvest the 
cifops. ' - 

Sonoma County Growers Association (350 members) allegation 
that Farm Labor Office "was being run very inefficiently." 

Santa Rosa Farm Labor Office manager states that all of 
the men working for him had "grower backgrounds." 

Sonoma Farm Labor Contractor's allegations that the Farm 
Labor Office produces phony, inflated job statistics and 
that it should be close'd. 

Sonoma farm worker referred by the Farm Labor Office to a 
job paying fifty cents an hour, . w 

Napa community worker allegations that farm workers receive 
the lowest wages on jobs secured through the Farm Labor 
Office. 

Napa community worker alleging Farm Labor Office referrals 
of workers to growers who do not provide toilets or 
drinking water, 

Madera farm worker referred to non-existent jobs by 
Farm Labor Office. 

Madera farm worker treated discourteously by Farm Labor 
Office, and referred to growers who do not provide toilets 
or drinking water and pay less than the promised wage. 

Madera farm worker referred to growers who do not provide 
toilets or drinking water. ■ • 

Kings County farm worker family referred to non-existent 
job 125 miles away and to grower who paid 20% less than 
promised wage ard Farm Labor Office refused to take any 
action. 

Kings County farm worker referred to non-existent job, to 
a job at substantially less than promised wage, and to 
growers who refuse to provide^ toilets. ■ • 

Los Angeles farm worker referred, with 36 other farm 
workers, to job 100 miles away, received only 3 hours 
work and told no work available next day. 

Stanislaus County farm worker referred to job paying 65 
cents an hour and grower had no toilets or drinking 
water. 

' Stanislaus County farm worker referred to job paying 35 
cents an hour and complained to Farm Labor Office and told 
"they had no other jobs." 



4688 



Ex. AC Stanislaus County farm worker never referred to a job 

where grower had toilets or drinking water and finds best 
jobs on his own. 

Ex AD Stanislaus County farm worker never given choice of jobs 
and always referred to jobs without toilets or drinking 
water. 

Ex AE Stanislaus farm worker referred to substandard jobs and 
denied a choice of jobs. 

Ex AF Yuba community worker allegations that Farm Labor Office 
refuses to even telephone grower to check on toilets and 
refuses to provide a choice of jobs. 

Ex AG Santa Barbara community worker allegations that Farm 
Labor Office refuses to check or verify working 
conditions. 

Ex AH Santa Barbara farm worker refused job as janitor by Farm 
Lator Office, forced to accept substandard farm work, 
and requesting the termination of the Farm Labor Office. 

Ex AI Santa Barbara farm worker referred to jobs without toilets 
or water and to the worst jobs. 

Ex AJ Santa Barbara farm worker referred to the worst jobs by 

the Farm Labor Office and alleging he gets better pay when- 
ever he finds jobs on his own. 

Ex AK, 

AL & AM Letters of February, 1970 to local Farm Labor Offices 

requesting information on toxic pesticide use by growers: 
Farm Labor Office refused to provide any information. 

Ex AN Salinas Valley community worker informed by Salinas Farm 
Labor Office that working conditions, such as toilets and 
drinking water or length of job, were not a matter of 
concern to the Office, and were a matter solely between 
the worker and the employer. 



4689 



IN THE U.S. District COURT 

88B$ffi&QE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 



250 FARM WORKERS , et al . , 
plaintiff, 



No. 



C-70 4 81 AJZ 



vs. 

GEORGE SHULTZ, U.S. SECRE- ' lnYlC 

BARY OF LABOR, et al. , 

Defendant 

of San Francisco' 
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the countj^jtfasesaJdJf I am over the age of eighteen 

years and not a party to the within above entitled action. I served the withi n REPLY BRIEF AND 
SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR 
PR E LIMINARY INJUNCT I ON in this 

(Her. Insert name of pat-cr served) 

action by personally delivering to and leaving with the following persons in the county of San Francisco 

State of California, on the date set opposite their respective names, a true copy thereof, to-wit: 

feavid R..„0rdan 450 Golden Gate Ave., Room 16201, SF Apr il 16, 1970 

Name Plac* Data 

William Bradford 6000 State Building, SF '• April 16, 1970 

Nun. Place Date 



Name place Date 

/ certify (or declare), under penalty of perjury,' that the foregoing is true and correct. 

_ , . April 16, 1970 _ San Francisco *.j»_j 

(dttt) (pUut) 

(Signature) 
neys puts, supply porm no. u 'proof of service forms, being signed under penalty of perjury, do not require notarization. 



4600 

Mr. Gnaizda. I would just like to preface my remarks with one |i 
comment. 

It is a nonpartisan attack. The attack is institutional rather thanii 
personal. I think Secretary of Labor Wirtz failed and I think Sec- 
retary of Labor Shultz is failing in his ability to deal with the problem 
of migratory workers. I have submitted prepared testimony, but I 
would like to depart from the prepared testimony in large measure, 1 
although I will restrict myself to the theme of the prepared testimony. 

Basically my theme is that the migrant farmworker would be better 
off without present so-called Government assistance. The Farm Labor 
Service, which is 100 percent funded by the Federal Government at 
the rate of $21 million a year, is an example of the worst type of 
benign neglect, I am not even sure it is benign neglect of the migrant, I 
It seems to me it is unrealistic to ever assume they any so-called I 
neutral program can be successful when it attempts to help a power- 
less group. 

But what you have in the present situation is a very powerful 
group, the growers, competing for the favors of the Farm Labor j 
Service with the most powerless group ; and of course the most power- 
less group has failed to compete successfully. What has occurred is 
what has occurred with virtually every Federal agency. It has become 
the captive of one side of the struggle. 

Unfortunately the Farm Labor Service is far worse. It has not only 
been captured by the growers, it is totally run by the growers almost j 
exclusively for their interests. 

So, the Farm Labor Service instead of eliminating or minimizing 
the powerlessness of the migrant, and instead of eliminating his pov- 
erty or minimizing it, in a sense accentuates the powerlessness of the 
migrant and perpetuates his poverty. 

I notice, Senator, in your prepared remarks of yesterday that there 
was a quote from "The Grapes of Wrath" about the farmworkers'' con- 
ditions. I think it is exactly parallel to today with one exception, and j 
a frightening exception. That is that the grower now has the backing 
of the wealthiest, most powerful corporation in America, the Labor 
Department and the Federal Government, in his struggle with the 
farmworkers. 

Senator, you mentioned the plight of American Indians. I think 
there is a parallel here with the migrant farmworker. The Farm Labor 
Service in a sense is the migrant's BIA, or Bureau of Indian Affairs. 
The only difference, however, is it is far worse. I would liken it to a 
migrant BIA, the people the migrant is supposed to be protected from 
are running that service and they have been running it very success- 
fully. 

In the last 15 years they have taken a quarter of billion dollars of 
American taxpayers' money and they deprived the migrant worker 
of at least $1 billion in lost wages, because the effect has been to depress 
wages and working conditions. 

I would like to focus on tha Farm Labor Service because I think it 
illustrates the disparity between the rhetoric we have heard this morn- 
ing and yesterday and the reality of the situation. There are four fun- 
damental interrelated problems which I would like to briefly deal with. 



4G01 

First is the breakdown of President Nixon's theme of law and order, 
and the breakdown is by the Government itself. The Labor Depart- 
ment today is breaking almost every single one of its own rules and 
regulations intended to protect the migrant worker. I would like to 
develop that a little later. 

Secondly, the Labor Department Farm Labor Service statistics call 
into question all statistics which are being used for the projected needs 
of the migrant worker and to assist the migrant worker. Yesterday, 
Senator, you and Senator Murphy dealt with statistics and discovered 
there is no basis for many of them. I would like to show that not only 
is there no basis for them, but many of them are deliberate frauds in 
an effort to continue funding at the present level. 

Thirdly, I think the operation of the nationwide Farm Labor Ser- 
vice illustrates the unlikelihood of the Government upgrading jobs 
for migrants or training migrants for industrial jobs. However, my 
personal view is that the migrant is well equipped to deal with mechani- 
zation, if the Government would treat him in a less paternalistic way. 

I think the migrant is ready and well equipped to take oyer mecha- 
nized jobs. Unfortunately our society is unwilling to give him that op- 
portunity. I do not think the problem is inadequate training. I think 
it is totally inadequate specific opportunity. 

I think the most tragic point that the operation of farm labor 
service calls into question is the very question you have just raised, 
Senator, the very role of the Government in assisting those with- 
out power. I think history illustrates that those without power are un- 
likely to ever receive it through the graciousness of government. It is 
only if they have power that they will be able to successfully deal with 
their problems. 

I think the postal workers example that you just mentioned cer- 
tainly illustrates this. I would like to briefly analyze the statistics 
used by farm labor service. 

One would assume the farm labor service statistics would be the 
most accurate of any government agency because the farm labor 
service actually deals with migrants, unlike the Agriculture Depart- 
ment. I think the farm labor service's failure to provide adequate 
statistics isn't due to merely inexperience or inertia. I think it is due 
to active and willful indifference. 

In 1966, for example, the statewide California farm labor service 
alleged that it placed 134,795 workers on jobs. In 1968 this figure, ac- 
cording to California farm labor service statistics, rose tenfold, or 
1,000 percent; they alleged they placed 1,393,000 workers on jobs. This 
occurred despite a 25-percent decline in agricultural employment in 
California and it occurred despite any increase in funding of the farm 
labor service. And it occurred despite the fact, I might add, that, in- 
cluding migrants, at no point in California at any time of the year are 
there as many as even 300,000 farmworkers. 

In 1969 the bureaucracy's statistics continued their meteoric and 
unexplained rise. There was a 25-percent rise in statistics in 1969, 
even though agricultural employment declined another 10 percent : it 
rose to 1,714,000 jobs placed by the California Farm Labor Service. 



4692 

They did not receive any additional funding, however. Apparently ! 
they are in competition with all the other farm labor services through- i 
out the JSIation, which are also increasing their statistics. 

Funding is based exclusively on statistics, not on quality of the iob 
not on length of job, not on wages paid. 

We expect by 1971— California Rural Legal Assistance— that thei 
figure will be over 2 million. And there is no reason, Senator, none ati 
all, to believe that by 1984, no matter what happens with mechaniza-i 
tion, that the hgure will not be over 10 million. 

Senator Mondale. Do you predict there will be a 1984 « 

Mr. Gnaizda. I predict that will be the last year. 

I would like to briefly analyze the quality of statistics, because they' 
are far more alarming than what I would say are these somewhat in- 
flated statistics. 

The farm labor sendee admitted in sworn testimony that 15 out 
of every 16 of its 1.7 million job placements were of unknown, un-i 
named farmworkers. That is, 1,554,578 of their placements in 1969 Were 
of workers whose names they did not know. They don't know the sexj 
ol the worker; they don't know his age. They don't know his social! 
security number. They don't know his first or last name and they do 
not even know what nation he comes from. 

The remainder, the one in 16 remainder, are called quality place- 
ments, but they admitted in sworn testimony that in about half the 
cases they don't even take an employment application of the worker, i 
They may have his social security number, although they may not for ! 
other members of his family, and each member of the family is treated 
as a different statistic and treated as a quality placement. 

Second, the farm labor service admitted that in at least 15 out 
of every 16 job placements, the maximum duration of the job is 1 day ' 
and in many cases is just a half hour. It also admitted, to our great | 
surprise, and to the Senators' great interest in the light of the border 
problem, that one in every four placements, or well over 400,000 place- 
ments, were of non- Americans. That is, Mexicans living in Mexico, 
both temporarily and permanently, who came across the border to get 
a job. 

I will later on mention how that is done, primarily through one 
office. The farm labor service also admitted— and I think this pre- 
vails throughout the Nation— that one worker— you mentioned the mi- j 
grant worker does not count at all, that is not true as far as farm ! 
labor service is concerned — really counts. 

His only major contribution to this Government is a statistic and ; 
they admitted that one farmworker can count for 250 different job 
placements a year, which means over a lifetime he can be responsible 
for 5,000 or 6,000 job placements. And if he has a family of five, he 
may be responsible for 20,000 job placements. 

Every single day a farmworker goes out on a day haul, he is counted | 
as a separate statistic, even though he goes to exactly the same grower. 
So. 15 out of every 16 of the Farm Labor Service statistics do not even i 
refer to different workers and that is how we can explain the fact there 
are more placements than there are workers, because the placements j 
do not relate to workers. They are just a statistic. 



4693 

It was also admitted, for example, that even one grower can make , 
a major contribution to the Farm Labor Service. He can be responsible 
for thousands of placements a year, even though he may only hire 10 or 
; 20 workers or although he may not be covered for unemployment in- 
i surance, because he has less than eight workers for 26 weeks. 

When a father of a family of six gives his name and is sent out to a 

job by Farm Labor Service at 8 a.m. in the morning, that is counted as 

six placements, even if the farmworker quits in a half hour, because the 

grower lied to him about the wage. If the grower then calls the Farm 

Labor Service and says, "I need six workers," the Farm Labor Serv- 

I ice will send another six workers that morning and that will count as 

six more placements. If those six quit because the grower lied about 

I the wages again, the Farm Labor Service admitted it would send 

I another six workers that would count as six more placements. 

It also admitted over a 20-day period many growers might receive 
six different workers each day, because the farmworker is unhappy 
I with the job and 6 times 20 is 120 job placements. The Farm Labor 
I Service says every statistic is treated equally. 

No statistic is treated differently than another. I only wish, of course, 
that the same could be said for the farmworker and the grower. 

I think the Calexico border town office in Imperial County illustrates 
the problem. It has a population of 9,000. Nevertheless, it contributes 
more to the California Farm Labor Service statistics than any other 
city. It produced 463,000 job placements last year; 80 percent of them 
were of non-Americans. They were Mexicans residing in Mexico both 
temporarily and permanently who crossed the border each day. 

But the Farm Labor Service said they do not know if they ever got 
to the job, because they do not count them when they get to the job. 
They count them when they get on the bus. Frequently the bus may 
break down, but the Farm Labor Service says it does not have the 
personnel to check and see if the bus breaks down. So they just count 
them on the bus for administrative convenience. 

Senator Mondale. These Farm Labor offices on the Mexican border, 
like Calexico in southern California, and in Texas, every morning 
count the number of people coming across that bridge to get on trucks, 
buses, and ship them up north, and each one of those are employment 
figures, and later reflected in Labor Department statistics? 
Mr. Gnaizda. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. I assume many of those people coming across 
the border go to the same farmer every day, but every morning it is a 
new placement? 

Mr. Gnaizda. That is correct. We know they go to the same farmer 
in Imperial County. Imperial County is now the richest agricultural 
county in the Nation, but it only has 600 farmers. They have varying 
crops, so on any one day the Farm Labor Service probably sends work- 
ers out to 30 or 40 growers. 

The Farm Labor Service there stated that they know the names of 
only one-tenth of 1 percent of all the workers they referred out to job 
placements in 1969. In other words, they had the names of 530 of 463,- 
000 job placements. That is all they had. 



4694 

Very interestingly, a fee is charged to these farmworkers. The Farm 
Labor Service permits farm labor contractors to act as middlemen to 
charge a fee to growers who get Farm Labor Service farmworkers. A 
fee is charged in approximately one-half of the cases. This operates 
in the following fashion. 

A farm labor contractor brings a bus to the Farm Labor Service 
day haul center. He might bring two or three buses and load them up 
with migrant workers. Say he has 80 on two buses. He drives to the 
grower and produces the workers for an 8-hour day. 

The grower pays 25 cents.a head per hour. So that for each farm- 
worker the farm contractor gets $2 times 80 workers, or $160 a day. 
This is prohibited by Federal law. It is very specific. No person may 
use the Farm Labor Service if he charges a fee to either the employer 
or the employee. Nevertheless, the Farm Labor Service admitted, and 
they said they see nothing wrong with it, that farm labor contractors 
charge a fee. 

They have some other interesting statistics to bolster the need for 
the Farm Labor Service. And I think the statistics are impressive. 
The only thing I can say is I do not understand how with only 2,000 
staff members in the Nation they are able to keep all these statistics. 
They have a statistic called office contacts. In one little branch office 
in Healdsburg, Sonoma County, in August of 1969 the office produced 
4,900 office contacts. They produced only four regular jobs, but 4,900 
contacts and 1,000 job referrals. 

We asked them what that meant by an office contact. Jestingly I said, 
"What if someone came in who was not a farmworker and he was lost 
and said where is the restroom ? Would you count that as an office 
contact," and they said, "Yes, because it took up office time." 

I did not ask this question, but presumably if the mailman came 
and delivered letters — need I say any more? It was very interesting 
that despite the statistics (despite the great increase from year to 
year from 134,000 in 1966 to 1.3 million in 1968 to 1.7 million in 1969) 
the Farm Labor Service in California proudly states that it did not 
produce one counseling or one testing statistic. 

No farmworker in California is given any counseling or any test- 
ing. Under every category where it says "counseling" or "testing," 
they list absolutely zero. 

But there is an explanation for it. Despite the Federal regulations, 
and there are four of them and they are very clear, stating that you 
have to receive counseling and you have to receive testing if appro- 
bate, the Farm Labor Service has an excuse. I think it is a fairly 
interesting one. 

Since they do not have Spanish-speaking personnel in some of the 
offices, it would not do any good. In the Santa Kosa office they have 15 
employees ; 60 percent of the people coming in speak Spanish. None of 
the 15 in the office can speak Spanish. 

Senator Mondale. Where is this, where 60 percent of them are 
Spanish speaking ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. In Sonoma County, Napa County north of San Fran- 
cisco. There are plenty of Mexican Americans in those counties and 
many are resident and many speak Spanish. 



4695 

The manager said he knew how to say "Yes" and "No" in Spanish. 
"We did not test him on that. He has only been there for 26 years. 

Incidentally, that office, according to the testimony of the manager, 
is absolutely perfect. We asked him if there was any room for improve- 
ment of any kind and he said "None." We asked him if he had been 
criticized by anyone above or below him and he said "Absolutely 
never." 

In summary, what you have in the California State Farm Labor 
Service is 449 personnel, funded with $3.5 million, placing workers or 
a total, according to their statistics, of only 9,395 real jobs, that is, 
regular jobs. However, they admit that even of these 9,300 so-called 
real jobs many were duplications, because frequently a worker would 
be sent to a real job that did not pan out. 

He would be counted, but some were for only a half-day or so. So 
in summary, you can say about the California Farm Labor Service 
that each staff member per year produced 20 real jobs, or one-tenth of 
one so-called real job per staff day. I don't know if there is anything 
more that I need say about the statistics. 

I would like to talk about law and order. There are a number of man- 
datory regulations, the purpose of which is to assist the farmworker 
and to protect him. Basically none of them are being obeyed at all. I 
would like to talk about 11 particular violations that you raised in 
large measure yesterday. 

No. 1, advisory councils. It is not permissive. It is not prefatory to 
have them. It is mandatory. The language says "shall." The Labor 
Department, however, has informed me that despite my legal back- 
ground, that I do not imderstand what "shall" means. "Shall" means 
"may." 

So perhaps when the Senate rewrites legislation, it might want to 
say "shall" means "shall" and not "may." 

Senator Mondale. Which advisory council are you talking about? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Statewide and local. They are mandatory. 

Senator Mondale. Do we have them ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. No, sir ; none. 

Senator Mondale. The law provides that migrants should be in- 
cluded on those councils ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Yes ; but not specifically. It talks about representation 
from all groups. But apparently the migrant farmworker is not sup- 
posed to benefit. 

Senator Mondale. But in any event the law requires creating tiles* 1 
committees, and yet they do not exist. 

Mr. Gnaizda. They do not. Secondly, the law requires counselinp 
It is mandatory. 

Third, the law requires testing. There is none of any kind. 

Fourth, the Federal regulation talks specifically about the obligation 
of the Farm Labor Service to upgrade the farmworker. Instead, they 
downgrade the farmworker's job. Specifically they try to fill the worst 
jobs first for good reason. They are the hardest to fill. 

The law prohibits anyone from making a profit from the use of the 
Farm Labor Service, especially middlemen or farm labor contractors. 
It says no one shall receive a fee directly or indirectly from the em- 



4696 

ployer or employee. Nevertheless, somewhere between one-third and 
one-half of all the placements in California result in a fee to a farm 
labor contractor. 

The regulations are clear. The longest job duration is to be the job 
to which the farmworker is to be sent. However, he is generally sent 
to the job of the shortest duration. The reason is simple. That will 
produce a higher annual statistic. 

If you can send a farmworker to a new job each day, he will count as 
a new statistic each day. There is no value to sending a farmworker 
to a job that lasts for months. That only counts as one job placement 

The law says specifically that the farmworker shall be sent only to 
those growers who pay the highest prevailing wages in the area. In- 
stead, they are sent to jobs paying the lowest prevailing wages. 

Senator Mondale. Is that a State or Federal regulation % 

Mr. Gnaizda. Federal, and adopted by the State. 

Senator Mondale. Farm labor offices are supposed to send available 
workers, first, to the highest paying employers ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Right. And they are not permitted to send workers to 
jobs that pay below the minimum. 

Senator Mondale. Below the minimum wage, or below the prevail 
ing wage? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Prevailing is higher than the minimum, presumably 
In California that is the case. Very few growers deliberately violate I 
the minimum wage when they pay a fixed rate. However, it is violated 
on the piece rate and is responsible for farmworkers earning less than 
$1.65. 

The grower submits an order for a piece rate, he submits an un- 
realistically low piece rate, but on its face it does not look like it is 
below the minimum. In the Santa Rosa office it was admitted they 
received piece rates to pick apples at the rate of, for example, $4 a bin. 
It has been proven that there is no farmworker anywhere in California 
who can pick in an 8-hour day more than two bins of apples. That 
would be 3,000 pounds. So if you are paying $4 a bin, you earn $8 foi 
an 8-hour day or a dollar an hour. 

Senator Mondale. Does Federal minimum wage law only require 
that the minimum be paid where an hourly rate is in effect, and if a 
piece rate is in effect, the wage law has no application ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. It has application as to the piece rate. You have to 
show that at least 80 percent of your workers earned the minimum 
wage through the piece rate. However, Federal regulations for the 
Farm Labor Service are clear: Everyone must earn the minimum 
wage. No one can earn below it. The regulation goes beyond the Fair 
Labor Standards Act. 

Senator Mondale. Is it your testimony that the Farm Labor Service 
in California is, in fact, ignoring those requirements ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Absolutely, unequivocally. 

Senator Mondale. And is the Farm Labor Service prohibited from 
sending workers to farms which pay less than the minimum wage ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. That is correct, and it is their testimony they never do. 
It is the testimony of every farmworker that he earns far below the 



4607 

minimum wage, although no employers admit that they pay a specified 
wage of less than $1.65 an hour. 

Next, the violations of the regulations protecting against health and 
sanitation. Violations are clear. No one can be sent to a grower who 
violates any health or sanitation law. However, the Farm Labor Serv- 
ice refuses to obey these laws and openly sends workers to growers 
who violate health and sanitation laws. 

Eighthly, there is a prohibition against sending farmworkers to 
growers who endanger the health of farmworkers. For example, in the 
pesticide area. Even though the Farm Labor Service has a statistic 
available to it that one in every six farmworkers is injured due to 
pesticides in California every year — that is, 37,500 farmworkers are 
injured annually due to pesticides — the Farm Labor Service has taken 
the position that it is not a matter of any concern to it, that the problem 
of pesticides is a problem between the worker and the grower and not 
something the Farm Labor Service should intercede in. 

There are two other violations of Federal regulations. One is the 
blacklisting of workers. The Farm Labor Service blacklists workers 
who are considered by growers to have unacceptable attitudes, who 
complain about lack of promised wages or lack of toilets or drinking 
water. However, the Farm Labor Service admitted that although it 
had a blacklist of workers, it has no comparable list of growers against 
whom violations are filed. 

There is a very good and satisfactory bureaucratic explanation for 
this. The Farm Labor Service stated it never records any complaints 
made against growers. If a worker complains, it goes unrecorded. So 
from a bureaucratic standpoint it could not compile a blacklist of 
growers. 

Senator Mondale. Let's go back to the blacklist. Do you have direct 
evidence that they will accept an employer's blacklist ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Yes, sir, the sworn testimony of Milton Eisley, the 
manager of the Santa Rosa office, taken in early April 1970. 

Senator Mondale. A grower will bring in a list of people he does 
not want back because they have complained about lack of toilets ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Farm Labor Service was evasive about it and refused 
to turn over their records, but the manager stated that they have 
names of workers that they keep on a list whom they consider unde- 
sirable workers. And that these workers would, therefore, not be 
referred out to jobs; but they do not have such a list of undesirable 
growers and even though they receive complaints by workers against 
growers, they do not record any of the complaints so they would 
never be able from one day to another to know how many complaints 
were issued against any particular grower. 

Senator Mondale. If a worker came in and said, "I was only paid 60 
cents an hour. I worked hard. Everybody in that field made 60 cents 
an hour maximum.-' The Farm Labor Service would not record that, 
but instead would strike this person from the referral list? 

Mr. Gnaizda. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. But if that same farmer came in and said, "A 
farmworker named Lopez complained because we did not have a field 

36-513 O— 71— pt. 7B 12 



4608 

toilet." The official might write that man's name down, and not refer 
him for any work ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. They said they would require three complaints before 
they would abandon him. Three strikes and you are out. 

We believe this type of blacklist is banned by Federal regulations. 
It certainly ought to be banned on ethical and moral grounds, cer- 
tainly until there is equal treatment between the grower and the 
worker. 

The farmworker is willing to run the risk of being personally 
blacklisted if the grower runs the same ri >k. 

The last major violation, is the failure of the Farm Labor Service 
to serve both groups. It is supposed tc serve the grower and farm- 
worker. The testimony is that the Farm 1 iabor Service people regularly 
meet with the growers and never meet vvith farmworkers and see no 
need to meet with farmworkers. 

In addition, it is interesting that it was admitted during the dep- 
ositions that growers staff the Farm Labor Service. For example, in 
one office all the primary staff members are growers and they send 
workers out to their own ranches. 

Senator Mondale. Go through that again. 

Mr. Gnaizda. Let us take the Sonoma County Farm Labor Office, 
for example. All the permanent employees, as opposed to seasonal 
employees, are persons directly associated with agriculture. 

Senator Mondale. But most of them are civil service, aren't they ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Yes, they are unsuccessful growers or wives of growers. 

Senator Mondale. And they may be drawn from local communities, 
but they will be civil service ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Right. 

Senator Mondale. They are permanent year-round employees ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Right ; for example, the testimony was one staff mem- 
ber made approximately 40 different referrals to her own ranch during 
the year 1969. On many of the occasions the minimum wage was not 
paid, because it was subverted through a piece rate and the manager 
said he had no idea whether even that staff member complied with 
elementary California State health sanitation laws, such as the require- 
ment to provide toilets and drinking water. 

There are two other points I wanted to mention. 

Senator Mondale. And in California you have no evidence that 
farm labor offices hire seasonal farmworkers as office employees during 
peak season ? 

Mr. Gnaicda. They do not. They hire many retired military people. 

Senator Mondale. Do they hire special help during harvest season ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Through civil service. I will say this for California. 
It has made more of an effort in terms of securing Spanish-speaking 
persons than most other agencies, but they cannot function without 
them. That is the reason. The statistics show they cannot get workers 
together without someone speaking Spanish. 

When they go to a bus, they say to the farm labor contractor, "How 
many workers?" They don't count them, so it is self-preservation. 
But they do have a significant number and it is increasing. It is shock- 



4699 

ing, however, that any office that serves 60 percent Spanish-speaking 
persons would have none, as is the case with the Santa Rosa office. They 
are not chosen from the farmworking community because of attitudes. 
It is important to have what is considered a proper grower attitude 
and persons who have had nonproper attitudes have found it difficult 
to get the jobs, even with proper training. 

We have a number of affidavits from people like that. 

There are two other areas in which I think the Farm Labor Service 
operation has shown itself to be hypocritical in terms of agricultural 
and labor development expectations. One is job training and upgrading 
of workers. 

The Labor Department is never going to succeed with the migrant. 
I have no hope at all. They are not doing any counseling or testing 
and the regulations are clear they have to do it. They are not interested 
in protecting the farmworkers. At best, they see themselves in a be- 
nevolently indifferent disinterested role. 

Maybe a few people in Washington are somewhat interested in 
the migrant worker and would be attacking the Labor Department 
were they not working for it. I do not think it is a reflection on the 
people in Washington. I think highly of Mr. Weber. I think he is an 
extraordinary man. 

I also think highly of former Secretary Wirtz, but they won't do 
the job when they are in the Labor Department. At least not as to 
the Farm Labor Service. 

There is one illustration of the migrant workers' problems with the 
Farm Labor office which I think shows total hypocrisy. That is the 
example of the Green Giant Co. In 1967 Manuel R. — I am leaving 
off the last names. 

Senator Mondale. I was a pea inspector for them once. Be careful. 

Mr. Gnaizda. Manual R. was referred by the Farm Labor Service 
in Calexico to Green Giant with 260 other workers. He was referred 
to Minnesota. When he arrived there with 500 workers from all over, 
there were no jobs for most of the workers, only a couple of hours of 
work. 

Finally he arrived back at the Farm Labor Service in Calexico and 
he complained. He said they paid no attention to him at all. Well, we 
can understand that. 

The Farm Labor Service did not have any idea that Green Giant 
treated workers that way. 

The next year they sent Gumberto V., along with a number of other 
workers from Calexico to the State of Washington. Once again, to 
Green Giant. He arrived. There was no work for almost a week. Green 
Giant had apparently instructed the bus drivers not to drive anyone 
south because many of the workers wanted to leave. 

When he arrived back in Calexico, he saw the Farm Labor Office 
still had the same sign, advertising for workers for Green Giant in 
Washington. He spoke to some of the farmworkers, telling them not 
to go up there. 

One of the staff people who understood Spanish overheard him and 
told him to stop this talk and threatened to have him sent to jail if he 
did not terminate his objections to Green Giant Co. 



4700 

In 1969, though, they were still referring workers. One worker testi- 
fied that he was referred with about 35 other workers from Calexico 
to Illinois to work for Green Giant during this period. During his 
first 2 weeks, after all deductions, he earned an average of 36 cents an 
hour. 

He said he was a slave there. He had no way to get back. He had no 
money. So of course he stayed for the entire contract period of ap- 
proximately 6 weeks. He went back to the Farm Labor Service. He 
complained to them very bitterly. He said they just laughed at me and 
told me there was nothing that could be done. 

There are many other examples of exploitation of farmworkers who 
are sent across California into other States. 

Senator Mondale. Let us look more carefully at that Green Giant 
example. Does Green Giant send a bus to Calexico, pick these people 
up and take them to Illinois or Washington or Minnesota? 

Mr. Gnaizda. That is what the Farm Labor Service people tell us. 
It is their bus, Green Giant — but we don't think so. We think they are 
contracted out. 

Senator Mondale. What incentive would Green Giant have to bring, 
at their own expense, surplus labor that they do not intend to use to 
distant points like that? Doesn't that cost money? 

Mr. Gnaizda. One would think so, but not necessarily. All the 
workers testified that Green Giant did not give them advances, in case 
of Calexico workers. Although transportation was paid for, it was 
deducted out from their wages when they began to work. No food 
allowance is given and no living allowance on long trips. 

Green Giant would probably like to have just enough workers to do 
the job, but they don't want to take a chance. The bus might break 
down. In one case it did, so there was a delay. It is in every grower's 
interest to have a surplus of workers. 

It guarantees the harvesting of crops. It also guarantees you will not 
have to raise the price to induce workers to stay. It induces the worker 
to work more than 8 hours and it induces him to work Saturdays and 
Sundays. So there is an advantage and I appreciate this advantage. 

Growers may have the right to continue to do this, but the farm 
labor service should not encourage it. It has an obligation to the 
workers. It should try to match the workers to the job. But if they are 
going to make an error, it should be against the grower, not against 
the migrant or farmworker. 

All of our workers could have made money somewhere else if they 
had not gone there. 

I am not overly sympathetic to the labor problems of large corpora- 
tions. I think they are capable of handling those problems, and I think 
companies that do have good labor relations in agriculture can get 
plenty of workers. We have evidence of this from growers who do not 
violate the law in California. 

Senator Mondale. One of your allegations in the legal court com- 
plaint is that better employers do not use the State employment 
service ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. We have an affidavit that was submitted by Driscoll 
Strawberries, the second largest strawberry grower in California. The 



4701 

president stated in his affidavit that the farm labor service only 
serves, or best serves, those growers who violate the maximum number 
of laws and pay the lowest wages. 

He thinks it should be terminated or run by farmworkers and 
growers because presently it does not serve the best interests of agri- 
culture as a whole ; it serves only the more marginal employers. 

Driscoll Strawberries does not have trouble getting workers. They 
come back there year after year. I think the same would be the case 
for Green Giant if it had a good reputation. 

The fourth major problem illustrated by the farm labor service 
is the whole question of the role of Government in assisting the 
powerless. I think the farm labor service puts into question the whole 
role of government in attempting to assist the migrant farmworkers. 
The farm labor service in California depresses wages and working 
conditions. We have estimated that the farm labor service alone, 
through its operation of sending workers to the worst jobs, causes a 
loss of wages annually of at least $62.8 million a year. 

We have also estimated that there is a substantial cost to the taxpayer 
in terms of additional welfare costs, because farmworkers earning less 
than a certain amount are eligible for welfare, depending on hours 
worked under California welfare rules. 

So what you have is the Farm Labor Service and the Federal Gov- 
ernment depressing wages and working conditions, perpetuating the 
powerlessness of migrants and perpetuating their poverty. I think 
that if the Farm Labor Service was a private industry and the same 
kind of complaints were developed, that there would be a vociferous, 
widespread demand for regulation of the Farm Labor Service. 

But the Farm Labor Service is a law unto itself and this is why the 
farmworkers would like the Farm Labor Service closed. 

As an alternative I would like to suggest concurrence with your own 
proposal, Senator. I would perhaps go just a little further and say, 
"Turn over the whole Farm Labor Service to the migrant workers." 
I am not suggesting that they will do a good job. I don't know. They 
might. 

I will say one thing though. They will not do a worse job than the 
Farm Labor Service has done and there will be at least 2,000 migrant 
workers uplifted from poverty, because they will be on Federal 
payrolls. 

During the last 15 years the Farm Labor Service has cost the tax- 
payers a quarter of a billion dollars that we can identify. I am sure the 
cost is more than that in terms of lost wages. It certainly is more than 
that just in terms of drain on our gold balance. 

Since the Farm Labor Service is providing work for Mexicans most 
of them save the money they earn, do not spend it in the United States, 
and then take it back into Mexico. We have estimated in another law- 
suit that illegal aliens in California alone are responsible for a drain of 
$100 million a year on the U.S. balance of payments. They earn over 
$131 million in California and over $100 million goes back to Mexico. 

Senator Mondale. This gets to the border problem. I think that is 
the chief cause of migrancy. 



4702 

Mr. Gnaizda. I concur. I think the border problem is a greater 
problem than the Farm Labor Service. I think the Farm Labor Service 
just accentuates it. 

Senator Mondale. If you could prevent that illegal gush of labor 
coming across the border, bargaining power of those who are left, of 
U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens would rise dramatically. 
You say Calexico is the biggest office in the country ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Biggest in California; 463,000 job placements. 

Senator Mondale. That is right on the Mexican border ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Right across from Mexicali. 

Senator Mondale. Most of the people that come to that office are 
just commuting from Mexico, are they not ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. And go back there ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. They say a quarter of those are nonresident aliens. 

Mr. Gnaizda. The Calexico statistics are 80 percent of 463,000 are 
Mexicans. That is just for Calexico. 

Senator Mondale. That is based on their statistics ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. And a lot are producing phony baptismal 
certificates? 

Mr. Gnaizda. I would think so. 

Senator Mondale. So that understates the number of aliens. 

Mr. Gnaizda. We would say so. We had a survey made of Imperial 
County farmworkers from the Calexico area; 125 were interviewed. 
Many people would not talk. We assumed most of those who would not 
talk were Mexicans. Of those who did, somewhat over '75 percent were 
from Mexico. 

It was interesting, their observations on the farm labor service. 
None of them could ever recall being assisted by the farm labor serv- 
ice in any fashion. All but three of them were very unhappy and dis- 
satisfied with farm labor service. 

These are Mexicans whose toleration of abusive government is 
greater than that of most Americans. 

Senator Mondale. In your opinion, is the State employment office in 
Calexico actually soliciting foreign labor? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Sure. They have to keep up their statistics. They are 
now on a windmill. They have no alternative. Once that statistic starts 
to go up, you cannot let it level off, because other States are in competi- 
tion for funding. 

Senator Mondale. Let us go right to the Department and ask them 
for statistics from all States of the last 5 years and see what they are. 

Also get a list of all employment offices on the Mexican border and 
trace the same kinds of statistics that we have seen in Calexico. 

Mr. Gnaizda. I think that would be very helpful. 

There were a couple of suggestions that you made, Senator, which I 
agree with wholeheartedly. One of them is if we do not want to turn 
over the farm labor service to migrant workers, we could just con- 
sider taking that $21 million and buying mobile homes. I think they 
would be far better off. If you took the $250 million that has been 



4703 

squandered over the last 15 years and put it in mobile homes, 50,000 
migrant families would now have mobile homes. 

Senator Mondale. 50,000 might be more houses than migrants? 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. Gnaizda. That is correct, I was leaving a little leeway because 
of the possibility that their statistics might be inaccurate. There was 
some suggestion of that yesterday, I believe. 

In summary, I think the farmworkers' view of the Farm Labor 
Service is best expressed by a quote from the "The Grapes of Wrath."' 
Tom, of the Joad family, was referring to the farm labor conditions 
that he encountered and he said, "That's Stinking." And the young 
man laughed harshly and he said, "You stay out here a little while 
and if you smell any roses, you come let me smell, too." 

Thank you. 

Senator Mondale. Mr. Mittelman. 

Mr. Mittleman. I have a few things. You quoted from a number 
of documents, particularly a deposition and some affidavits. I wonder 
if you could supply for the committee's records actual copies of dep- 
ositions and the affidavits you quoted from. 

Mr. Gnaizda. As to all the affidavits, yes. And what I will do for 
the committee is submit the pertinent points on the depositions because 
they are fairly lengthy. 

Mr. Mittelman. If you could submit enough so we know the con- 
text, questions, and the direct quotations. 

Mr. Gnaizda. I will be delighted to do so. I might note that the ma- 
terials were submitted together with my opening statement, and per- 
haps they will all be printed together. 

Mr. Mittelman. That's fine. Secondly, a number of charges you 
made are obviously very serious and they do apparently involve viola- 
tion of Federal Government regulations, but I think the record ought 
to be clarified as to the relationship between the Federal Government 
and the local State employment service. This is not, as least as I under- 
stand it, a matter of Federal Government being able to step in and tell 
local employment service director what he must do to follow regula- 
tions or, indeed, to fire a local employment service director who fails 
to follow regulations. 

There is a very delicate relationship between the U.S. Department 
of Labor and various state governments and, in fact, the employment, 
local employment service officers are known as State employment serv- 
ice officers and the employees of those offices are State employees. 
They are not Federal employees by and large. 

Is that your understanding ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. The factual statements are correct. The conclusion 
legally is one, I think, that is not necessarily correct. The regulations 
specifically state that no State may operate a Farm Labor Service and 
get any Federal funds unless it has an effective plan of operation that 
is in full compliance with every rule and regulation. 

And the Labor Department could cut off the funds. They could 
threaten to cut them off and, in fact, now have acknowledged that, in 
fact, they may have some duties. But over the past 15 years they have 
taken the position that they have no responsibility. 



4704 

Mr. Mittelman. You are absolutely right. They obviously do have 
a responsibility. I want to get the record straight to indicate that in 
order to correct the problem, the U.S. Department of Labor has to 
negotiate with California concerning its implementation of its total 
plan for its running of its employment service. 

The Federal Government cannot step in directly and give orders to 
a local State employment service director. It must negotiate with the 
California State Employment Service and its director, who is respon- 
sible basically to the government of California. 

Mr. Gnaizda. That is correct, in the technical sense of viewing 
things as going through channels. However, all Secretary of Labor 
Shultz has to do is send a letter saying here are the regulations. We 
want them obeyed in spirit. 

Mr. Mittelman. That sounds very easy. 

Mr. Gnaizda. He just has to threaten to cut off the funds. 

Mr. Mittelman. I appreciate that and I am not arguing at all. 

Mr. Gnaizda. I understand. 

Mr. Mittelman. I just wanted to clarify the record, because Mr. 
Weber was here yesterday, and I believe you heard his testimony. It 
was not made clear on the record that he could not step in and tell 
the local employment service director to change his ways. 

This is a matter of negotiation between Federal and State govern- 
ments. The employment service is 100 percent Federal-funded. 

Senator Mondale. This is true of farm labor offices, too. The condi- 
tion for States receiving these funds is that the regulations laid down 
must be complied with ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Correct. 

Senator Mondale. And some of the violations you have alleged here 
today are violations of those regulations? 

Mr. Gnaizda. Correct. 

Senator Mondale. Is there any evidence that you have that the Fed- 
eral Labor Department has tried to enforce the obedience to these 
regulations by local farm labor offices? 

Mr. Gnaizda. I think the best evidence would be two letters that I 
wrote. I documented the matter more generally in October of 1968, 
October 22; I sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Wirtz. I merely 
received an immediate response thanking me for calling this to his 
attention. 

That was the end of the response. On July 9, 1969, I felt Secretary 
Shultz had been in office long enough for me to call this to his atten- 
tion through an almost identical letter. And I indicated that any addi- 
tional information he would like would be made readily available. I 
never received a response. 

Senator Mondale. What violation or violations were you refer- 
ring to? 

Mr. Gnaizda. The whole office; we stated it was a grower- run, 
grower-dominated office, that it subsidized only those growers who 
violated the law and we threatened litigation if we did not receive a 
response. 

Nevertheless, we received no response. We then tried to negotiate 
with the State and we met with them in December of 1969 after they 



4705 

had lost a related lawsuit in State court. The} 7 contended they had no 
obligation under the act at all. They lost the State lawsuit. 

When we inquired as when they would enforce the law, they in- 
dicated it would take time. We said, "How long? A year?" They said, 
"Maybe longer." So we then attempted to get in touch with the Secre- 
tary of Labor and he finally met with a group of farmworkers on 
February 20, 1970. Secretary Weber alluded to this yesterday. 

The Secretary's position at that time was he would look into it with- 
out a commitment of any kind at all. I am not really free to say what 
is happening since then, but I would say we are not satisfied at all. 

Senator Mondale. You say the State of California took the position 
that the Federal funds came to the State unconditioned ? 

Mr. Gnaizda. They would not put it in those legal terms, but in 
substance that is correct. I am sure as an attorney you have found that 
this generally happens. Any time you bring a suit against anybody, 
he says he owes no duty to your clients. 

Senator Mondale. At this point the reality of a farmworker who is 
treated in a way which violates those regulations is one of total power- 
lessness. There is nothing he can do about it unless he has the money to 
hire a lawyer, unless some administrator goes out of his way to help. 

Mr. Gnaizda. But he cannot even hire a lawyer. They are afraid. 
The way we brought this suit is we filed in a sealed envelop the undis- 
closed names of 250 farmworkers. We called it 250 farmworkers versus 
Shultz. 

A worker runs a risk of being blacklisted. To disclose one's name 
takes the kind of courage most bureaucrats do not even have. 

I have not heard anybody at the Labor Department say we should do 
something about the exploitation of the migrant. I only hear talk about 
more studies. I am not opposed to studies, but I think more of the 
money should be given directly to the migratory worker. The worst 
that will occur will be that a few thousand migrant workers will profit 
from the jobs created and leave their migrant position and move into 
the middle class. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you very much for a most useful state- 
ment. You have reassured me in my belief that one of the few good 
things we have done in this country is the passage of legislation pro- 
viding for the establishment of a legal services program. 

Mr. Gnaizda. Thank you for your support. 

Senator Mondale. The subcommittee has received several statements 
that I order printed at this point in the record. 

(The information referred to follows:) 



4706 

The Urban Institute, 
Washington, D.C., April 10, 1970. 
Mr. Boren Chertkov, 
Counsel for Subcommittee of 

Migratory Farm Labor, U.S. Senate Office Building, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Chertkov : I have prepared and enclosed a capsule statement of the 
Geneseo monograph. The statement is entitled "The Measurement and Interpre- 
tation of the Earnings of Migratory Farm Workers". 

I have recently experimented with a capsule statement of the Public Policy 

paper in a seminar I gave the Afro-American Studies students at Yale and at 

an economics seminar at Penn State, and have concluded that it is better left 

whole. v 

Please feel free to use in part or in whole any of the materials I have sent you. 

Sincerely yours, 

Herrington J. Bryce. 
Enclosures. 



4707 



Alternative Policies for Increasing 
The Earnings of Migratory Farm Workers 



BY 

Herrington J. Bryce 



Reprinted from 

PUBLIC POLICY 

Volume xviii, Spring 1970, Number 3 

Copyright, 1970, by the President and Fellows of Harvard College 



4708 



PUBLIC POLICY 



PUBLISHED BY THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS FOR THE 
JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY 



Editorial Board 



James S. Duesenberry Samuel L. Popkin 

Richard C. Edwards Lester C. Thurow 

Stanley H. Hoffmann Michael Walzer 

Robert Jervis Paul H. Weaver 

Edwin Kuh Harrison Wellford 

Ernest R. May Robert C. Wood 
John D. Montgomery, Chairman 



Editors 

James R. Kurth, Politics Thomas D. Willett, Economics 

Edith L. Annin, Assistant Editor 



PUBLIC POLICY is published quarterly by the Harvard University Press for the 
John Fitzgerald Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Annual sub- 
scription, $8.00 (foreign, $9.00); single copies, $2.50. Manuscripts and editorial 
correspondence should be addressed to The Editors, PUBLIC POLICY, Littauer 222, 
Cambridge, Mass. 02138; business correspondence concerning subscriptions, back 
issues, and advertising should be addressed to the Harvard University Press, 79 
Garden Street, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. 



© 1970 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College 

Published by the Harvard University Press 
79 Garden St. Cambridge, Mass. 02138 

Application to mail at second-class rates is pending at Boston, Mass. 



4709 



ALTERNATIVE POLICIES FOR INCREASING 
THE EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY 
FARM WORKERS 

HERRINGTON J. BRYCE 

The earnings of migratory farm workers are pitifully low. How 
can they be increased? Basically, there are three alternative poli- 
cies for increasing the earnings of any group of workers: an in- 
crease in the demand for their services, a minimum wage, and a 
reduction in their supply. This paper discusses these alternatives 
as they relate to migrant farm workers. The potential contribution 
of a farm labor union is also considered. 



Present Levels of Money Earnings 

In 1968 migrants on farms covered by the federal minimum wage 
law earned $1.66 an hour, 4^ more than those on uncovered farms. 
As usual, the regional variation in wages was very wide. Wages 
were highest in California and in the Northeastern states of Con- 
necticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. They were lowest in 
the South. In Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ten- 
nessee, West Virginia, and especially South Carolina, the average 
wage of migrants was below the federal minimum of $1.15. In 
South Carolina it was 99^. 

Hourly rates overestimate the total annual income of migrants, 
since most are irregularly employed. The annual income of those 
who worked exclusively on farms in 1968 was about $1,000. Those 
who did both farm and nonfarm work earned nearly $2,000. x 

* This article is based on a report prepared for the New York State Center for 
Migrant Studies (see footnote 4). I am grateful for the comments of David Martin, 
Roy Bryce-LaPorte, Constantine Michalopoulos, Stuart O. Schweitzer, and B. J. 
Widnick, although the views expressed here are my own. 

i The state wage data are obtained from the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 
The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the United States, 1969 (Report of the 
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate), p. 51, and U.S. Department 
of Labor, Hired Farmworkers: A Study of the Effects of the $1.15 Minimum Wage 
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1969, pp. 8-10. Annual income data are ob- 
tained from Robert C. McElroy, The Hired Farm Working Force of 1968 (Agri- 



4710 



414 Public Policy 

These low earnings are reflected in the very high rates of poverty 
and malnutrition in rural America. 



A Reduction in the Supply of Farm Labor 

A reduction in the supply of farm labor undergirds all other poli- 
cies. 2 It will relieve further downward pressure on wages by 
bringing supply more in line with the continuing decrease in the 
demand for migrant labor due to mechanization. It will help to 
alleviate underemployment by reducing the number of indi- 
viduals among whom a smaller and smaller quantity of work is 
allocated; to bring about a more efficient scheduling of work; 
and to bring about the competition needed to make current mini- 
mum wage laws effective. 

How can supply be reduced? It will not be sufficient simply to 
induce people to leave the migrant stream. Not only will such a 
strategy breed hardship, but it will fail to reduce the supply of 
farm labor unless steady employment at adequate wages is found 
in the nonfarm sector. There is some evidence to imply that many 
who leave the migrant stream do not in fact divorce themselves 
from agricultural employment. Many who leave later return; 
others become sedentary but continue to work either exclusively 
or part-time in agriculture. 3 Some join squatter-type communities 
in rural areas and constitute part of the local supply of farm 
labor. Others go to the city ghetto, where they are either unem- 
ployed or occasionally employed on farms and are known as day- 
haul labor. Finally, the consequence of a large number of mi- 



cultural Economic Report No. 164; Economic Research Service, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, June 1969), p. 6. 

2 At least one prominent economist sees a reduction in farm labor supply as 
offering the only real hope for higher wages. See Theodore W. Schultz, "National 
Employment, Skills, and Earnings," in C. E. Bishop (ed.), Farm Labor in the United 
States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), pp. 53-56. 

3 The chances for complete and successful separation from farm employment are 
most favorable for persons with high income (a reflection of productivity) and for 
those who settle in large cities farthest away from farms. Those who settle close by 
(and most do) are likely to return to farming. See Dale E. Hathaway and Brian E. 
Perkins, "Occupational Mobility and Migration from Agriculture," in The Presi- 
dent's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, Rural Poverty in the 
United States (Washington, D.C., May 1968), pp. 185-237. 



4711 



EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 415 

grants entering the nonfarm labor market could be depressed 
wages for others (largely nonwhites) who are concentrated or 
trapped in the lower skilled jobs for which migrants will com- 
pete. A reduction in the farm labor supply must be carefully 
thought through. 

One way to reduce supply is to provide migrants with skills 
which will enable them to assume nonfarm jobs. A steady job 
even at somewhat lower wages than some migrants now obtain 
would make a significant number of them better off. For ex- 
ample, a comparison of the total earnings of migrants at the end 
of the seventeen-week harvest in Wayne County, New York, with 
those of workers in steady employment (40 hours per week) dur- 
ing the same period, shows that 23 percent of migrants had lower 
total earnings than a worker with steady employment at $1.15 (the 
federal minimum wage in agriculture); 33 percent earned less 
than one with steady employment at $1.40 (the New York State 
minimum wage for agriculture); 44 percent earned less than one 
with steady employment at $1.62 (the average wage of migrants 
studied). 4 The effects on income of the irregularity of employ- 
ment is undeniable. 

Having obtained a skill for nonfarm employment, migrants 
should be aided in their adjustment to a nonagricultural way of 
life. 5 The modus operandi is vastly different in the two sectors. 

4 Based on data in Herrington J. Bryce, Earnings of Migratory Farm Workers in 
Wayne County, New York: 1968 (Monograph No. 1; Geneseo, N.Y.: State University 
College of Arts and Science, 1969), pp. 24, 25. The situation described here will be 
more pronounced if nonwage benefits are taken into consideration. With the ex- 
ception of seasonal housing, which is not always free, these nonwage benefits are 
more plentiful in the nonfarm sector. 

5 Since 1965 the U.S. Department of Labor has experimented with mobility pro- 
grams which emphasize job and wage information and financial assistance for relo- 
cation; see Audrey Freedman, "Labor Mobility Projects for the Unemployed," 
Monthly Labor Review, XCI (June 1968), 56-62. It is said that these and other 
programs to aid mobility often lack coordination and are sometimes conflicting; see 
Donald Schon, "Assimilation of Migrants into Urban Centers," in Rural Poverty 
in the United States, op. cit., pp. 267-287. Further, there is some evidence that 
financial cost is not the major obstacle to outmigration. Lowell E. Gallaway, in 
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, L (May 1969), 199-212, finds that the 
main barrier is artificial. Paul Johnson, "Labor Mobility, Some Costs and Returns," 
in Rural Poverty in the United States, op. cit., pp. 238-247, finds that lack of infor- 
mation is the major obstacle. European countries have also engaged in rural- 
urban transition programs. These are described in Organization for Economic 
Co-operation and Development, Measures of Adjustment of Rural Manpower to 
Industrial Work and Urban Areas (Paris: OECD, 1968), and Sheridan T. Maitland 



4712 



416 Public Policy 

Farm work is irregular and poorly scheduled; hence, punctuality 
has very little meaning and is hardly essential to maintaining a 
job. As a matter of fact, punctuality is frequently costly. Huge 
food debts are incurred by those who arrive early from their home 
state, only to sit idly waiting for picking to begin. There is no 
institutionalized daily work period, such as 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.; work 
begins and ends without notice. When it rains there is no work or 
pay. In addition, a strong commitment to a grower will not lead 
to higher wages or to a job promotion — almost everyone does the 
same work and all are paid the same wage. On the other hand, 
commitment, incentive, and punctuality are important to success 
in the nonfarm sector. 

Adjustment and employment in the nonfarm sector will be 
facilitated by a reduction in racial discrimination in employment. 
In trips to farms, I have regularly observed the absence of blacks 
operating state equipment in road crews or private equipment in 
construction crews, whereas similar equipment was being operated 
by some black migrants on farms. They should be eligible for 
suitable employment in the nonfarm sector. 

Employment and outmigration from farming will depend upon 
the level of demand for workers in the nonfarm sector. It has 
been shown that income and employment opportunities for blacks 
in the nonfarm sector increase noticeably in good times. It has 
also been shown that outmigration from farming is related to 
conditions in the nonfarm economy. Especially in the case of 
blacks, when the level of employment or expected earnings in the 
nonfarm sector are low, outmigration from farming is likely to 
be low and unsuccessful. 6 Thus, a high level of demand for labor 
in the nonfarm sector is essential if outmigration from farming is 
to succeed. 

The industrialization of the South offers another avenue for 
decreasing the supply of farm workers. 7 New nonfarm establish- 



and Stanley M. Knebel, "Rural to Urban Transition," Monthly Labor Review, XCI 
(June 1968), 28-32. 

6 See Herman P. Miller, Income of the American People (New York: Wiley, 1955), 
chaps. 5, 8, 9, and Appendix C; and Hathaway and Perkins, op. cit., p. 191. See also 
Edward G. Schuh, "Interrelations between the Farm Labor Force and Changes in 
the Total Economy," in Rural Poverty in the United States, op. cit., pp. 170-183. 

7 This policy dovetails with the view that the solution to the urban problem in 
the North is the industrialization of the South as a means of choking off the flow 



4713 



EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 417 

merits could be most effective if they hired blacks on a year-round 
basis, but a significant contribution could be made if hiring took 
place at the end of the Southern harvest; for in this case, some 
workers would be diverted from the migrant stream. 8 

As a special case of the implementation of a policy of indus- 
trialization, black establishments could be organized on a coopera- 
I tive basis, hiring and paying their employees a wage equal to what 
I they would have received on farms. With steady employment, 
' their total earnings would be higher. Profits of the cooperatives 
I (resulting in part from wages paid) could be reinvested so as to 
I provide jobs for even more migrants. 9 The results could be higher 
earnings for these workers as well as for those who enter the 
j stream. Black capitalism might be instrumental in this effort, 
and I recommend consideration of its use toward this end. 

Two other policies might be undertaken to reduce supply almost 
instantaneously. One is to pass a law limiting the number of 
children working on farms. It has been estimated that nearly 
30 percent of farm wageworkers are 14 to 17 years of age. 10 It 
stands to reason that if the minimum age for all types of hired 
farm labor in all states was raised to about 16, the farm labor sup- 
ply would fall by nearly 30 percent, even considering that chil- 
dren tend to work fewer hours than adults. It is likely that the 
effects of children working on farms are to deprive them of an 
education, thus perpetuating the migrant stream; and to cheapen 
the labor of their parents, thus making child labor necessary. The 
problem is circular. 

Raising the age limit has great appeal. Compared with training 



of rural southerners into northern ghettos. This view is promulgated by John F. 
Rain, "Notes from the Blackbelt" (testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights, Montgomery, Ala., May 2, 1968); see also John F. Kain and Joseph J. Persky, 
"The North's Stake in Southern Rural Poverty," in Rural Poverty in the United 
States, op. cit., pp. 288-308. See also Niles M. Hansen, "Regional Development 
and the Rural Poor," Journal of Human Resources, IV (Spring 1969), 205-214. 

8 One indirect effect of working part of the year in a nonfarm job might be 
outmigration from farming. Multiple job-holding was found to be an important 
intermediate step in this process. See Dale E. Hathaway, "Occupational Mobility 
from the Farm Labor Force," in Bishop, op. cit., pp. 71-96. 

9 These principles are similar to those espoused by W. Arthur Lewis for less 
developed countries with a surplus of rural labor: see his "Development with Un- 
limited Supplies of Labor," The Manchester School (May 1954), 139-192. 

10 Estimate based on McElroy, op. cit., pp. 10, 11. About 32 percent of migratory 
and 32 percent of nonmigratory farm workers are between 14 and 17. 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 13 



4714 



418 Public Policy 

(everybody's panacea), it would cut the supply of labor more 
sharply and would require a shorter gestation period. Moreover, 
it is likely to be less expensive to implement and to police. Freeing 
migrant children from work will provide them with time for the 
compensatory and remedial education which everybody agrees they 
will need in order to escape the fate of their parents. Growers will 
also benefit, because the pressure and cost of housing will decline if 
children are left at home. I especially submit this policy option 
for consideration. 

The second way to bring about a quick and sharp reduction in 
the labor supply is to halt the illegal entry of foreign nationals 
who are hired by growers as cheap labor and as strikebreakers. 
It is hoped that the recent ruling in California which restricts the 
hiring of these "wetbacks" will abate the illegal inflow of farm 
workers and result in higher wages. 

Then there is the problem of the impact of Mexican commuters 
and foreign temporary (but legal) workers on wages and employ- 
ment. 11 To date, the system has operated to assure farmers of 
an adequate supply of labor. Formerly, this was accomplished 
through the bracero program (Public Law 78) from 1951 to 1963. 
The present operative regulation (Public Law 414) stipulates that 
the importation of foreign labor is legal only if the employment 
and wages of domestic workers are not adversely affected. There 
is evidence that wages for domestic workers are being adversely 
affected, but importation continues, albeit at a diminishing rate. 12 



An Increased Demand for Migratory Farm Labor 

An alternative way to increase the earnings of a group of workers 
is to increase the demand for the services they provide. This 

il Although foreign labor accounts for a very small part (less than 10 percent) 
of national farm wage-workers, their presence in some individual states is signifi- 
cant. In 1968, 15 percent of the farm workers in Maine were Canadians; 13 percent 
of Florida's and 20 percent of West Virginia's farm workers came from the British 
West Indies or the Bahamas. British West Indians accounted for 80 percent of the 
foreign workers. Calculated from U.S. Department of Labor, Farm Labor (first 
issue 1969), 8-11 and 33-49. 

12 See Stanley M. Knebel, "Restrictive Admission Standards: Probable Impact on 
Mexican Alien Commuters," in Farm Labor Developments (U.S. Department of 
Labor, November 1968), pp. 8-20; Varden Fuller, "Hired Farm Labor in the West," 



4715 



EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 419 

objective might be accomplished through a growth in the size 
and income of the population. But because food is a necessity and 
is already plentiful for most people in this country, a normal 
growth in domestic income and population would not lead to a 
dramatic rise in the demand for food and hence for migrant 
services. 

Another way to increase the demand for a group of workers is 
to increase their productivity; for example, by education. In the 
case of farm workers, education leads more to outmigration than 
to increased productivity. Only a very low level of education is 
required to do most farm work, and advanced training is better 
rewarded in the nonfarm sector. 13 Labor productivity might also 
be increased through mechanization, but concomitantly machines 
will take over most jobs. A third means by which productivity 
could be increased is by a reorganization of work so as to reduce 
inefficiency in the use of labor on farms. By definition, this would 
mean achieving at least the same level of farm output with a 
lower level of farm labor employment. Clearly, unemployment 
would ensue. 

Nevertheless, part of the problem of low migrant income lies in 
the inefficient organization and coordination of work. Migrants 
suffer severe underemployment during a harvest, as well as at 
the end when they return home. I have noted that for as many 
as five weeks during the Wayne County harvest, migrants may 
average well below 40 hours a week because the demand for 
workers declines between crops. It is estimated that the cost of 



in Rural Poverty in the United States, op. cit., especially pp. 436^138; and Phyllis 
Groom, "Today's Farm Jobs and Farmworkers," Monthly Labor Review, XC (April 
1967), 2, and Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, op. cit., pp. 61-65. 

13 Over 60 percent of farm wage-workers never got beyond the eighth grade; see 
Aura Rapton, A Socio-Economic Profile of the 1965 Farm Wage Force (Agricultural 
Economic Report No. 157; Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agri- 
culture, April 1969), pp. 13, 14. It has been found that a 10 percent rise in educa- 
tion would lead to a 5 percent wage increase through a 6 to 7 percent outmigration: 
Micha Gisser, "Schooling and the Farm Problem," Econometrica, XXXIII (July 
1965), 582-592. It has been found that the average income of those who leave 
rural areas exceeds that of those who remain: see John B. Lansing and James N. 
Morgan, "The Effect of Geographical Mobility on Income," Journal of Human Re- 
sources, II (Fall 1967), 449^60. But there is inconclusive evidence that the marginal 
return to education in agriculture exceeds the opportunity cost in nonfarming. 
See Zvi Griliches, "Research Expenditures, Education, and the Aggregate Pro- 
duction Function," American Economic Review, LIV (December 1964), 961-974. 



4716 



420 Public Policy 

underemployment to the average migrant during the slack period 
was about $370. 14 A policy which reduces midharvest underem- 
ployment could materially improve the earnings of migrants. 

Puerto Rican migrants who work under contract sponsored by 
their government have a guaranteed minimum number of hours 
of work as a defense against underemployment. A similar policy 
should be enacted for domestic migrants, and it should be accom- 
panied by a minimum wage in order to avoid the eventuality 
that work will be offered, but at such low wages that migrants 
could not afford to accept. 

It should be noted that to fulfill a guarantee of work hours, 
fewer persons might be employed. A grower will limit his hiring 
of migrants to the number he can safely assure work commensurate 
with the required wage. Thus higher earnings for some would 
mean unemployment for others. Since unemployment will vary 
directly with the supply of labor, a policy which reduces supply 
will facilitate the implementation of a work guarantee or an im- 
proved coordination of work. 

In addition to mid-harvest underemployment, there is the issue 
of over-all lack of work. The rate of underemployment in rural 
areas is 37 percent, a little more than in the urban ghetto. It has 
been estimated that migrants who engage solely in farm work are 
employed an average of 138 days per year. Those who do both 
farm and nonfarm work average 168 days. 15 The policy sought 
is one which would expand the demand for these workers either 
in the farm sector, the nonfarm sector, or both. From all that has 
been said, it is apodictic that the key is greater absorption in the 
nonfarm sector. 



A Minimum Wage 

A minimum wage is an alternative policy for increasing migrant 
earnings. Only in the last three years have agricultural workers 

14 Calculated in Bryce, op. cit., pp. 15-25. 

is Data on underemployment are taken from The President's National Advisory 
Commission on Rural Poverty, "The People Left Behind," Employment and Train- 
ing Legislation, 1968 (Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty of 
the Committee of Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate). See also The Manpower 



4717 



EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 421 

been covered by a federal minimum wage law, which was $1.15 
in 1968 but is at present $1.30. No provisions have been made for 
overtime premiums, and not all farms are covered. Specifically, 
only those farms which used 500 or more man-days of labor in 
any quarter of the preceding calendar year must comply. 

In addition to federal law, states have enacted their own mini- 
mum wage orders. New York was the latest to do so, with a 
minimum of $1.40 in 1969 and $1.50 in 1970. It is worth noting 
that the New York bill was passed with the support of both 
organized labor and farmers. Other states with minimum wage 
laws are Arizona, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, 
and New Jersey. California offers the highest minimum ($1.65) 
and employs the greatest number of migrants. Like the federal 
government, states exclude certain farms from compliance. 

These laws as they now stand are more illusory than helpful. 
First, there are a great number of migrants and other farm workers 
who fall into the "uncovered" category. About a third of all 
migratory workers and more than half of all hired farm workers 
were not covered by the federal minimum wage law in 1968. 16 
Although these figures represent a substantial improvement since 
1967, the percentages remain high. 

In addition, approximately 60 percent of all migrants work in 
states in which they are not covered by state minimum wage 
laws. 17 Even where such laws exist, many migrants remain un- 
covered. Wisconsin excludes men from coverage, and men ac- 
count for nearly 60 percent of the migrants in that state. Cali- 
fornia excludes adult men, and they probably account for nearly 
60 percent of the migrants there. 18 

The ability of a minimum wage law to increase the earnings 
of migrants is further limited by the fact that these laws generally 
refer to hourly rates. Migrants are often paid on a piece-rate, 



Report of the President, 1967, pp. 101-109; H. J. Hilaski and H. M. Willacy, "Em- 
ployment Patterns and Place of Residence," Monthly Labor Review, XCII (October 
1969), 18-25; Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, op. cit., p. 54; and U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Handbook of Agricultural Charts, 1966, p. 60. 

16 U.S. Department of Labor, Hired Farmworkers, op. cit., pp. 8-10, 36-41. 

17 Due to problems of double counting, this is only a rough estimate. Data de- 
rived from Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, op. cit., p. 9. 

18 This is assuming that the state labor force is broken down according to sex 
as the nation is. Data derived from McElroy, op. cit., p. 10. 



4718 



422 Public Policy 

rather than on an hourly basis, and there is usually no necessity 
for the two to match. Moreover, the hourly rate that is enacted 
may be below the prevailing rate. In New York a $1.40 minimum 
was enacted when the state's own estimate of the prevailing rate 
was $1.54. At the time that the federal minimum was established, 
it was below the prevailing rate in some states. 

The preceding observations imply that if the minimum wage 
is to become more real than imaginary as a way to improve migrant 
incomes, it should be extended and raised. But there are some 
serious questions about the way a minimum wage affects earnings 
and employment. In what follows, some of these crucial issues 
are discussed, recognizing that the way a minimum wage affects 
employment depends on such factors as the nature of the demand 
for and supply of workers, the organization of the labor market, 
and the length of time the market has to adjust to the change in 
wages. 

Would a minimum wage attract more workers to agriculture 
than can be adequately employed? The findings of one study 
suggest that if the minimum wage were rigidly enforced, it would 
tend to beckon a larger number of workers to agriculture than 
could be absorbed. 19 It is very unlikely, however, that the farm 
minimum wage would rise to the nonfarm level of wages even 
in real terms. The conditions of employment in agriculture tend 
to be less favorable than those in the nonagricultural sector. Con- 
sequently, the workers beckoned are hardly likely to come from 
the nonagricultural sector, but instead from the ranks of the un- 
employed or those who are not in the labor force. There might 
be disappointment, but not much loss, and many would enjoy 
higher wages. 

Another consideration is that a minimum wage tends to lead 
to unemployment by making it more economical to employ 
machines. Although this argument is correct, it refers to a long- 
run effect (thus giving time for a reduction in farm labor sup- 
ply). Moreover, the substitution of machines is dependent on 
forces other than a minimum wage. It also depends on techno- 
logical progress and the ability to produce machines which farm- 
ers can afford. Even without a minimum wage, these forces could 

19 Schuh, op. cit., p. 182. 



4719 



EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 423 

lead to a greater use of machines, although a minimum wage en- 
courages it by raising the relative cost of labor. In short, there 
is a limit to the usefulness of a minimum wage. If unemployment 
is to be avoided in the long run, the supply of labor must be de- 
creased to offset the rate of mechanization. 

A third aspect of the minimum wage-unemployment issue is 
less important in the agricultural sector than it is elsewhere. In 
the short run, a minimum wage causes costs and prices to increase, 
so that consumers buy less and employment falls. This line of 
events is less true in agriculture because food is a necessity and 
increases in prices do not result in drastic reductions in the quan- 
tity bought. 

Is there a significant "contour effect," so that once a few farms 
are made subject to a minimum wage, all farms are forced by 
competition for labor to pay at least the minimum? If there is, 
then excluding certain farms from coverage would not matter. It 
is hard to conceive of a very powerful "contour effect" where (as 
in the case of migrants) there is a large, disorganized group of 
workers who have no other job opportunities. Under these con- 
ditions, the sheer want of a living will force many to work for 
lower wages. This appears to be the case in the South. 

Does a low state minimum legalize low wages? Unless forced 
by competition for labor, farmers within a state may be satisfied 
with paying the legal minimum or slightly above it, even though 
they could pay more. This is possible in a state where farmers 
are able to exercise tacit or explicit collusive power in keeping 
wages down. 20 If a minimum wage which is lower than the in- 

20 The farm labor market has been described as having some semblance of a 
noncompetitive model. See L. B. Jones and J. W. Christian, "Some Observations on 
Agricultural Labor Market," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XVIII (July 
1965), 552-554. 

I believe that the national and local labor markets (i.e., within each state) can be 
distinguished along the following lines. On the national level, the market might 
be considered competitive and the supply of labor plentiful. On the local level 
there is a possibility for collusive power on the part of some farmers due to the ex- 
istence of farmer organizations and media in which wages are discussed, a few very 
large farmers who are the major employers and purchasers of the products of small 
farmers, and an atomistic group of workers. 

Under these conditions, large and efficient farmers might be able to "set" a 
price below the equilibrium rate in order to save some of the less efficient farmers 
from shutting down. This would lead to a larger demand and a smaller supply 
of labor than at the equilibrium rate. Part of the labor shortage resulting from 



4720 



424 Public Policy 

tended wage of farmers is imposed in such a setting, farmers could 
legitimately boast that they were paying above the legally re- 
quired minimum. But the wage would be so low that workers 
would continue to be exploited. The current practice of setting 
minimum wages below prevailing rates reinforces this possibility. 

The argument used by Governor Rockefeller in justifying the 
New York minimum wage law was that both farmers and migrants 
would benefit: the former by reduced labor shortages, the latter 
by higher wages. A state could reduce labor shortages at the same 
time that it increases migrant wages if its growers are pursuing a 
wage policy which pegs wages below the market equilibrium rate. 

Finally, does a minimum wage help the more inefficient migrants 
at the expense of the more efficient ones? A minimum wage which 
replaces a piece-rate schedule could have this effect, assuming that 
the high-productivity migrants at least maintain a productivity 
which is above the minimum wage. The employer could then 
use the surplus to pay the low-productivity migrants. If such is 
the case, a minimum wage would be at the expense of efficient 
migrants — not at the expense of farmers. A possible way out of 
this dilemma is a minimum wage with an incentive schedule. 
Present laws permit but do not assure this. 

The conclusion to be drawn from the discussion of these issues 
is that the minimum wage is not an unambiguous policy. Its 
greatest weakness is that it can be inimical to employment. A 
minimum wage is at best a good short-run policy and as such, it 
should be extended and increased. Its implementation and effects 
should be monitored. 

The real income of migrants is reduced by the cost of trans- 
portation. It has been estimated that a third of all migrants travel 
400 or more miles from home to farm. A fifth travel a thousand 



such a policy might be made up by labor-sharing arrangements between large 
farmers and some of the small cooperating farmers. Small noncooperating farmers 
would suffer a labor shortage. 

In a market where collusion is operative in wage determination, a minimum wage 
above the prevailing rate would reduce shortages and increase wages. A minimum 
wage below the prevailing rate might have no effect if the prevailing rate meets 
the collusive objectives of the farmers. 

Another distinction between the national and local markets is that while the 
supply of labor in the nation might be plentiful, in any given local market at any 
given point in time there might be shortages due to frictions in the adjustment of 
the market. 



4721 



EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 425 

or more miles. 21 Invariably, the cost of this travel is met by the 
migrants, even though they are recruited and cajoled by farmers 
or crew leaders. The earnings of migrants could be increased if, 
as in the case of industry, the employer paid these expenses. Travel 
from Florida to New York or from Texas to the Pacific Coast 
should not be considered a commuting expense. 

The policies discussed in this paper will not work to free all 
migrants from low wages. Some will remain behind, unable to 
earn a decent living. On behalf of these, some form of tax relief 
or income supplement might be provided. Income supplements 
should not replace efforts to pursue the policies discussed. They 
should be purely ancillary, if the public is not to subsidize low 
wages paid by farmers. 22 



A Union as a Policy Instrument 

The National Labor Relations Act, as well as many state laws, 
does not include agricultural workers in the right to unionize. 
Some agricultural workers who are not field personnel have been 
organized in Hawaii and in parts of California. Attempts are 
being made to organize field workers (the category into which 
most migrants fall) in such states as Wisconsin, New York, New 
Jersey, and, of course, California. Organizations such as the 
Teamsters, NAACP, AFL-CIO, and the United Farm Workers 
Organizing Committee have been involved in this effort. 23 

21 "The Migratory Farm Worker," Monthly Labor Review, XCI (June 1968), 
10-12. 

22 This point is well made by Curtis Aller: 

Drawing on the pool of welfare recipients, farm operators are assured of an 
adequate labor supply wh^n and where needed, simply returning the workers 
to the relief rolls for storage during lulls in labor needs. The farm operators 
thus escape the responsibility normally imposed on employers in nonagricul- 
tural industries to provide regular employment and adequate earnings, sup- 
plemented by unemployment insurance coverage and a variety of fringe bene- 
fits, sufficiently attractive to draw and hold a stable work force. At the same 
time, individual relief recipients are not helped to make long-range adjust- 
ments in the job market. Using public assistance in this way, with its high 
social and human costs, is the antithesis of the human resource development 
approach that we should be following. (Curtis C. Aller, "Manpower Programs 
for Farm People," in Bishop, op. cit., pp. 115-135.) 

23 For a discussion of the attempts toward organizing farm workers and some of 
the obstacles, see Irving J. Cohen, "La Huelga! Delano and After," Monthly Labor 



4722 



426 Public Policy 

The most persuasive objection farmers have to the unionization 
of migrants is that a strike, even one of short duration, during a 
harvest could lead to the total loss of a crop. Recently, Secretary 
of Labor George Shultz has sought to meet this objection by 
recommending that unionization be permitted but that farmers 
be protected against harvest-time strikes. 24 Some farmers, how- 
ever, are wary of the enforceability of such a covenant, since de- 
spite the Taylor Laws in New York public employees there have 
gone on strike. 

The objection does not rest on sound grounds. First, workers 
such as firemen, police, and air controllers who could impose a 
great loss to society by striking are not deprived of the right to 
organize. Secondly, even in the absence of a union, growers are 
not immune to walkouts. Discontented migrants and their fami- 
lies often leave farms while the harvest is in progress. The only 
difference is that if there is sufficient time, a grower could recruit 
replacements or borrow migrants from other farms without being 
blocked by a union. Thirdly, migrants are being deprived of their 
civil rights to organize. 

Even if the legal hurdles are overcome, the task of oragnizing 
will not be an easy one. A host of difficulties will arise from trying 
to organize a large, atomistic group of workers who are mobile 
and scattered about the country; who are unacquainted with 
unionization, are poor, and are burdened by more immediate 
needs; whose turnover rate is high; and whose occupation is easily 
entered and left. Unionization of such a group of workers would 
seem quixotic if it were not so essential. 

A union could help migrants by striving for and by pursuing 
the policies discussed in previous sections. It could be an impor- 
tant bargaining agent — representing the interest of migrants who 



Review, XCI (June 1968), 13-16; Judith Chanin Glass, "Organization in Salinas," 
ibid., 24-27; Karen S. Koziara, "Collective Bargaining on the Farm," ibid., 3-9; 
Varden Fuller, "A New Era for Farm Labor," Industrial Relations: A Journal of 
Economy and Society (May 1967), 289; National Advisory Committee on Farm 
Labor, Farm Labor Organizing, 1905-1967: A Brief History, p. 28. 

24 Statement before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Labor and Public Welfare 
Committee, U.S. Senate, May 6, 1969 (mimeographed) . Shultz also advocated elec- 
tions for the determination of a bargaining agent, a grace period prior to a strike 
which would be in addition to the 30-60-day notice of intentions to change agree- 
ment, and the establishment of a farm counterpart to the National Labor Relations 
Board. 



4723 



EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 427 

are politically powerless and who must face a better organized 
group of employers. Its success in bargaining would depend on 
some of the very same conditions which determine the bargaining 
power of other unions. 

Generally, a labor union can be a very strong bargaining agent 
if (1) its members are crucial to production; (2) the goods which 
its members produce are necessities, so that an increase in price 
due to higher wages would not cause consumers to demand less, 
thus leading to unemployment; (3) other factors of production 
cannot be readily hired as replacements; and (4) the total wages 
paid to members constitute such a small part of the total cost of 
production that wage increases would not lead to a significant 
rise in cost. 25 

A^ present, migrant workers are essential on fruit and vegetable 
farms. They produce a necessity — food; and their wages account 
for a small part of total farm cost. 26 Unfortunately, a unionized 
group of migrants would be easily replaced by nonunion members 
unless the union controlled supply and employment. Tradition- 
ally, craft unions have had greater control over supply by con- 
trolling training and entry into occupations. Being composed of 
very low-skilled workers, a farm labor union is not likely to have 
this leverage. The best leverage a farm union is likely to have is 
a quasi closed-shop arrangement with farmers. 27 

Through a quasi closed-shop arrangement, a union has almost 
full control over the labor supply, since only its members can be 
employed. Growers would benefit by shifting to the union the 
cost of recruiting and the responsibility for having an adequate 
number of quality workers available. Work coordination could 
be achieved by the union's scheduling of work among the various 
farms in a locality. 

These benefits might not be sufficient to allay the fears of a 

25 These are the conditions long ago articulated by Alfred Marshall, Principles 
of Economics (8th ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1920), pp. 383-386. 

26 Farm wage-workers account for 19 percent of total farm costs and upwards of 
8 percent of farm annual expenditures. Handbook of Agricultural Charts, No. 348 
(October 1967), and Farm Income Situation, Fis. 214 (July 1969), both of the Eco- 
nomic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

27 Closed shops are illegal on the federal level, and states may at their discretion 
choose to permit them. There are in existence various arrangements which are 
virtual closed shops. The high turnover rates may make a union shop very im- 
practicable. 



4724 



428 Public Policy 

harvest-time strike. I believe that an appropriate trade-off would 
be an agreement limiting but not necessarily ruling out harvest- 
time strikes in exchange for one granting a quasi closed-shop 
arrangement. Limiting its right to strike would not in itself 
render a farm union impotent. Other unions have been able to 
represent their workers without formal strikes. The crucial point 
is that without control of a significant portion of the farm labor 
supply, any strike attempted by a farm labor union would be 
limited if not easily broken. 



Conclusions: The Interrelationship between Policy Options 

Possibly no single policy will bring about a prompt and sufficient 
rise in the earnings of migratory farm workers. The results of a 
rise in age requirements and a cessation in the hiring of illegal 
entrants might be quick but not sufficient. A strategy which in- 
corporates many options will be optimal. One possible policy 
mix might be as follows: (1) on the supply side, a rise in the age 
requirement, a cessation in the hiring of illegal entrants, and the 
training, orientation, and hiring of migrants in the nonfarm 
sector; (2) on the demand side, a more efficient organization of 
work; (3) in terms of organization, a labor union; and (4) for 
those who remain below the poverty line, supplementary income. 
This latter group will be the smaller, the more efficient the labor 
market strategy pursued. 



4725 



THE MEASUREMENT AND INTERPRETATION * 
OF THE EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 

Herrington J. Bryce 



The earnings of migratory farm workers are neither easily 
measured nor interpreted. This paper describes some of the common 
pitfalls in the measurement and interpretation of these earnings. 
Examples are drawn from Wayne County, New York, a chief source of 
migrant employment in that State. 



THE IRREGULARITY OF EMPLOYMENT: WEEKLY FLUCTUATIONS IN 
EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS 



A common error which is committed in the interpretation and 
measurement of migrant earnings is the assumption that accurate 
judgment can be made based on the amount earned in a single or even 
a few weeks of the harvest. Weekly fluctuations in the earnings of 
migrant workers make it fallacious to assume that one or a few weeks 
are typical of the harvest. 



This paper is prepared at the request of the Migratory Labor 
Subcommittee, U. S. Senate, and is based on a study financed 
by the New York State Center for Migrant Studies at the State 
University College, Geneseo, New York. See Herrington J. Bryce, 
Earnings of Migratory Farm Workers in Wayne County, New York: 1968 , 
Monograph i-1, (Geneseo: State University College, 1969). 

A member of the Research Staff, the Urban Institute, Washington, 
D. C, and of the Economics Faculty, Clark University, 
Massachusetts. 



4726 



One reason for the variation in earnings is the seasonal aspect of thj 
harvest. — In Wayne County, New York, for example, the major crops 
are cherries and apples. Figure 1 shows that sweet cherries are 
picked in early July and employment might be good for about ten days.! 
Employment may drop slightly for a few days and then improve around 
the fifteenth of July and reach a peak by early August. Between 
middle August and middle September, employment drops significantly; 
it rises and remains good until the. first day or so in November. As I 
the picking of cherries is highly mechanized, the period of greatest | 
continuity of good employment is the apple harvest — especially the 
month of October. 

FIGURE I 

APPROXIMATE VARIATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND 
EARNINGS ON FRUIT FARMS IN WAYNE COUNTY. NEW YORK: I9»* 




A>I»1S AugunlS September 15 October 15 November 15 December IS 

* ttm4 on inttnriewt of thirty fiowto. . 



1/ For statistical examples of seasonal variations in harvesting na- 
tionally, see Gladys K. Bowles, The Hired Farm Working Force 
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report 98; 
Crops Requiring Seasonal Hired Workers , (U. S. Department of 
Labor); and Aura Raptcn, Seasonal Work Patterns of the Hired Farm 
Working Force of 1964 (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1965). 



4727 



,During the slack employment periods, some migrants on small farms 
might do hourly work. Those in larger and more organized crews may 
travel to other counties to work. In any case, the demand for migrant 
labor during certain periods of the harvest is low, and earnings fall. 

Coupled with the seasonality of harvesting, the rate paid for 
the harvesting of various crops differs. The piece-rate for sweet 
cherries, for sour cherries, for apples harvested early in the season 
and for apples harvested late may all be different. Moreover, there 
may be one rate for picking a fruit to be sold fresh and one for 
picking the same fruit to be processed. Further, the rate for picking 
a fruit from a tree may be different from the rate for retrieving the 
same fruit from the ground. Since these activities are not performed 
in the same proportion each week, fluctuations in earnings might 
occur. 

Another factor which causes fluctuations in the earnings of 
migrant workers is the readiness of the crop for harvest. During 
the first few days of the harvesting of any crop, picking is selective 
so as to avoid the trees and fruit which are not ready. This selec- 
tion process reduces productivity and earnings. 

The work habits of some migrants may also cause fluctuations 
in earnings. Many migrants have very little commitment (or reason 
for commitment) to a set work schedule or to a single grower. 
Consequently, a migrant may decide to work three days in one week 
and six in another or he might work two hours one day and ten the 
next. 

-3- 



4728 



Likewise, he may change his employer or choose not to work because of 
unsatisfactory conditions of employment, housing, or wages. Fluctua- 
tions may also be the result of weather conditions. Excessive mist, 
heat, or rain will reduce productivity, the total number of hours 
worked, and earnings. 

All these factors make it fallacious to consider one or a few 
weeks as typical of migrant earnings. Figure 2 shows the results of 
analyzing actual data on weekly earnings of migrants over a span of 
seventeen weeks, beginning July 1 and ending November 1. This period 
covers the entire harvest for the main crops of cherries and apples 
in Wayne County. 

FIGURE 2 



WEEKLT EARHIRG1 OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS III WAYRE COURTY REM r 0R« IM 




• I ' 



1 1 > « I I » I I II II IJ 



■e it i? 



For key to weeks and sample size used in this and other tables, 
see Appendix, Table A-l. 

-4- 



4729 



It can be seen that earnings often vary widely. Starting from 
$40 in the first week, it rises to $86 by the fourth, falls to $38 
by the ninth, and rises to $123 by the seventeenth and final week. 
This see-saw effect is reflective of the weekly variation in 
employment and differences in crops picked. In the first four 
weeks or so, cherries are harvested; and, increasingly this is done 
by machine. From the fifth to about the tenth week, there is little 
harvesting except for some prunes, pears, and peaches. Many 
workers do hourly work, and there is a significant drop in employ- 
ment due to the fall in the demand for labor. From the tenth to 
the seventeenth week, apples (which are the major hand-picked crop) 
are harvested. Employment and earnings during this period are 
highest. The peak occurs around the final week because of the 
rush to complete harvesting before the migrants return to Florida. 

As stated earlier, migrants are paid on a piece-rate basis 

for picking and on a hourly basis for other chores. This means 

that even hourly rates fluctuate. Since most of these nonpicking 

chores are performed from the fifth through the tenth week, an 

hourly rate is paid during these weeks. It was found that on the 

average, this rate was $1.50 an hour. A piece-rate applies from 

the first through the fourth week and from the eleventh through 

the seventeenth week. To convert the piece-rate pay to hourly 

terms, the earnings for each week are divided by 50. This 50, 

represents the number of hours which the typical migrant works 

during the apple and cherry harvests. 

-5- 



36-513 O - 71 - pt.7B -- 14 



4730 



Figure 3 shows the results. It indicates that hourly wages vary from 
a low of 80c in the first important week of the season to $2.45 in 
the seventeenth and final week. 

FIGURE 3 

HOURLY WSCI OF M GRUTORT f ARM WORKERS l« W»Y« COUNTY. REW YORK: 1(tf 



OJt _ BASE 




L 



' I I I 1 — I — I — 1 — I 



I I 1 « I I 7 I I II II U M 14 1i II " 



Even the way total earnings are computed might be affected. 
It will be recalled that migrant employment might be very irregular 
due to the inadequate demand for their services during certain periods 
of the harvest or due to their decision not to work. This irregularity 
might mean the loss of several hours, days or weeks of employment. 
The inefficient organization of work and use of migrants are 
additional reasons for the loss of time by. migrants. Moreover, some 
migrants may work very long hours during several weeks of the harvest. 
All these effects are reflected in the computation of total earnings. 

-6- 



4731 



Further, these effects prohibit any simple relationship with the 
hourly or weekly earnings presented in earlier sections. For example, the 
mean hourly wage over the harvest as estimated in this study is $1.62. 
This is important information in itself. However, it does not give 
any indication of a migrant's total earnings for the harvest. His 
total earnings will vary with the number of hours, days and weeks he 
works. Accordingly, the total earnings to be shown in this paper 
reflect to a significant degree the irregularity of employment — the 
total number of hours, days, and weeks a migrant may not work for 
one reason or the other. 

The total earnings to be shown are those of migrants who 
worked at least the first two and last two weeks of the harvest and 
at least a total of twelve weeks. These migrants can be assumed to 
have been in Wayne for the entire harvest. To concentrate only on 
migrants who worked each of the seventeen weeks would be very mis- 
leading since it would suggest that adequate employment is always 
available. In at least five weeks of the harvest, as suggested 
earlier, this is not true. 

Table 1 shows the total earnings of the migrants who meet the 
conditions set above. It is seen that the total earnings at the 
end of the 1968 harvest in Wayne range from just under $500 to just 
over $1800. The median (average) earnings is $1122. 

-7- 



4732 



TABLE 1 



THE NUMBER OF WEEKS WORKED AND THE RANKING 

OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS BY SIZE 

OF TOTAL EARNINGS FOR THE 

HARVEST IN WAYNE COUNTY, NEW YORK : 1968* 



iank 


Earnings 


Number 


Rank 


Earnings 


Number 




(dollars) 


of Weeks 




(dollars) 


of Weeks 


1 


498 


12 


22 


1149 


12 


2 


581 


13 


23 


1158 


16 


3 


627 


16 


24 


1214 


14 


4 


635 


13 


25 


1265 


16 


5 


639 


15 


26 


1284 


13 


6 


678 


15 


27 


1328 


17 


7 


682 


15 


28 


1375 


17 


8 


689 


14 


29 


1454 


17 


9 


723 


16 


30 


1464 


17 


10 


730 


16 


31 


1478 


17 


11 


804 


16 


32 


1554 


15 


12 


839 


16 


33 


1617 


17 


13 


896 


13 


34 


1643 


13 


14 


930 


13 


35 


1662 


17 


15 


1066 


13 


36 


1670 


15 


16 


1068 


13 


37 


1681 


16 


17 


1073 


15 


38 


1687 


17 


18 


1082 


12 


39 


1738 


17 


19 


1086 


16 


40 


1751 


17 


20 


1118 


12 


41 


1814 


13 


21 


1122 


17** 









* All the workers whose earnings are listed are considered to 
be in Wayne for the entire harvest. Variations in number 
of weeks worked are attributed to the irregularity of em- 
ployment. See text. 

** Median (average) total earnings for the harvest. 

-8- 



4733 



JOINT REPORTING 
A man, his wife, and his children will frequently work as a unit. 
This means that although payroll records bear only the name of the 
head of the household, they really reflect the labor and earnings of 
the total family—not just a single individual. Chart 1 shows that 
30 per cent of the migrant heads of household who were interviewed 
indicated that their checks reflected the labor of more than one 
person. Thus, a major pitfall in measuring and interpreting migrant 
earnings is attributing the earnings of a multiple-person productive 
unit to a single individual. This leads to an overstimation of the 
earnings of individuals. For example, the earnings in Figure 4 are 
impressive, but they belong to a family all reporting on the same check. 



JOINT REPORTING IN MIGRANT HOUSEHOLDS IN 
WAYNE COUNTY. NEW YORK: 1968 





an 




7% 







Nombor of portom 
reporting oo ami chock: 



tfirao two 



-9- 



4734 



FIGURE 4 



»M _ 



EARNINGS RESULTING FROM MULTIPLE PERSON 
PRODUCTIVE UNIT IN WAYNE COUNTY. NEW YORK: IMt* 




WEEK 

' ' I I I 1 I I 1 ' I ' ' I ' ' ' 

1 2 3 « S I J I 9 10 I! 12 13 K IS IS 17 



*Tka trniiy ■ audi «p if akeat <trm wort in 



FIGURE 5 

A COMPARISON OF EARNINGS OF AN INDIVIDUAL 

««, r .„: WG il AT0RY FARM WOfiKER AN0 0F H| S HOUSEHOLD IN WAYNE COUNTY, NEW YORK: 1968* 

•30Q EARNINGS 




12 3 4 S « 

* HouiahgMcMnpriiri of two woriim 



indwtduiJ urninji* 
Household Mrnings* 



WEEK 

J I 



9 1C 11 12 13 

> W»f*» 9. 18, «*d 11. only individual Mined 



-10- 



4735 



On the other hand, when each member of the household is paid 
separately, it is frequently impossible to identify its members to 
determine the income of the household because all its working 
members might not use the same surname. This might lead to an 
underestimation of the earnings of a household. Figure 5 gives an 
example of the discrepancy. 

MULTIPLE EMPLOYERS 
The use of earnings data obtained from a single grower is likely 
to lead to an underestimation of the earnings of a migrant. A 
migrant might work for several growers during a harvest, and there 
is frequently no centralized bookkeeping of his earnings. Away 
from home, a migrant usually lives on a grower's property. This 
grower is his main employer. However, once harvesting for this 
grower is completed, the migrant might go to another farm in the 
area to work while maintaining his residence and obligations to his 
main employer. His main employer frequently will not have a record 
of how much the migrant earned while working for others. Conse- 
quently, the use of the payroll record of a single grower may result 
in the underestimating of migrant earnings. 

GROSS AND NET EARNINGS 
The earnings of migrant workers can frequently be misinterpreted 
unless it is specified that the figures ate gross or net of certain 
adjustments. 



-11- 



4736 



The deduction of social security, rental fees, or repayment of debt 
could substantially reduce the apparent earnings of a migrant. Thus 
it is necessary to distinguish between the gross earnings of a 
migrant worker and his net earnings after adjustment if a serious 
error in measurement is to be avoided. Figure 6 which is based on 
the actual weekly earnings of a single migrant illustrates the varying 
margin of error which can be committed when gross and net earnings 
are confused. 



FIGURE 6 



AN EXAMPLE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROSS 
AND NET WEEKLY EARNINGS OF A MIGRANT* 




'Based on actual payroll data fori single migrant in Wayne County. New York. 1968. About 90 percent ot the 
difference between gross and net earnings in this case is due to the repayment of loans tor grocery, the remainder. 
* due to rental fee. repayment of transportation (approximately 5.4 per cent) and social security (4.4 per centl. 



-12- 



4737 

DISUNIFORMITY IN METHOD OF PAYMENT AND 
IN BOOKKEEPING 

There is no uniform way of paying migrants. Payment is usually 
on a piece-rate basis for picking, and on an hourly basis for other 
chores. Moreover, as stated earlier, the going piece-rate varies 
from crop to crop. It may also vary from farm to farm and among 
orchards on the same farm, depending upon the difficulty of 
reaching the fruit. 

There are also subtle differences in the unit in which the 
efforts of migrants are measured; for example, in the case of 
cherries, migrants are paid by the pail while for apples they are 
paid by the basket, box, bin or crate. Pails, baskets, boxes, bins 
or crates differ in size. Sometimes these differences are sizeable. 
One grower might use an eight-quart pail and another a twelve-quart 
pail. One might use a one-bushel basket and another an eighteen or 
twenty-bushel bin. Even when two containers of the same size are 
used, there might be differences in when one is considered full. 

The comparability of earnings might also be affected by the way 
migrants are paid. Some are paid by cash, others by check. Sometimes 
a grower pays a lump sum to a crew leader or contractor who in turn 
disburses the funds to individual migrants. The degree of accuracy 
in the transactions and in the type of records kept under these 

three systems are likely to vary. 

-13- 



4738 



As a matter of fact, the quality of record-keeping varies from 
farmer to farmer. It is not unusual to find records comprising of 
bits of paper. Commonly, there is no time-keeping on farm, and. 
therefore no record of the actual number of hours worked by migrants. 
As stated earlier, it is often impossible to tell from the records 
whether wages are those of a single individual or of a family unit. 

THE BONUS SYSTEM 

To induce migrants to remain until the end of a harvest, growers 

use a "bonus system". Sometimes this system is based on withholding 

a part of the worker's earnings until the end of the season. Other 

times the bonus will be in excess of the going piece-rate. The 

going rate might be $4.00 a bin, but at the end of the season another 

twenty-five cents may be paid for each bin picked. In measuring and 

interpreting the weekly earnings of migrants, the anount as well as 

the type of the bonus system must be taken into account if earnings 

are to be accurately measured. 

-14- 



4739 



COMPARABILITY OVER TIME 
Perhaps one of the most dangerous pitfalls in interpreting the 
earnings of migrant workers is the temptation to generalize from 
one year to another. Table 2 offers an example of how much wages 
might vary for the nation as well as for an individual state from 
month to month and year to year. Different crop conditions from one 
year to the next will frequently affect the earnings of migrants. 
On the other hand, a bad crop or increased mechanization of farms 
might reduce employment and earnings. The seasonal variation in 
harvesting mentioned earlier, could cause earnings to vary monthly 
or even weekly. 

TABLE 2 

: AVERAGE FARM WAGE RATES: NEW YORK STATE 
AND UNITED STATES, QUARTERLY: 1964-66 

Average Wage Rates Per Hour 1£ 
Area and Month 1966 1965 1964 

Dollar Dollar Dollar 
United States 

January 1-24 119 



April 
July 



1.28 1.18 1.14 

1.26 1.17 1-13 



SS^:::::::.:.. us 109 j.g 

Annual average I- 23 Xli XMO 



New York 

Januarv 1.28 1.22 1.21 

A a D Q r -r y 1.30 1.24 1.22 

jPi" 1.32 1.25 122 

Oclobir 1-34 1-26 1-24 

Annual average 132 1-25 1.23 

1/ Without board or room. 

Source: William Metzler, Ralph Loomis, and Nelson 
Le Ray The Frjrm Labor Situati on in Select- 
fill Ar^-" 1935-66. Agricultural Economic Re- 
port No. 110, U. S. Department of Agricul- 
ture. 

-15- 



4740 



COMPARABILITY OVER GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS 
Migrant earnings are not the same across the nation. Farm wages 
are highest in such states as California, Massachusetts and Connecticu 
and lowest in the South—especially in South Carolina. Maitland and 
Fisher have shown that there is a wide regional difference in the 
wage of farm workers (not all of whom are necessarily migrants). 
In some areas, like Texas and Florida, the supply of labor is the 
most important reason for this variation. In other areas like Maine 
and the Lake Ontario region of New York State, the demand for labor 
is the most important explanatory variable. In other areas, like 

Washington and part of Oregon, neither demand nor supply variables 

2/ 
are of crucial importance. -' Other factors which might cause migrant 

earnings to vary across the nation are the crops harvested, the 

state minimum wage for migrants, and the extent to which farm workers 

are imported. This latter factor is important, since aside from the 

federal and state minimum wage laws, there is a minimum which growers 

must pay domestic migrants if they intend to import foreign workers. 

3/ 
This minimum varies from state to state. - These factors give rise 

to the possibility of serious error if migrant earnings are 

generalized from one region to another. 



2/ Sheridan T. Maitland and Dorothy Fisher, Area Variations in the 
Wages of Agricultural Labor in the United States , (U. S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 1177, March 1958). 

3/ Phyllis Groom, "Today's Farm Jobs and Farmworkers," Monthly Laboi 
Review April 1967, p. 2. 

-16- 



4741 



COMPARABILITY OF FARM AND NONFARM EARNINGS 
Farm and nonfarm earnings are not strictly comparable. Unlike 
the nonfarm sector, growers frequently provide housing to migrants 
at no rental fee or at a nominal fee. A judgment must be made 
regarding the money value of this housing. How much is this housing 
worth to the migrant? How should we compute its value to them? 
Should a method which reflects a fair rate of return to investment 
in migrant housing be chosen over one which reflects the amount 
migrants are willing and able to pay for similar housing on the open 
market? Are such houses available in the open market? Should it be 
assumed that the value of such housing was discounted by growers in 
the determination of their wage offer? These are not easy questions 
to answer. Yet, some judgment is necessary if a comprehensive picture 
of migrant earnings is to be drawn. 

Unlike the nonfarm sector, growers frequently make or under- 
write loans to migrants at no direct charge. These loans are most 
frequently made to cover transportation cost from the South to the 
North or to cover grocery bills. The cost and risk associated with 
the loans for grocery and similar type expenditures should be con- 
sidered part of the earnings of migrants. Expenditures for transpor- 
tation to and from the South is a cost for the transfer of labor; 

i.e. a travel rather than a commuting expense and should, as in the 

4/ 
nonfarm sector, be met by the employer. — 

4/ It has been estimated that a third of all migrants travel 400 
or more miles from home to farm and one fifth travel a thousand 
or more miles. "The Migratory Farm Worker," Monthly Labor Review , 
June 1968. 

-17- 



4742 



In the farm sector, this cost is paid by the migrant (often through 
a loan from the grower) „ The failure to deduct this cost when 
measuring and interpreting the earnings of migrants will lead to an 
overestimation of their real earnings. 

Earnings in the farm and nonfarm sector differ in another way 
Earnings in the farm sector are not buttressed by fringe benefits 
which are typical in the nonfarm sector. A migrant earns only when 
he works. If he is sick or if it rains, his productivity and number 
of hours worked might fall, and so might his earnings. Migrants have 
no unemployment insurance, or sick leave. Although there was a 
national minimum wage of $1.15 in 1968 which rose to $1.30 in 1969, 
this minimum is frequently of limited relevance since most migrants 
on fruit and vegetable farms are paid on a piece-rate basis for most 
of their work. Thus, when comparing the earnings of migrants with 
those of nonfarm workers, it is important to remember the high, 
unprotected risk associated with migrant earnings. 

CONCLUSIONS 

This paper has discussed major pitfalls in the measurement and 

interpretation of migrant workers. It has attempted to show that: 

seasonal as well as other fluctuations in migrant earnings mean that 

no single week or two may be taken as typical; joint reporting makes 

it difficult to distinguish the contribution of an individual from 

that of a family; the payroll record of a single grower might not 

give the total earnings of a migrant; gross earnings are frequently 

well above net earnings; the method and rate of pay vary by crop, 

-18- 



4743 



chore, and unit of measurement of work; the bonus system distorts 
weekly earnings; the earnings of migrant workers are not strictly 
comparable over time, region, or with nonfarm earnings. 

A study which I conducted in Wayne County, New York in 1968, 
took these pitfalls into account. The following conclusions were 
drawn from the data. — 

The analysis of the weekly earnings and hourly wages of 
migrants reveal the following: 

1. Migrant earnings vary widely from week to week 
during the harvest. From a low $40 in the first 
week, it reaches a high of $123 in the final 
week. 

2. Hourly rates, like weekly earnings, vary widely 
from week to week. At its lowest it is 80c, and 
at its highest it is $2.45. 

3. Over the entire harvest, migrants may net 47c more 
per hour than the federal minimum for agriculture; 
and 22c more than the proposed state minimum for 
agriculture. 

4. Assuming that an individual migrant could be 
employed in his home state of Florida at the 
prevailing rate for laborers, he sacrifices an 
average of 45c an hour for every hour he works 
over the seventeen-week harvest in Wayne. 

The analysis of the total earnings of migrants at the end of the 

harvest shows the following: 

1. The average migrant earns $1122. 

2. A worker who has a steady job at the lower 
federal minimum for agriculture or at the 
proposed state minimum for agriculture, 
might nevertheless earn more than a large 
number of migrants over the period of the 
harvest. This is due to the irregularity 
of migrant employment. 

5/ See Herrington J. Bryce, op_. cit. I have attempted to recommend 
policies for improving migrant earnings in "Alternative Policies 
for Increasing the Earnings of Migratory Farm Workers," 
Public Policy (Spring 1970). 

-19- 



4744 



3. A migrant who could get a steady job as a 
laborer in his home state of Florida is 
likely to sacrifice at least $410 by coming 
to Wayne. This is due both to the irre- 
gularity of employment and the lower wages 
in Wayne o 

4. The cost of the irregularity of employment to 
the average migrant during the season is 
likely to be nearly $370. 

The hourly wages of migrants in Wayne County are higher than 
state or federal legal requirements. However, for many migrant 
workers the irregularity of migrant employment makes it less profit- 
able over the harvest than a steady job at the lower legal rates. 
Moreover, a person who could be employed at a steady job as a non- 
agricultural laborer in Florida (the home state of many Wayne 
migrants) would be better off doing so than coming to Wayne as a 
migrant. This latter point is true because his potential hourly 
wages, regularity of employment and, consequently, total earnings are 
likely to be less in Wayne. These findings might provide one reason 
why growers have been experiencing increasing difficulties in 
attracting the migrants they wish, although they might pay higher 

rates than are legally required. 

-20- 



4745 

Appendix 
TABLE A-l 



KEY TO WEEKS AND SAMPLE SIZE 



Number of Workers in Sample* 



58 
76 
78 
66 
65 
60 
57 
57 
47 
57 
74 
85 
87 
89 
87 
83 
48 

•Sample size varies because the number of workers reporting 
some earnings each week varies. 



Week 


Date 


Number 


1 


July 7 - 13 


2 


14-20 


3 


21 - 27 


4 


28 - Aug. 3 


5 


Aug. 4 - 10 


6 


11 - 17 


7 


18-24 


8 


25-31 


9 


Sept. 1 - 7 


10 


8 - 14 


11 


15-21 


12 


22- 28 


13 


29 • Oct. 5 


14 


Oct. 6 - 12 


15 


13 - 19 


16 


20 - 26 


17 


27 - Nov. 1 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B 



4746 

Appendix 
TABLE A- 2 



AVERAGE HOURLY RATE 
AND NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED BY 

MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 

IN WAYNE COUNTY, NEW YORK, 1968: 

BY WEEK 



Week 


Date 


i 

Average 


Average 


Number 




Hourly 


Number 






Rate* 


of Hours 
Worked 


1 


July 7 - 13 


$0.80 


50 


2 


14-20 


0.82 


50 


3 


21 - 27 


0.98 


50 


4 


28 - Aug. 3 


1.70 


50 


5 


Aug. 4 - 10 


1.50 


41 


6 


11 - 17 


1.50 


37 


7 


18 - 24 


1.50 


29 


8 


25-31 


1.50 


37 


9 


Sept. 1 - 7 


1.50 


26 


10 


8 - 14 


1.50 


32 


11 


15 -21 


1.50 


53 


12 


22- 28 


2.00 


50 


13 


29 - Oct. 5 


2.08. 


50 


U 


Oct. 6 - 12 


1.98 


50 


15 


13 - 19 


2.38 


50 


16 


20 - 26 


1.86 


50 


17 


27 - Nov. 1 


2.46 


50 



It is assumed that the average worker worked 50 hours a week 
during the first through the fourth and the twelfth through the 
seventeenth week of the harvest: and that the average hourly 
rate during fifth through the eleventh weeks is $1.50. 



4747 



LABOR WASTE IN NEW YORK: 

RURAL EXPLOITATION AND 

MIGRANT WORKERS 



WILLIAM H. FRIEDLAND 



Reprinted from February, 1969 TVtfnj-action, pages 48-53 
Copyright 1969 by Transaction, Inc., St. Louis 



4748 



Labor Waste in New York 
Rural Exploitation and 
Migrant Workers 



By overlooking his inefficiency the migrant employer 
is harming himself and exploiting the laborer 



WILLIAM H. FRIEDLAND 



Ever since Congress restricted the importation of Mexican 
"braceros" into the United States in 1963, farmers have 
complained about a shortage of seasonal workers to har- 
vest their crops. In fact the number of migrant workers 
began to decline in the late 1950s. Due in part to mechani- 
zation, the decreasing availability of labor created uncer- 
tainty among agricultural employers. The removal of more 
than 150,000 foreign agricultural workers from the labor 
force in 1964 compounded their anxieties. 

While the cutback in foreign labor only indirectly af- 
fected East coast agriculture (it had mainly depended on 
domestic workers), the labor shortage was keenly felt. In 
New York State, in particular, the number of interstate farm 
workers has decreased by more than 40 percent since 1955. 
New York State farmers interviewed during the summer of 
1966 uniformly complained about the amount of crops to 
be harvested and the small numbers of workers coming 
North. Camps were not filled to capacity. To salvage the 
potatoes that might otherwise be left in the ground, they 
finally offered college and high-school students in Central 
New York double the wage rate paid to migrants. 

The farmers attributed the decline of migrant workers 
to several factors. They felt that the general increase in 
non-agricultural employment in the United States drew 
workers out of agriculture. The cessation of migration 
from Mexico had made East coast migrants interesting to 
employers elsewhere and incentives were being offered to 
redirect the labor supply to the Midwest and California. 
The farmers also contended that the increased stability in 
employment and longer growing season in Florida cut 
down the numbers of people who might otherwise move 
North. 

Troubled by the shortage of migrants, many farmers be- 
lieved that mechanization was the solution to their prob- 
lems. In some cases, mechanization was out of the question 
either because the hardware had not been developed or be- 
cause the equipment costs were too high. In others, 

TRANSACTION 



4749 




Although some migrants work 
lost valued skill. 



ch as this potato conveyor, most do stoop work in the fields. Picking ability is still the 



he farmers favored mechanization but were reluctant to 
Imploy it since they believed that migrant crews would by- 
pass their area, leaving the crops that could not be handled 
|>y a machine unharvested. 

Though the farmers were convinced that the decline in 
he number of migrants was serious, my study of migrant 
abor practices in New York State indicates that the short- 
ige is due more to their inefficient use. Each day time was 
vasted because of inadequate scheduling, planning, and 
direction. A system which is inefficient and allows for 
naximum exploitation and minimum incentive to the mi- 
grant worker was observed. 

Labor Waste 

On New York State farms, labor is still treated as if it 
had no intrinsic value; its use is based upon attitudes and 
Datterns that were developed when labor was plentiful 
ind cheap. The following list incorporates some of the 
forms of labor wastage found in migrant camps during 
:he summer of 1966: 

Wastage: Poor Scheduling 

1. In many crews there is no set time when work begins 
ind considerable time is therefore wasted as crew members 
»re assembled in the morning. The same is true at the end 
}f the day; rumors spread that work is to end shortly and 
workers stop, only to find that the crew leader expects 
:hem to continue. Because there is no fixed time for quit- 
ting, the bulk of the crew must wait until a few slower 
pickers fill out their last unit. 

2. Crews are often rushed to the fields only to wait — up 
to IV2 hours — for the crops to dry. 

3. Crews are occasionally assigned to pick a field for the 
second time when a richer first-pick field is available. 

4. A small field can be completed in a half day is as- 
signed to a crew; under such circumstances, workers often 
refuse to move to another field. 

5. When a move is necessary during the day, long dis- 
tances between fields frequently discourage workers. 

FEBRUARY 19W 



6. In some cases fields have to be prepared before work- 
ers can begin picking (e.g., potatoes) . Such preparatory 
work usually is not done in advance and the crew must 
wait until it is. 

Wastage: Poor Planning 

1. Where a child-care center is available, it often does 
not open on time. In such cases, the entire crew must wait 
until the center opens for the children. 

2. Lunch wagons often fail to appear and workers either 
have to work on empty stomachs or make trips to stores to 
purchase food. 

3. The failure to provide hampers, on occasion, means 
that the crop is stacked on the ground. Workers later have 
to load the crop in a second (and unpaid) operation. 

4. After the field is picked, the crew has to remain until 
the crop can be weighed. The weighing trucks are often 
late. 

Wastage: Poor Direction 

1. Fields are not always easy to find and drivers oc- 
casionally lose their way. 

2. Crews must wait until the crew leader and the farmer 
confer over which fields are to be picked. 

3. The failure of the farmer to be on hand when the 
crew appears means that the crew is idle. 

4. Confusion in lining workers up in the fields frequent- 
ly means false starts or other irritations. 

5. On completion of the job, the crew occasionally 
must wait on the bus while the crew leader negotiates pay- 
ments. 

Wastage: Poor Equipment 

1 . Many busses are unable to start. 

2. Busses break down en route to or on return from 
the fields. 

3. Hoes and other tools are not sharp and are not pre- 
pared for workers on their arrival. 

The burden of labor wastage is placed directly upon the 
migrant; the time wasted is time he is not paid for. But 



40 



4750 



given the existence of alternative forms of employment 
today, the old structure of migrant labor with its inherent 
defects in planning work has created a burden for the 
farmer as well. Employer attitudes have produced, over 
the years, a continual deterioration in the work attitudes of 
the migrants. 

Farmers look upon their workers in much the same way 
that industrial employers did many years ago. Typically, 



farm employers express beliefs that migrants are lazy aij. 
that little or nothing can be done to increase productivit;, 
They frequently contend that "there's no point in payit,; 
higher wages, they'll still quit when they've earned $3 f J 
the day." Whether true or not, this attitude toward er 
ployees precludes any serious approach to change tlj 
situation. Indeed, farmers have developed a whole systei 
of practices that prevent greater efficiency. The prime e| 



Migrant Workers: 
How They Live 



During the summer of 1966, migrant labor camps in New 
York State were studied, two intensively through the method 
of participant observation. Both camps were occupied by 
Negro crews. The Main Camp, owned and operated by a 
farmers' cooperative, housed up to 750 people and was shared 
by seven crews. For the most part, each crew lived as 
though it were in a separate camp. A small, single crew setup. 
Short Camp handled no more than 50 people. Because of 
its size, it did not have the auxiliary facilities of a mail 
service and pay phone provided at the Main Camp. 

Crew Leaders 

Four types of crew leaders were observed in the intensively 
studied camps. Each had his own style of leadership which, 
in turn, produced significant variations in the social inter- 
action and work productivity of his crew. 

The Village Chief: Goober's crew was among the largest, 
recruited almost entirely from his home town. Families and 
older people regularly went North to the Main Camp with 
him and were controlled through a system of social dependen- 
cy. Beyond the normal credit arrangements for food, Goober 
provided transportation to town, loaned money on occasion, 
and purchased Cokes and other small favors for crew chil- 
dren. Significantly, productivity in Goober's crew was high. 
His members were selected with great care and before the 
end of August, only one percent had dropped out of his crew. 

The Paler Familial: With a large number of sons, daugh- 
ters and grandchildren augmented by distant kin, Big Dad- 
dy's crew had a remarkable record of productivity — the high- 
est in Main Camp. Additional members were recruited hap- 
hazardly as Big Daddy started the trip north but by the end 
of the season, he was left almost largely with his kin. 

The Coal Baron: Feared and disliked by most crew mem- 
bers, Tim exerted force either through the manipulation of 
wages and credit, through threats that he wouldn't pay 
wages or through physical force. Most crew members were 
young, single men picked up as he traveled north, recruited 
with promises of high wages and excellent living conditions. 
From the day his crew arrived in camp, members dropped 
out and before a month was over, he lost over half his crew. 

The Manipulative Democrat: Lincoln had no kin within his 
crew other than his wife and young children but the crew . 
had been assembled with some care. Because it was small, he 



had continuous contact with each person. He rarely issuij 
unilateral orders and sought to control his crew throud 
consensus. Carefully structuring the basic arguments befol 
asking his questions, his point of view usually prevailed. Lill 
the Village Chief, he manipulated social dependency link! 
lending his truck to responsible crew members so they couil 
travel to meet people in other camps. At Short Camp, this w.J 
an important favor for the young men since the crew hsl 
few unattached women. Like Goober, Lincoln's dropout ral 
was negligible. 

Crew Members 

The crew members differentiated themselves according to I 
prestige system that places those with picking ability at til 
top. Although productivity was fairly low, the ability to picl 
well was regarded as a significant skill. Benjamin, a notorioil 
alcoholic in Goober's crew, was able to claim high prestid 
because of his productivity. 

Verbal and game skills were also highly valued. Migrar! 
workers frequently engage in rapid, semi-humorous an 
hostile repartee including "playing the dozens" — the aim cl 
which is to defeat an opponent by attacking his mother. Thl 
ability to play cards and checkers as well as several game! 
which are not found in white society were sources of en] 
hanced status too. 

Within almost every crew there were homosexuals, usuall 
only among the males. Homosexuality was treated negativel 
but semi-humorously. In Goober's crew, for instance, on 
homosexual called "Marilyn Monroe" dressed as a femall 
and was referred to as "she" and "her." Marilyn Monro 
used toilet facilities indiscriminately and was accepted ill 
both male and female units. "She" was accepted with affec 
tionate contempt by crew members. 

Alcoholics were at the bottom of the scale, recognized witl 
almost universal contempt by other crew members. Mos] 
were unable to work or could rarely earn more than a dol 
lar or two per day. They constituted an economic drain on thJ 
other workers who felt obliged to provide them with, a 
least, the remnants of food. 

Crew Culture 

The most significant aspect of life in the migrant campi 
was the lack of trust between members of the same crew 
with regard to money, clothing and personal possessions. Th( 
doors to rooms were almost always locked even if a crew 
member was leaving for only a brief period of time. Then 
was a higher degree of trust in kinship relations but even her< 
we found a substantial amount of suspicion. 

The high level of violence found in migrant labor camps is 
due mostly to the instability of life there. When there is rela- 
tively little work, and crew members have no income, tension; 
and anxieties are immediately manifested through fights. On 



TRANS-ACTION 



4751 



inple of this is the continued dependence of many farmers 
li the crew leader. 

| Most farmers prefer to avoid contacts with migrants and 
lave the control of work to the crew leader. An ex-migrant 
Iho becomes a labor contractor by virtue of his ability to 
brchase or inherit the means of transportation, the crew 
lader is the primary mediating influence between the 
orkers and the farmer. Because white employers feel that 



ie whole, the patterns of violence found in the camps were 
;ry limited, consisting almost entirely of fist fights and oc- 
isional knife fights. When these occurred, slashing but not 
abbing was the rule. 

Migrants almost invariably direct their tensions inwardly 
gainst each other. The one manifestation of violence against 
ie external society was in the form of property damage, 
hiring a cold spell at Main Camp, a pump house was de- 
:royed to build fires since the heat in the housing units was 
ot turned on. But property damage was not always directed 
> practical ends. At times, parts of buildings might be torn 
own for no ostensible purpose while migrants watched and 
mghed. 

There were two sharply divergent tendencies toward work. 
'here were those who took considerable pride in their ability 
j pick and those who had a cooler attitude. Both could 
e present in the same person at different times depending on 
hysical and personal conditions. Demonstrations of the 
bility to outpick one's friend occurred frequently as individ- 
lal competitiveness was valued. But when fields were bad, 
vhen workers were brought in for a second picking, when 
ong periods of time had been wasted getting to the fields, 
workers not only had little direct interest in their work but 
.ctively discouraged others from working. During gloomy 
>eriods, the workers expressed distrust of the entire system, 
ommenting that the weighing scales were fixed, that the 
:rew leaders and farmers were cheating the workers. 

The migrant's life is dominated by fear of the larger white 
lociety. "Split personalities" were prevalent; many migrants 
vere hostile and aggressive toward other migrants while they 
were meek and fearfufof whites. Fear was illustrated by the 



migrants are unpredictable and violent, and because crew 
members — mostly Negro — view the white world as un- 
predictable and dangerous, both depend on the crew leader. 
In a variety of roles, he has enormous power over his 
crew and their productivity. 

An owner of transportation, usually school busses and 
trucks, the crew leader is also an entrepreneur in the sense 
that he risks his capital in contracts with employers 



hesitation of migrants to ask for the key to the men's room 
while their truck was at the gas pump. While shopping, ex- 
treme caution was displayed in entering stores. 

The migrants in Main Camp, however, had considerable 
contact with the outside society. Besides their contacts with 
social-service agencies, the camp was prey to a host of in- 
dividuals—mainly Negro — from nearby communities. Some, 
who were ex-migrants, came to encourage friends to move to 
town. But most came to make money. On weekend evenings, 
a large number of visitors came to gamble. They moved 
from one "juke" (camp restaurant) to another. Several would 
enter the juke together and begin to gamble, eventually at- 
tracting the migrants. The migrant was usually the loser since 
the visitors would break up a game when a buddy was losing. 

"The Sunday bazaar" was another form of parasitism. The 
camp then became an outlet for secondhand and sometimes 
stolen goods. Hawkers urged migrants to put a down pay- 
ment on TV bargains. Everything from toothbrushes to 
stereo sets were offered at prices that could be bargained on. 
Many of the larger items were sold by the "black-market 
man" and were believed to be, and might have been, stolen 
goods. Prices were high for some commodities given the con- 
dition of the goods; old and discolored clothing at $1.10 
for a shirt, $2.00 for pants, and 250 for socks; a secondhand 
watch cost $7.50; $40 could buy an unseen stereo. Some 
hawkers were professional, others merely families selling 
personal goods. 

Material adapted from William H. Friedland's "Migrant Labor: A 
Form of Intermittent Social Organization," ILR Research, Vol. HI, 
No. 2, November 1967, prepared with the assistance of Dorothy 
Nelkin. 



to the camps, fighting, gambling and horseplay 




4752 



and in recruiting workers. Once he arrives North, the 
crew leader's role changes to that of camp manager. Respon- 
sible for the direction and maintenance of his crew within 
the camp, he provides food, alcohol, and auxiliary services 
including transportation. He maintains law and order in the 
camp, transports labor to the work site and, at the field, 
acts as job foreman allocating specific tasks to workers, 
managing all aspects of the operation until the produce is 
actually delivered to the packing houses. In addition, the 
crew leader serves as a banker to his crew, lending them 
money either directly or through credit for food, alcohol 
or transportation. 

The crew leader can sometimes earn as much money, if 
not more, from these peripheral roles than he can from the 
output of his crew. Indeed, when the farmer abdicates 
control of work organization to the crew leader, he yields 
it to a person whose interests in productivity have little 
relation to his. But though the crew leader has many 
talents, he is in most cases unable to cope with the prob- 
lems of effectively managing workers. 

The maintenance of control within the camp and the 
work place, for example, is one crucial responsibility that 
the crew leader honors more in the breach than in reality. 
Theoretically, his role as "provider" gives him the leverage 
to control the output of his crew, to ensure that workers 
turn out for work every day and that they work steadily 
and regularly in the fields. The crew leader, however, has 
little experience preparing him to deal directly with prob- 
lems of efficiency let alone the power to make decisions 
and plans crucial to determining the organization of work. 
More than half of the examples of wastage cited above 
are beyond his control, developed in part from the lack 
of communication between employer and those working 
for him. 

Migrant Attitudes Toward Work 

The effects of labor wastage upon the migrant are clear. 
In none of the examples cited are migrants paid for time 
lost. The migrant can only conclude, and does, that his 
time has no value. Prey to the other exploitative structures 
(the high cost of credit, food, and alcohol) and other 
debilitating experiences (the lack of control within the 
camps, the unpredictability of life, and the non-existence of 
savings structures), the migrant has little incentive to work 
more effectively or to accumulate income. The daily loss of 
time, frequently amounting to 25 percent of work time, 
cannot possibly be conducive to productivity. If it is made 
continually clear to a person that his time is of no value, 
it can hardly be expected that he will hurry to get on the 
bus in the morning or utilize his time well while in the 
fields. 

No attempt is being made here to argue that migrants 
have a "Protestant Ethic" toward work which is drained 
from them by the present structure. In all employment situ- 
ations, there are many types of attitudes toward work: 
attitudes that support working hard and others that do not. 
But in all employment relationships it is necessary to create 
structures which maximize the productivity of all em- 
ployees. Although many migrants come North with the 
intention of earning more than a subsistence wage, pro- 
ductivity even among the best workers is low. Their inten- 



tions are rapidly squelched by two aspects of the presen 
structure of migrant labor. 

First the system of employee recruitment is inadequat 
and imposes serious economic hardships on the migrant 
Because of the ostensible shortage of workers, farmers al 
too frequently hoard labor by getting their crews on han< 
early or by keeping them between an early and a lat 
season. Thus, already in debt to the crew leader who usual 
Iy supports him en route, the migrant arrives in camp onl' 
to find that work will be sparse for some time. During thi 
period, his debt to the crew leader who supplies food 
credit, increases. By the time the season starts, the worker' 
expectations have been realistically set at simply maintain 
ing himself. 

Asked how much money they expected to take bad 
South, one migrant summed up most attitudes saying: "I'l 
break even; I came up with nothing and I'll leave wit] 
nothing." Some replied that they might make $30 or "$100 
$200 if I'm lucky." The northern trip is now viewed 
necessary to "get through" the year while work in the Soutl 
is seen as a time when some money is made. Based on th 
low wage levels and irregularity of work in New Yorl 
State, these attitudes create the "$3-a-day" syndrome witf 
which farmers justify their low wages. 

Second, low productivity is related to the day-to-i 
organization of work in the fields. Sending a crew to ; 
field which has had a first picking or to a small field which 
can be finished in less than a day, or where, for whatevei 
reason, the picking is poor, is feasible only when there is 
a surplus of labor. Not only is the work slower and more 
tiring in such fields but a change of fields during the daj 
entails a loss of time in transport. Workers become dis 
couraged and refuse to continue to work. 

Until closer planning and scheduling are introduced, the 
present organization of work cannot yield higher output; 
by migrants. Discouraged by the conditions, migrants have 1 
developed four responses: 

1. Griping. "They have no business bringing people 
a field like this." "I'll never come North again; it's not 
worth it." 

2. The walk-off. If the field is considered poor, migrants 
will leave saying, "It doesn't pay to kill yourself for things 
like this." 

3. "Target" working. "I'll just get enough to buy my 
dinner and a bottle and I'll quit." 

4. The slow-down. This most common response occurs 
particularly when workers are paid by the hour but is also 
found on piecework jobs. The technique is old and well- 
established: one looks busy by standing or squatting in a 
working position without doing much work. If one works 
harder than the others, on hourly work, sanctions are strong 
and immediate: "Don't take us out of a job." 

Even for the productive individual, the organization of 
work is a discouraging one. Movements of crew, poor fields, 
poor planning and scheduling, and breakdowns of equip- 
ment mean that he can rarely earn $10 a day even if he 
is prepared to work extremely bard. Exploitation by the 1 
crew leader and the difficulty of saving money all add up 
to few built-in incentives that can support the productive 
worker. He soon takes on the attitudes of the prevalent 
migrant culture or drops out of the migrant labor stream. 



TRANS ArTION 



4753 



In 1952, Arthur M. Ross and Samuel Liss prepared a re- 
port for a Senate hearing on migrant labor saying: 

. . the contractor system is a highly effective device for 
transferring the risk of agricultural employment to the 
workers. It is a sound principle of industrial relations 
that the various economic risks incident to employment 
ought to be distributed fairly or else insured against. 
This principle is notably absent in agricultural harvest 
work. Anyone familiar with urban industrial relations 
would suppose, for example, that employers would have 
some responsibility for workers who are brought to a 
work situation and held there for several weeks although 
no work is furnished to them. In agriculture, however, 
it frequently happens that the workers are brought into 
a grower's camp, upon specific instruction from the 
grower, several weeks before they are needed, and re- 
main entirely on their own until work begins, unless 
public charity is available or the contractor is willing to 
give advances of money or of credit. The situation is 
the same whether the lack of work is due to the vagaries 
of weather, the conditions of the market, miscalculation 
on the part of the grower, or any other reason. . . . 
Whatever the source of risk, it is borne by the individuals 
who are least able to undertake it. 

Seventeen years later little has changed despite the fact 
that Public Law 414 adopted in 1963 requires the registra- 
uon of labor contractors and the exclusion of non-Ameri- 
:ans from seasonal work. The system remains much as Ross 
ind Liss described it and the migrant workers themselves — 
hose least able to undertake the cost of the risks of harvest 
— continue to sustain most of its costs because of an out- 
moded system of production. 

But the adoption of Public Law 414 has created the base 
for a serious change in agriculture. The shortage of labor 
jit imposes by its restrictions on braceros, can induce farmers 
:o change the organization of work and control of labor. 
[Pressure to develop techniques for effective manpower 
(direction can be applied by farmers on the agricultural 
|:olleges, research stations and extension services that have 
Imade American agriculture the powerful force it is today. 
Vet as long as farmers continue to look to "hardware" as 
IJie only solution to their problems, labor will continue to 
be managed by mechanization, by getting rid of it. 
• The long experience of industry will have to be brought 
ito bear on the managerial problem. Farmers will have to 
internalize the idea that labor has intrinsic cash value and 
'hat its efficient organization is crucial to the farmers" own 
welfare. The incentives which must be brought to a new 
organization of work not only have to do with better wages 
fbut with better planning, organizing, scheduling, and con- 
■trolling. When those people interested in more than 
jminimal survival learn that they can earn money, the trip 
North will again become attractive to better workers. 
I Any conclusions with respect to policy must be formu- 
lated in the most tentative way since the research reported 
jhere is preliminary and much additional work remains to 
i be done. The experience of field work, however, indicates 
jthat careful planning of an even rudimentary nature can 
jeliminate some of forms of wastage noted. Individual 
Ifarmers, for example, can provide crew leaders and their 
|bus drivers with maps that get them to the fields without 



getting lost. Scheduling of work can take place more ef- 
fectively. Farmers can exercise greater control over order 
in their camps rather than abdicating their responsibility. 
Savings systems can be created to encourage better workers 
to accumulate money. Or farmers can insist that pricing of 
food provided by the crew leader be less exploitative. 

While these and many other changes are possible, the 
likelihood remains that mechanisms that ensure greater 
equality in the sharing of economic risks will be required 
if a significant proportion of the migrant population is to 
be effected. The experience of urban industry has shown 
that only when the employer bears the financial costs of 
inefficiency does he become significantly motivated to in- 
sure more effective management. 

Legislation requiring door-to-door wages (from the 
South) , the guarantee of an eight-hour day after arrival in 
the North and/or the guarantee of a fixed number of days 
of work are just some ways the risks of harvest can be 
redistributed. Until the cash value of labor is made explicit 
to agricultural employers through external pressure, few 
changes in farmer attitudes will be forthcoming. Legislation 
that throws the burden of risk upon farmers would pro- 
duce an immediate reaction from the research agencies as- 
sociated with agriculture who would begin to provide 
techniques of more effective management almost immediate- 
ly. The consequences for efficiency in agriculture and living 
standards for migrant workers would be enormous. 

FURTHER READING SUGGESTED BY THE AUTHOR: 

Men on the Move by Nels Anderson (Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press, 1940). Although outdated, this is a definitive 

sociological work on agricultural workers. 

The Slaves We Rent by Truman Moore (New York: Random 

House, 1965) is a first-class journalistic account of the situation 

of migrant workers throughout the country. 

The Ground Is Our Table by Steve Allen (New York: Doubleday, 

1966). Written in anger from his personal experiences with 

poverty, this book focuses on agricultural labor in the Southwest 

and includes an enthusiastic endorsement of the Chavez 

organization. 

Farmers, Workers and Machines: Technological and Social Change 

in Farm Industries of Arizona by Harland Padfield and William E. 

Martin (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1965). This book 

contains economic data on various crops and also empirical data 

on agricultural workers in Arizona with special emphasis on 

differences in ethnic groups. 




William H. Friedland is associate professor, New York State 
School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University. 
In July, 1969 he will join the University of California at Santa 
Cruz as professor of community studies and sociology. His prior 
research followed from field work in Africa, primarily Tanzania, 
and he is currently preparing a book dealing with migrant labor 
as a social system with Dorothy Nelkin. 



FEBRUARY 1969 



4754 



AGRIBUSINESS, U.S.A.: 

Management Responsible Only To Itself 



A Background Paper by A. V. Krebs Jr. 



No class of people or type of worker in America today have 
become more thoroughly exposed to the raw corporate power 
of the American economic system than the nation* s 3*1 
million farm workers. 

Between i960 and 1967 corporations in the United States 
had $421.6 billion left over after payments to stockholders. 
After investing $365*8 billion in new plants and equipment 
there remained some $55 • 8 billion. 

As many corporations begin to plow these enormous resources 
into agriculture and tighten their grip on the vertical 
Integration of the food industry they assume in A. A. Berle's 
words "self-contained control and management is thus res- 
ponsible to Itself. " 

In seeking to discover who are America's "new farmers" an 
observation by Nicholas Pileggi In a May 18, 1968 
Saturday Evening Post article on the Harvard School of 
Business is worth noting. 

Novitiates of a new priesthood, B School students 
have been trained to administer giant corporations, 
not to own them; to plan cities, not to govern 
them; to organize underdeveloped countries, not to 
run them. They have learned that it is nobler to 
manage than to possess, because In administration 
lies real power . 

It Is this power which is part of the everyday reality in a 
farm worker's life and which most Americans still mistake 
for the hardiness, lndustriousness and independence which 
characterized the farmer of an era rapidly fading from the 
American rural scene. 

In 1968 with cash receipts from farm marketings over $48 
billion, food was this country's largest industry. The 
$124.6 billion consumers spent for food during the year 
was over 23# of their total consumption expenditures. 



- 1 - 



4755 



The millions of Jobs now dependent on the transporting, 
processing and packaging of food are vital to the economy 
of the world's most affluent nation. 

Yet the person who is in large measure responsible for 
this wealth and abundance, the American farm worker, 
continues to remain economically powerless. As the 1969 
Report of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Migratory 
Labor stated: "No other segiment of our population is so 
poorly paid yet contributes so much to our Nation's 
health and welfare." 

Denied by law the right to organize and bargain collective- 
ly, excluded in several states from minimum wage laws, the 
farm worker with a 1968 average wage of $1.^3 an hour still 
ranks lowest in annual income of all our Nation's 
occupational groups. 

Contract Construction $^»^9 

All Manufacturing f^' ^ 

Lumber and Wood Products $2.62 

Canning, cured & frozen foods $2.38 

In light of these few statistics it is time the plight of 
the farm worker be studied in terms of the nature of the 
economic system which creates and prolongs his poverty 
rather than by simply focusing on his material condition. 

This paper, which is only a prospectus for a much broader 
planned study on the present corporate structure of agri- 
business in the United States, is an effort to examine 
that economic system. 

II 

The predominant trend in agribusiness today is toward 
corporation farming. Each day there is news of large 
corporations buying up land, farms, feed lots, mills, pro- 
cessing and distributing outlets. 

A 1969 U.S. Department of Agriculture survey of h7 states 

not including California showed farms operated by 

corporations owned over 53 million acres of land. Fifty- 
four percent of these corporations were formed since i960. 



- 2 - 



4756 



In 14 states with 1967 farm marketings totaling $11.5 
billion (28# of the total U.S. marketings) less than 50% 
of these marketings came from family farms. In 1969 over 
Jh% of the hired farm work force were employed in the four 
states of Arizona, Florida, California and Texas where 
corporate farming has made its greatest impact. Family farm 
sales in these states were: 

Arizona 11% 

Florida 20# 

California 21% 

Texas k8% 

A preliminary examination of these figures would seem to 
indicate that those farms (large corporate farms) who hire 
the most labor are best suited financially to pay their 
workers a Just and living wage. 

Who are some of these corporations and what are their 
activities in agriculture? 

* Sterling Precision Corp. of New York, a maker of in- 
dustrial equipment, has bought 84,000 acres of land in 
Arizona and is rapidly adding to its 5000 cultivated 
acres. 

* International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. has agreed to 
acquire Gwaltney Inc., a food processing company for 
758,664 common shares of ITT, valued at approximately 
$41.9 million. 

* Dow Chemical Financial Corp., a subsidiary of the Dow 
Chemical Co. purchased in 1969 some 17,000 acres of land 
In Arizona and California from Bud Antle, Inc., reportedly 
at the time the world's largest lettuce grower. 

* Stratford of Texas, Inc. has agreed to acquire M-G Inc. 
of Weimar, Texas for approximately $5,6 million in 
common shares of stock. M-G distributes livestock feed 
through 150 dealers, sells eggs and controls the Longview 
Texas National Bank. Stratford is engaged in farming and 
minerals development. 

* Tenneco Inc. has acquired Heggblade-Marguleas Co., a San 
Francisco- based agricultural producer and sales agent. 
Tenneco has indicated its new subsidiary will manage the 
agricultural lands, packing houses and prospective pre- 
packaging facilities of the Kern County Land Co., another 
Tenneco subsidiary. 



- 3 - 



4757 



* Although the transaction was terminated upon the death of 
Mormon Church leader David 0. McKay, the GAC Corp., a 
diversified holding company, was seeking to buy 265,000 
acres of Florida land from its owners, the Mormon Church. 

* Southern Pacific Co. has announced plans to accelerate 
development of 3,855,000 acres of its land in California, 
Nevada and Utah through a subsidiary, Southern Pacific 
Land Co. Most of this land was given to SP in the form 
of federal grants during the building of the first 
transcontinental railroad in the 18 60s. 

* In 1968 the H.J. Heinz Co., through a subsidiary of its 
Ore-Ida frozen potato products division, planted 9000 
acres of potatoes in Western Oregon. 

» Big canners like Minute Maid Groves Corp., a subsidiary 
of Coca Cola Co. and Llbby, McNeill and Libby now own 
an estimated 20# of Florida's citrus groves, compared 
with less than one percent in i960. 

These few examples of the wholesale emergence of large corp- 
orations investing in agriculture suggests to many that 
agriculture could within a few years become what would 
amount to a closed corporation. 

Eric Thor, former University of California Extension 
Agricultural economist, has suggested that it is entirely 
possible in the not too distant future that a half dozen 
such large corporations could easily control the production 
of all California's fruits, nuts and vegetables, which in 
turn accounts for k0% of the total U.S. production in 
these catagories. 

This growing exclusiveness in the nation's food industry 
is also reflected in the observation of Dr. Wlllard F. 
Mueller, former chief accountant for the Federal Trade 
Commission, regarding the food retailing industry: 

If the top 20 chains of i960 and all other chains 
with 11 or more stores were to continue to expand 
their market shares at the respective rates which 
they experienced between 195^ and 1958, by about 
198^ chains of 11 or more stores (about 180 of 
them) would be doing all of the grocery store 
business, with the top 20 of i960 doing Sk% and 
all others 16%, 



- 4 - 



4758 



At a time when the general public is being repeatedly told 
that the nation's farmers are in serious financial 
difficulties what does a large corporation see In 
agriculture? 

Profit: 

As CBK Agronomics Inc., an organization formerly interested 
in women's apparel, foreign films, asphalt and label-print- 
ing but now investing in agriculture, explains, commercial 
farming operations reap profits "well above the average on 
invested capital. " 

Rudolph A. Peterson, retired president of Bank of America, 

has also noted: 

The studies I have seen stratify return on in- 
vestment up to sales of $20,000 per year and then 
lump together all farms with sales of over 
$20,000. These studies indicate that farms with 
sales in excess of $20,000 per year earn a rate 
of return on investment equal to or better than 
they could earn in other potential investments. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that large corporations 
and conglomerates have chosen agriculture as the most 
lucrative field in which they can invest their many 
billions of dollars. 

In examining these current trends in American agribusiness 
the mistake should not be made that somehow all this Is 
simply part of the changing times, one of the byproducts 
of progress. As Tony T. Dechant, President of the National 
Farmers Union, has observed: 

I do not believe that we should concern ourselves 
only with trying to decide what the future of 

American agriculture is going to be but what 

it should be. We should not accept any trend as 
inevitable. Trends are made by our public policy, 
not born of the wedding of inscrutable and un- 
controllable forces. What Is happening In America 

Is because of our public policy not in spite 

of It. 

Through a combination of policies the U.S. government has 
probably done more than any single Institution in our nation 
to encourage the present trend in agribusiness toward 
corporation farming. 



- 5 - 



4759 



Sen. Lee Metcalf (Dem. -Montana) has pointed out that one of 
these policies created the "tax farmer," e.g., people who 
engage in farming for the purpose of creating losses which 
can be used to offset substantial amounts of their non-farm 
income. As Senator Metcalf notes, 

. . . the tax farmers are more interested in 
farming the Internal Revenue Code than they are 
the land, and are making it increasingly diffi- 
cult for true farmers to earn a fair and an 
adequate rate of return on their effort and 
Investment. 

Subsidies, however, more than any other single government 
policy has given major impetus to corporations getting into 
agriculture. Both crop subsidies under the Agricultural 
Stabilization and Conservation Service and water subsidies 
under the Department of Interior's 160-acre Reclamation 
Act have turned over billions of taxpayer dollars to large 
landowners throughout the country. 

These subsidies have enabled rich farmers to get richer 
while those farmers which the two acts were meant to help 
get poorer. In 1969 over $3.5 billion was appropriated for 
crop subsidies. Less than $400 million, however, was 
divided up among one million farmers while 100,000 farmers 
were receiving over $1.6 billion. 

No one area in the United States typifies better the social 
and economic inequality that crop and water subsidies have 
created than the Westlands Water District in California's 
San Joaquin Valley. Covering 450,000 acres of land the 
Westlands is getting water from the San Luis Reclamation 
Project, a $157 million federal and state water project. 
The federal subsidy toward the cost of water in this area 
is approximately $1000 an acre. 

In the Westlands, an area about two- thirds the sixe of 
Rhode Island, there are 240 landowners. The National Farmers 
Union has estimated that with a family farm containing 40 
acres of deciduous fruits and nuts, or 80 acres in truck, 
tomato and field crops, and 160 acres in meat production, 
the San Luis project could support 6100 farms of varying 
size. 

Compare those figures with the reality of the Westlands 
today as shown in the chart below: 



- 6 - 



Name 

Southern Pacific 
J.G. Boswell 

Boston Ranch 

Miller-Lux 
(lease) 
Giffen family 
* Giffen, Inc. only 



4760 



Acreage Est. Water Subsidy 1969 ASCS Payment 



120,000 
32,364 
37,000 
25,313 



$120 million 
$ 32 million 



161,068 

4,370,657 

643,006 

292,961 



100,000 $100 million $ 3,333,385 ♦ 



Dr. Paul Taylor has observed "that Westlands is to water what 
Teapot Dome was to oil." 

A study in 1966, it should be noted here, by a group of Fresno 
State College sociologists found that small farmers in the 
San Joaquin Valley paid higher wages to their workers than 
those large corporate growers in the Westlands area. 

The disparity, however, between the rich, subsidized farmer 
and the underpaid, exploited farm worker is most apparent 
in Kings County, California^ poorest county, with the 
lowest average wages in the state. Kings lies in the very 
heart of the Westlands district. 

In I968 the county spent $24,000 on general relief, $2,711,388 
on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and $667,800 on 
Aid to the Disabled. At the same time some 247 of the 
county's growers were receiving $10,279,927 in ASCS payments. 
Over 50# of that amount was shared by four growers. The 
Southern Pacific Co., whose retained income in 1968 was 
$1.43 billion, also received $54,917 in crop subsidies for 
land the company owns in Kings County. 

Last February hungry and destitute farm workers In Kings 
County appeared before the Board of Supervisors, and staged 
marches, demonstrations and sleep-ins on the court house 
lawn seeking more and better quality surplus food commodities 
for their families and the institution of a food stamp pro- 
gram for their poor. Meanwhile in Washington, D.C. It was 
disclosed last month (March, 1970) that in 1969 some 63 
growers from Kings County received $13,114,322 in ASCS 
subsidies. 



- 7 - 



4761 



Leading the list of county and national recipients, as he 
has for the past three years, was J.G. Boswell II with 
a $4,370,657 payment. In 1967 Boswell received $4,091,818 
and in 1968 he collected $3,010,042. In addition to owning 
32,364 acres in his own name Boswell also owns the Boston 
Ranch (37,000 acres) which collected a 1969 ASCS payment 
of $643,006 and controls the Crocket t-Gambody Ranch 
(28,503 acres), Tulare Lake Land Co. (10,392 acres) and 
through a lease 25,313 acres of Miller-Lux. He also farms 
some 500 acres of struck table grapes in Arizona. 

But Boswell' s financial acumen is not solely confined to 
the fields of the Southwestern United States. In addition 
to his $50 million a year business he serves on the board 
of directors for the Security Pacific National Bank 
(second largest in California, ninth largest in the nation 
with deposits of over $5.8 billion) and Safeway Stores, 
Inc., the nation's second largest supermarket chain. 

Reviewing these facts it is not difficult to understand 
why Boswell and his business associates have become for 
thousands of rural poor in America the symbols of all 
that is unjust in the social and economic life of our 
country. 

Ill 

For nearly two years Safeway Stores, Inc. has been a target 
of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO) 
national table-grape boycott campaign. The union has 
repeatedly asked the store to remove their table grapes 
as part of UFWOC's efforts to win collective bargaining 
rights with California and Arizona table grape growers. 
The store, claiming its neutrality in this dispute, has 
refused to remove the grapes and the union has replied 
that Safeway is not a neutral party but is in close alliance 
with the growers. 

As one examines the corporate structure of Safeway, the 
union's charge is well- supported, for this supermarket chain, 
which had a 1968 total sales record of $3.7 billion and a 
$55.1 million profit, typifies agribusiness today. 



- 8 - 



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



4762 



For example, the 19 men who sat on the Safeway Stores, Inc. 
board of directors in 1969 also sat on the boards of 
Southern Pacific Co., Caterpillar Tractor Co., Wells Fargo 
Bank (2), Castle & Cooke, Inc., Security Pacific National 
Bank (2), Times Mirror Co., Sante Fe Industries, Inc., 
Tejon Ranch Co. , Pacific Gas and Electric Co. , Bank of 
California (2), Union Pacific Railroad Co., Frank B. Hall 
& Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 
R.H. Macy & Co., Inc. and Continental Can Co. among others. 

Gene Cervl of Cervl's Rocky Mountain Journal commented on 
another aspect of the Safeway operation in a July 17, 1968 
article: 

It would take a Philadelphia lawyer to sort out 
Safeway' s hidden interest in feedlots, packing 
plants, capttve feeders, cattlemen busted and hang- 
ing on, and before long that's just exactly what 
is going to happen to Safeway. It Just can't go 
on forever wrecking the cattle production business 
in this part of the United States. 

Safeway Stores, Inc., however Is only one corporation in the 
core of power that dominates agribusiness today. Through 
Interconnecting directorates and ownership banks, conglom- 
erates, processors, retailers, etc. the food Industry is 
swallowing up American farming. 

Another example. Six men Crowdus Baker, Edward W. Carter, 

James Halt, Rudolph A. Peterson, Gardiner Symonds, and 

Albert L. Williams between them serve on at least 29 

directorates. These include: Sears, Roebuck & Co., Archer 
Daniels Midland Co., Chemical New York Corp., Bethlehem 
Steel Corp., Conlll Corp., Bank of America, Di Giorgio 
Corp., Time, Inc., Kaiser Industries, Consolidated Foods 
Corp., Southern Pacific Co., Tenneco, Inc., Kern County 
Land Co. , Packaging Corp. of America, Newport News Ship- 
building and Dry Dock Co. , Houston National Bank, Philadelphia 
Life Insurance Co., IBM, First National City Bank, General 
Foods Corp., General Motors Corp., American Telephone and 
Telegraph, Broadway-Hale Stores, United California Bank, 
Del Monte Corp., PG & E, FMC Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., and 
Georgia Pacific Corp. 

A 1968 Congressional study on Commercial Banks and Their 
Trust Activities found that ^9 commercial banks now reach 
into every major industry in the country through inter- 
connecting directorates. 



- 9 - 



4763 



Catagory Interlocks Plans Common Stock 

Canning, Preserving 

Fruits and Vegetables lb I 2 * 

Grocery and Misc. Food 

Stores 



17 16 11 

Meat Products 6 7 1 

Dairy Products b 7 3 

Grain Mill Products 6 12 5 

Textile Mill Products 22 25 9 
Lumber and Wood Products 

(except furniture) 6 6 2 

Agricultural Chemicals 3 13 
Farm Machinery, Construction, 

Mining, Material Handling 12 21 
Groceries and Related 

Products - Wholesale 5 3 2 

In the 1966 report by the National Commission on Food Marketing 
there appears an illustration tracing the flow of food from 
sources to destination (page 6). It is significant in light 
of the frequent claims that farmers are receiving less for 
their crops while consumers are paying more for their food that 
the two critical points in the flow are through the assemblers 
and brokers and later through the wholesalers, brokers and 
chain warehouses. 

The importance of discovering Just how much control these 
individuals and the corporations they represent exercise was 
vividly illustrated by E. Drummond Ayres, Jr. in a March 12, 
1970 article in The New York Times on Idaho growers burning 
their potatoes in an effort to get better and fairer prices. 
Buyers and processors throughout the country say 
they have nothing against farm organization in 
principle, but a random survey found that most 
studiously avoid signing contracts with N.F.O. 
members . 

In fact, many bragged that they had been able to 
undercut the organization by quietly persuading 
some hard-pressed members to sell potatoes at 
prices well below what the N.F.O. considers fair. 
An Idaho Falls buyer, who asked not to be identi- 
fied, said: 

"We're going to do everything we can to avoid ever 
signing N.F.O. contracts. We know where that would 

lead to another union, In effect, and we've 

already got enough of them to deal with." 



- 10 - 



4764 



It is clear, therefore, that much new research needs to be 
done In a positive effort to identify the various individ- 
uals and corporations who are turning the nation's food 
Industry into an exclusive club and transforming a country 
of family farms into a land of nothing but factories in 
the field. 

The task of pinpointing this corporate power is to be the 
major task of the study discussed in the introduction to 
this paper. 

IV 

What direct affect are these current trends in agribusiness 
having on rural America? 

Victor K. Bay in an excellent booklet which should be re- 
quired reading for anyone Interested in agribusiness. 
THE CORPORATE INVASION OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE (published 
by the National Farmers Union), has summed up some of the 
already apparent affects: 

1) Consumers are being put at the mercy of a de- 
personalized monopoly. 

2) A further concentration of political power is 
being created that is causing other problems in 
the society. 

3) Our natural resources of land and water are 
moving into hands that are abusing them and will 
ultimately destroy them. 

4) A social and economic reservoir that can never 
be replaced is being destroyed as our rural 
communities are being erased. 

To understand what affect corporate farming is having on 
agricultural labor let us look at three examples of how large 

corporations treat their workers Bank of America, H.J. 

Heinz & Co. and Gates Rubber Co. 

At the apex of the agribusiness superstructure in California 
is the Bank of America, which finances over 50% of the 
state's agriculture. In a November, 1968 speech to the 
California Canners and Growers, Mr. Peterson, then presi- 
dent of the bank, outlined what he termed H a new national 
agricultural policy." 



- 11 - 



4765 



Why is a banker talking about agricultural 
policy? he asked . Because Bank of America has a 
deep stake with lines of credit for agricultural 
production running at about a billion dollars a 
year. Our total agricultural commitment is pro- 
bably around $3 billion. We've been in agriculture 
a long time and we intend to stay in agriculture 
for a lot longer. In a very real sense then, 
agriculture is our business. 

How the bank manages its agricultural loans, the property it 
owns, and the workers who harvest the crops on that land 
came to light several months ago after the UFWOC charged 
that a 5000-acre bank-controlled ranch in the strikebound 
Delano area was refusing to bargain collectively with Its 
500 employees. 

Bank officials contended that their ownership was only 
temporary and in fact the land was leased to a firm called 
Agri-Business Investments Inc. The articles of incorporation 
for the leasing firm, however, showed as two of its officers 
attorneys employed by the bank. The assets of Agri-Business 
Investments, Inc. consisted of a lease of approximately 
4000 acres from Bank of America for one dollar. Issued 
corporate stock consisted of 250 shares at $10 per share. 
In 1968 AgrlBusiness received $9000 in ASCS payments. 

The land's former owner, P.J. Divizich, who after being 
allowed to run up a $7.8 million loan debt and forced into 
bankruptcy, had to sell the ranch to Bank of America for 
$5.8 million. The bank also* obtained a certificate of 
indebtness and lean on all his crops (mostly table grapes) 
which means that he will probably be paying off the money 
he owes the bank for the rest of his life. 

This land is presently being sold by Agri-Business Invest- 
ments, Inc. to other large land owners in the area. 

Larry Itliong, assistant director of the UFWOC, has said 
that his union had signed up most of the ranch's 500 workers 
and had asked the bank to negotiate with them, but their 
request was promptly rejected. In response bank officials 
noted that although they were a major agricultural 
financier, they were not themselves engaged in farming. 



- 12 - 



4766 



Another example of agribusiness exercising its corporate 
power to the detriment of farm workers came to public 
attention last spring in Iowa when people were asked to 
boycott the products of the H.J. Heinz Co. in an effort 
to aid state migrant legislation. Two bills had been in- 
troduced in the state legislature concerning child labor 
law and establishing minimum health and housing standards. 

The boycott idea was thought up by Democratic State 
Representative John Tapscott after a group of Muscatine, 
Iowa growers appeared before his committee holding hearings 
on the child labor bill and admitted that they had been 
mapping opposition to the bill at a meeting with Heinz 
company representatives. 

Tapscott said that Heinz was refusing to pay vegetable 
growers adequate prices for their crops. This in turn 
forced growers to pay migrant workers inadequate wages 
and house them in substandard facilities. In fiscal 1969 
the H.J. Heinz Co. net income was up 21. 9% to $28.4 
million with net sales of $790.1 million. 

Meanwhile Iowa legislators (The Washington Post . April 6, 
1969) heard how some migrant workers were housed in three 
wooden shacks, a hog house, a corn crib, a chicken house 
and a rusty trailer at one tomato farm. At another farm 
vegetable pickers were living in "broken down buses" 
with no heat. 

Robert Cheshire, supervisor of inspectors for the Iowa 
Bureau of Labor, showed the legislators colored slides of 
migrant camps, many containing what he called "Heinz 
houses." They were so named because the company had 
originally provided them to local tomato growers. They 
were 9 by 12 wooden buildings with a flat tarred roof, 
one light bulb and no plumbing'. 

Tapscott later explained that Heinz was opposing child 
labor legislation because If the children were to be kept 
out of the fields wages would have to be raised so that the 
parents could sustain their families by themselves. The 
proposed legislation required that growers and other em- 
ployers of migrants be held responsible for making sure 
the children they hired met the minimum age requirements 
established in 1967, e.g., no migrant child under 10 
could work in the field and no child under Ik could 
work before or during school hours. 



- 13 - 



4767 



Evidence was presented by Federal anti-poverty workers show- 
ing that many children tinder Ik and some under eight were 
being employed because their parents lied about the children s 
ages so they could help gain income for the family. 

The impersonalization of agribusiness can also be seen in the 
manner in which it creates additional social burdens for 
rural communities and then seeks tax dollars to alleviate 
that condition. 

A case in point is the Gates Rubber Company, a diversified 
Denver, Colorado firm that makes V-belts and tires. J* 
recent years the company has been buying up land ^Wyoming 
and Colorado, developing a cattle ranch with 180,000 head 
and a farm with 1*20,000 chickens, making it one of the 
nation? s leading egg producers. Gates Rubber Co. also 
raises sugar beets. 

Victor Ray, commenting on the latter operation, points out: 
Thanks to Gates Rubber Co., the people of Yuma # 
County, Colorado, have a new problem to deal 

with a migrant labor camp. Gates rolled in 

colonies of house trailers, removed the bath- 
rooms from them, set around communal toilets and 
showers, and moved in the migrant workers. The 
Federal Government is subsidizing the operation, 
mercifully, by establishing an education program 
for the children. 

Probably the single most important development in agriculture 
which has cleared the way for giant corporations to get into 
farming on a large scale is mechanization. Aside from its 
broad economic aspects mechanization has a direct affect on 
not only the workers- in-the-flelds Jobs but on their 
capacity to organize. 

Isao Fujimoto, a University of California, Davis behavioral 
scientist, has discussed this aspect of mechanization in a 
fascinating paper, "Mechanization and Farm Labor: Inequities 
and Social Consequences." 

. . . Despite claims that mechanization is geared to 
help the farm worker by relieving him of drudgery, 
the' politics of agriculture show that a large im- 
petus for mechanization came out of fear of the 

workers rather than out of concern for him fears 

that a malleable labor supply or a comparable cheap 
foreign labor force would diminish, or that the 
domestic labor force would unionize. 



- Ik - 



4768 



Fujimoto cites the growth and development of the tomato 
harvester as an example of this fear. J. Bernell Harlen, 
who with a partner farms 1500 acres near the UC Davis 
campus, was the man who first tested the tomato harvester 
and his explanation to The National Geographic of its 
development underscores Mr. Fujlmoto's point. 

Many tomato growers figured they'd have to give 
up farming. Canners made plans to move to Mexico. 
But by I965, when the bracero ban went into effect, 
most of the bugs had been worked out of the har- 
vesting machine, and we had learned what cultivation 
practices the new tomato plant required. The way we 
saved the tomato business in California reminds me 
of those cavalry rescues in Wild West movies. 

Mr. Fujimoto continues, 

. . . Alvin Bertrand in an article entitled "The 
Social Processes of Mechanization of Southern 
Agricultural Systems" cites similar social causes 
for the advent of mechanization in the cotton 
industry. Planters in the South Ignored agricultural 
machinery for years. However, two social processes 
set in motion the landed aristocracy's acceptance 
of technological advancements. One was the unioni- 
zation of agricultural workers and the other was 
the strengthening of the landlords* position 
through subsidies sponsored by the Agricultural 
Adjustment Act ... 

Technology definitely had not been neutral or value 
free in its response to the general welfare of 
everyone concerned with agriculture. Technological 
advancements including agricultural research, 
mechanical inventions and extension service, have 
a management bias ... 

Once again Mr. Fujlmoto's own institution, University of 
California, Davis, provides a perfect example of the 
"bias" he speaks of. The Wall Street Journal in 1968 in 
an article "A Farm Subsidy You Don't Hear About," des- 
cribed UC as "a taxpald clinic for a major industry." 
No other large U.S. industry has its money-making re- 
search done for it free on such a scale as does agri- 
culture by land grant colleges like the University of 
California. 



- 15 - 



4769 



For example, in fiscal 1967 the University's Experiment 
Station spent more than $25 million. Of this, over $17 
million was from state funds and nearly $7 million came 
from Federal funds. Less than $1.5 million came from 
California's $16 billion agribusiness industry, the nation's 
largest. 

Taxpayers and farm workers, like students, have recently 
been asking themselves why they should subsidize UC 
Davis* 25-year study on the corrosion of fence wire, or 
a project "facilitating the marketing of seed," or on 
developing equipment for twining hops. 

While engaging in this type of activity on the one hand the 
university has also in the past used their studies to 
depress domestic farm workers' wages and support grower 
demands for braoeros. 

Not only have these reports been biased toward the state's 
agribusiness interests, but those parts of the report 
which have tended to give another side of the labor market 
story have been suppressed. The famous 1964 Eric Thor- 
John Namer Giannini report which dealt with the continuing 
need for braoeros was carefully edited and trimmed so as 
to omit the fact that authoritative studies had shown that 
domestic workers were available for farm work if they were 
provided with decent wages and working conditions. 

V 

In testimony before the President's Commission on Civil 
Disorders on November 2, 1967 then Assistant Secretary of 
Agriculture John Baker perhaps best summarized the affect 
that corporations are having on the personal lives of 
America's rural poor. 

Past developments and trends in rural America 

particularly on our farms are directly 

related to, and are some of the fundamental 
causes of urban civil disorder. Those of us who 
have been close to agriculture over the years 
have seen the inexorable thrust of modern tech- 
nology and organization literally overwhelm 

millions of families white and Negro in 

the countryside force them off the land and 

into the towns and cities, where both white and 
Negro add to the overcrowding that leads to 
explosion. 



- 16 - 



4770 



What Mr. Baker suggests but does not spell out is that in 
recent years many of the same corporations which have con- 
tributed to people's poverty in the fields are the same 
forces which exploit and oppress them in their new and 
often impoverished lives in the cities. 

For example, in 1968 the House Government Operations committee 
reported that grocery store chains in Washington, D.C. 
and other cities sell second-rate food and often charge 
higher prices in their ghetto stores. The committee first 
got interested in the supermarket subject the previous 
year when a group of Washington, D.C. housewives with the 
support of the Democratic Central Committee made a survey 
and accused Safeway Stores, Inc. of charging higher prices 
in the ghetto. The housewives also asserted that Safeway 
raised its prices in the ghetto on the first of the month, 
the day after welfare checks are issued. Safeway denied the 
charges . 

For a very long time urban America has ignored the events 
taking place in rural America. Today we are beginning to pay 
the price for this neglec t an d if this trend toward more 
land and more capital in Kf fewer hands continues we may 
witness a political and social upheavel unequal to any in 
our country's history. 

James Madison's main conception, Victor Ray reminds us, was 
that all citizens should be possessed of an interest, list- 
ing property owners, creditors, land owners, manufacturers 
and others as examples. Madison also voiced concern for 
those without property. This latter class of people have no 
Interest in the society until as Andrew Hacker has noted, 
"they organize a party whose aim is to socialize private 
property." 

Bay adds, 

The concentration of farms into corporate hands 
creates more people without an "Interest" in 
rural America. Thus the real revolutionaries 
of our society may be the corporate defenders 
who are pushing us inevitably closer to the day 
when the propertyless will seek to develop an 
interest in the society by socializing the 
property. 



- 17 - 



4771 



And while we ponder on this observation let us not forget 
(keeping in mind many of the events which have taken place 
in our cities and on or near our college campuses in 
recent months) President John F. Kennedy's admonition 
uttered on two separate occasions. 

We live In times of great change, and it is our 
duty, our responsibility to make that change, 
that revolution peaceful and constructive for all. 
Those who act boldly act from right as well as 
from reason ... If peaceful revolution is 
impossible then violent revolution is inevitable. 

VI 

The continuing corporate invasion of agriculture has now 
begun to pose some serious international questions as 
well. 

In February it was announced that an investment company had 

been formed, 

... to increase food production and rural income 
(in Latin America) by the profitable application 
of investment capital, which will lead to a broad 
base of local ownership. Investments will be made in 
new and existing enterprises that produce, process, 
transport, distribute or market agricultural products. 

The Latin American Agribusiness Development Corp. (LAAD) 
will have authorized capital of $15 million. The partici- 
pating firms, who will work as equal partners, Include: 
Adela Investment Co., Bank of America, Borden, Inc., 
Cargill, Inc., Caterpillar Tractor Co., C.P.C. International, 
Inc., Deere and Co., Dow Chemical Co., Gerber Products Co., 
Monsanto Co., Balston Purina Co., and Standard Fruit and 
Steamship Co. All these corporations have been active in 
Latin American business and trade in recent years while 
continuing to expand their operations In U.S. agriculture. 

Fred S. Orth, vice president of Bank of America, has been 
elected LAAD's interm president with Donald J. Kirchhoff , 
exeo/uujive vice president of Castle & Cooke, Inc. chairman 
of the board, and Paul F. Cornelsen, president of Ralston 
Purina International, vice president. 

In embarking on this venture In Latin America one questions 
if LAAD, Inc. will follow the advice of Edwin M. Martin, 
chairman of the Development Assistance Committee of the 22- 
nation Organization for Economic Coopesation and Development? 



- 18 - 



4772 



Martin, noting that lack of Jobs is the most severe problem 
confronting the developing nations, recommended that 
companies investing in those countries should forgo much 
of their labor-saving machinery and take advantage of 
cheap labor. 

Will LAAD also benefit from the counsel of Rudolph A. 
Peterson's 16-member committee which recently conducted 
a study on American foreign aid for President Nixon? 
The committee recommended that the U.S. set up an 
International Development Bank to lend money to poor 
countries, particularly for agriculture and education. 

Included among the members of that committee were John E. 
Countrymen, chairman of the board of Del Monte Corp., R. 
Burt Gookin, president of H.J. Heinz Co., William A. 
Hewitt, chairman of Deere and Co., David Rockefeller, 
chairman of Chase Manhatten Bank, Earl L. Butz, board of 
directors, Ralston Purina Co., and Walter A. Haas, Jr., 
board of directors, PG & E. 

Will LAAD's president Orth implement the financial phil- 
osophy of his former Bank of America boss, Rudolph 
Peterson, in this new corporation's Latin American ventures? 

Peterson believes in "venture banking," e.£., 

... the job of International banks if they 
are to avail themselves of the profit potential 
in the vast resources of the lesser developed 
countries, must be to mar shall credit, know- 
how and capital to create wealth that could 
not be created by the lesser-developed nations 
themselves. 

As this international financial activity by many of America's 
largest agribusiness corporations continues, Dr. Sidney E. 
Rolfe recently asserted in a critique for the Foreign Policy 
Association, national resistance throughout the world to 
multinational companies is increasing rapidly. 

The reason, he notes, is that integration of resources, 
production and distribution on an international scale 
weakens the control of national economies that has come 
to be an accepted function of Bureaucratic elites. Dr. 
Rolfe estimates that at the present time there are 
approximately 160 companies in the multinational class, 
half ofl them being American. 



- 19 - 



4773 



For example, some 450 U.S. companies are now operating in 
Australia, many being mineral firms. However, such firms 
as Kern County Land Co., Dillingham Corp., W.R. Grace Co., 
Chase Manhatten Bank among others do business in Australia 
in addition to the some 3000 American landholders. 

One of these landholders is J.G. Boswell II. In 1968 while 
he was receiving over $3 million in ASCS subsidies for not 

f rowing cotton in Kings County, California he was receiving 
500,000 from the Australian government to grow cotton in 
that country. Australia has been trying to stimulate cotton 
production by paying a bounty of $15 a bale. 

These are some of the questions and realities any discussion 
of agribusiness in the United States must Include when 
talking about the future of the Industry. 

VII 

Federal farm planners have speculated privately, according 
to The Wall Street Journal , that eventually the United 
States will need only about 500,000 farms, compared with 
today's three million and that future farms will be big, 
factory-like operations. (At the present time 338,200 
of the nation's farms 11# hire any full-time help.) 

Farm workers, unless given the protection of federal laws 
other workers have enjoyed for thetoast 35 years, mainly 
the right to organize and bargain collectively, will very 
likely remain, in the face of this economic centralization, 

much as they are today second-class citizens, a study 

in economic powerlessness. 

Each seglment of the American business community and each in- 
stitution in our society is going to have to ask some hard 
questions about what their role will be in the future as 
agribusiness continues to grow and assume a larger place in 
our social, economic and political lives. 

For the American farm worker the path should be quite clear. 
They must have the protection of the Wagner Act if they are 
to achieve dignity and economic power. From even the brief 
resume of facts outlined in this paper it is clear to see 
why Cesar Chavez, director of the UFW0C, has so rightfully 
declared: 



- 20 - 



4774 



The policy of the original Wagner Act and its ad- 
ministration for the succeeding 12 years was to 
promote unionism for the unskilled and semiskilled 
workers in mass production Industry. Its aim was 
to quiet widespread industrial unrest and to meet 
the social and economic challenges of the Great 
Depression. 

Where would the large industrial unions of today 
be if Congress had "protected" them from the 
beginning, not with the Wagner Act, but with the 
Taft-Hartley Act as it is today? 
We too need our decent period of time to grow 
strong under the life-giving sun of a public 
policy which affirmatively favors the growth of 
farm unionism. Only a strong union can deal 
effectively and on equal footing with the giant 
agribusiness corporations that run most of 
agriculture. 



about the author 

A. V. Krebs Jr. is a free-lance journalist who for the 
past seven years has been contributing articles on farm 
labor, agribusiness, and the Delano, California grape 
pickers strike to nearly every major U.S. religious 
publication and many secular publications. From California 
he now lives with his wife and two sons in Somervllle, 
New Jersey. 



4775 

In Aid of the Mexican-Amebican : A Proposal to Aid Mexican-American 

Farm Workers 

(By Mark Erenburg, Department of Economics, Indiana University, 
Bloomington, Ind.) 

INTRODUCTION 

Public policy decisions will focus ever more sharply on hired farm workers 
in the immediate future. The continued rapid introduction of chemical and 
mechanical cultivation techniques and mechanical harvesting devices in agricul- 
ture certainly will pose employment problems, over and above the difficulties 
presently being encountered, for those seasonal workers who earn their liveli- 
hoods in the farm sector of the economy. The impact of the machine and other 
labor-saving techniques can already be seen in the reduced employment oppor- 
tunities in such crops as cherries, sugar beets, potatoes, lettuce, tomatoes, cucum- 
bers, cotton, and others. 

First among hired farm workers to feel the reduction in job opportunities is 
the migratory laborer : The least skilled, most unstable, most easily distinguished 
(and also discriminated against) member of the farm labor force. The migrant 
is the marginal worker, taking the residual jobs in many cases after the in- 
digenous farm labor force is employed, or in other cases taking the jobs that no 
"white American" worker would want. 

As labor-saving devices and techniques become more fully operative on the 
farm, the migrant worker is going to be forced out of farm employment. The 
cream of the farm labor force will be pushed into the migrants' less desirable 
jobs. With continued technological innovation, the unskilled migrant workers 
will become more and more unemployed. In fact, some will become unemployable, 
with no marketable skills whatsoever unless steps — government action — can be 
taken now. 

The group most likely to become unemployable appears to be the Mexican- 
American migratory farm workers. These workers possess no skills, but worse, 
they face many barriers to acquiring any employment at all. Many speak little 
or no English, possess little or no education, have large extended families 
dependent upon a few primary wage-earners, maintain different values and 
mores than "American" workers, precluding widespread acceptance of govern- 
ment aid, and retain a fear of the "Anglo" (American) and his way of life — a 
fear of exploitation compounded with every trip around the migrant circuit. 

It is the affirmed goal of the national government to eliminate the pockets of 
poverty in this country as well as to reduce the number of unemployed. By all 
standards, the Mexican-American migratory worker now is, and certainly will be 
more impoverished and more without work than almost any subgroup in the 
society. Congress has acted to reserve the decreasing number of farm jobs 
for domestic agricultural labor by failing to renew the "Bracero Law" in 1965 
which permitted the entry of short-term foreign labor into the United States 
although foreign labor seeking farm employment are crossing the United States 
borders in increasing numbers under other auspices. More governmental concern 
is called for. 

Several positive courses of action are open : Migrants may be aided by special 
welfare payments designed to keep them and their families at some stated level 
of well-being. Programs of accelerated education may be introduced to help the 
migrant youth become better equipped to make his way in the world when he 
matures. Literacy training may be offered for interested adults. Federal programs 
such as the Job Corps may be better adjusted to accommodate the migrant. 
Retraining and relocation programs may be instituted to offer a way to meet 
changing conditions for the migrants of today. 

Education is certainly necessary for future generations of Mexican-Americans, 
welfare may be necessary in special cases, work programs may help those just 
on the threshhold of the labor market, but retraining and relocation can help 
many migrants meet today's problems without an underlying stigma of failure 
and dependence. 

Obviously, public policy is already oriented toward retraining and relocation, 
given the Manpower Development and Training Act and the Economic Oppor- 
tunity Act provisions. But, a decision as to whether the special problems of the 



4776 

Mexican-American worker preclude his participation in manpower-oriented | 
operations is coming to the fore. Given the "lack of initiative" and fear of the | 
migrant, inaction may produce a hard core of unemployable citizens as agricul- j 
tural technology continues to develop. If even some of this graphic minority can 
be retrained and relocated, improving their lot, poverty and unemployment can 
be reduced in this marginal group. 

The following program proposals are based on an extensive study of one group ! 
of migratory farm workers, the Texas-Mexican migrants (American citizens j 
of Mexican descent residing in Texas) who travel annually to Wisconsin to 
harvest crops in work in agricultural-related industries, although it really would i 
suit any Mexican-American group. The complete study is filed with the Manpower ; 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. 

THE PEOPLE AND THE PROBLEM AN OVERVIEW 

General information about Texas-Mexican migratory workers comes from 
several sources, none of which refers specifically to this group. The USDA has 
issued several reports analyzing characteristics of the United States hired farm 
working force, the characteristics of the population of hired farm worker house- 
holds, the education and earnings of the hired farm working force, and the 
characteristics of Spanish-American wage workers on U.S. farms. Often these 
reports distinguish between migrant and nonmigrant work, between white and 
nonwhite workers (Texas-Mexicans are classed as white), and between workers 
residing in various sections of the country. Statistics referring to South-based, 
white migrant hired farm workers, when available, closely approximate informa- 
tion about Texas-Mexican migratory workers. All statistics, though, suffer from 
large errors associated with the sampling techniques used. 

The Texas-Mexican values derived from Mexican folk culture are predominant 
today in south Texas. To the extent that Texas-Mexicans have moved from rural 
farming areas to urban conters, the strength of the values has diminished. How- 
ever, since a large number of Texas-Mexican migrants are still residents of rural 
Texas, they are dominated by the concepts of La Rasa (roughly "the race" or "the 
people"). Mechanisms exist which actively prevent assimilation into the "Anglo" 
community ; common language and religion, color, familial responsibilities, 
machismo (roughly "manliness"), and community pressures. Fatalism, lack of 
determination and future orientation, a noncompetitive nature, and a fear and 
distrust of organizations and nonfamily alliances are in direct conflict with the 
major social values of American society. 

Few migratory farm workers enjoy being migrants, but are constrained from 
taking other jobs by their lack of skill and by cultural barriers. Few travel the 
migrant circuit to see the country, to broaden their horizons or those of their 
families. Migrancy is not an educational or recreational experience. It is an 
economic necessity. Migrant farm workers move from job to job to stretch their 
neriod of employment, or move to permit others in their families to find work. 
Changing farm technology has reduced the number of farm jobs in the United 
States to an all-time low and the reduction will continue in the future (agricul- 
tural productivity is increasing at 5.5% per year. Between 1960 and 1980 farm 
man-hour inputs are projected to decline by 48%). While the demand for farm 
labor will decrease, the supply of farm workers, migrant and nonmigrant alike, 
will not exhibit a similar decline. (Between 1960 and 1980, hired farm labor is 
projected to decline only 30-35%.) Farm workers will have relatively fewer jobs, 
and their real income will not rise as rapidly as the real income for workers in 
the nonfarm sector of the economy where adjusted of labor supply and demand 
has been and will be more efficient. 

For Texas-Mexican migratory workers, the long run and short run barriers to 
higher earnings within agriculture and to mobility and higher earnings in the non- 
farm economy are formidable. Their skill level is significantly below the level 
for the farm labor force generally, and certainly below that of the entire labor 
force. So too with their educational level and their emphasis on academic achieve- 
ment. They are predominantly rural residents, with brown skin and a language 
handicap. They do not completely share the "Anglo" farm workers' competitive 
nature, desire to plan ahead, or their relatively narrow view of familial responsi- 
bility. They are less able to afford geographic and occupational mobility and less 
inclined to contemplate it because of the vast difference between their mode of 



4777 

ife and that of urban nonfarni workers. Even if the functioning of the labor 
larket were improved, barriers to occupational and geogarphic mobility lowered, 
>bs created or programs for upgrading skills provided by government action, 
tie cultural heritage of Texas-Mexican migrant workers would still inhibit them 
rom obtainng the employment benefits which would likely accrue to "Anglo 
irm workers in the same circumstances. It is with these cultural barriers in 
lind that a program to move migrant workers out of agriculture into northern 
rban environments with a concommitant upgrading of skills will be discussed. 

THE PROGRAM 

The research on which this proposal is based has indicated that the relocation of 
'exas-Mexican migrants to northern industrial cities is economically efficient 
the net gain to the individual is conservatively in the neighborhood of &18.UUU 
iver his lifetime depending on the assumptions made, and even more to society as 

whole), and sociallv desirable (proverty is reduced by providing higher in- 
comes for these workers without reducing the income of others.) It has also been 
-ossible to pinpoint those among the population of Texas-Mexican migrant 
workers who would be the most also potentially mobile (i.e., would be most likely 
io relocate). The research has also provided an idea of the types of incentives 
liecessary to induce relocation and to maintain relocated workers in their new 
obs. What remains is to formulate a government-private enterprise-worker ori- 
nted farm work within which to provide these incentives most effectively. 

yhe primary incentives 

Research on changing attitudes toward relocation and relocation incentives 
an guide formation of tools for a program to encourage and stabilize relocation 
»f Texas-Mexican migrant farm workers. To accentuate both perceived and 
■ealized advantages of relocation, guaranteed steady employment opportunities 
it higher than current (farm) wages for all family members desiring them must 
>e offered to the most potentially mobile workers. The offers must be made 
hrough credible channels, probably dissemination by indigenous recruiters 
vould be best. Both the guarantees and the channels through which they come 
vill also serve to allav personal fears and insecurities prior to relocation; 
actual experience allaving these fears after the move. Arrangement for housing 
n Mexican- American neighborhoods in the new locale with special emphasis on 
opportunities for the education of children and adults must be offered to 
limini«h the disadvantages of relocation which are likely to be realized. This 
>ffer will help to stabilize workers after relocation. Moving and adjustment 
illowances are unnecessary. 

Incentives may be offered prior to relocation, but follow-up efforts must be 
•nade after relocation to maintain worker stability. Indigenous counsellors in 
he new locale can be used to introduce relocatees into their new neighborhood, 
icquaint them with and facilitate use of the specially directed child and adult 
educational opportunities, and to generally acquaint them with the socioeco- 
nomic aspects of the dominant culture in the midst of which they must operate. 
Indigenous personnel must also discover and develop the jobs to which later 
guarantees bv the government in conjunction with private employers can be 
lapplied They must take responsibility for the familiarization of relocatees with 
these guaranteed opportunities both objectively as the terms of employment, 
and realistically so that relocatees may grasp the. significance of the jobs in 
their own culture terms. ... 

Provision of these incentives to the most potentially mobile workers with 
follow-up designed to allow relocatees to realize and evaluate them in their own 
terms will most effectively encourage relocation and most effectively stabilize 
workers in their new jobs. To be emphasized are two caveats. Not only must 
(guarantees be made, but thev must be presented to potential relocatees in a man- 
ner designed to facilitate their perception of the offers as guarantees in their 
own culture terms. Second, relocatees must be helped to perceive program in- 
centives as really overcoming realized relocation disadvantages. In other words, 



•Relocation and retraining within Texas might be a more appealing alternative for 
Texa f-Mexican migrants but "Anglo" community values toward Mexican-Americans and 
■ the f weak f!StHa P l base in "his area make an interstate program a more realistic one. 



36-513 O — 71— pt. 7B- 17 



4778 

no relocation program can succeed unless the workers perceive the incentives and ; 
help offered as tools for accentuating advantages and overcoming disadvantages | 
of relocation as they themselves perceive and realize these advantages and 1 
disadvantages. 

More on steady employment 

The most important realized advantage of relocation has been found to be! 
employment security, and of possible relocation incentives, guarantees of steady ' 
employment are most frequently mentioned. A relocation program can makei 
certain employment guarantees, but In the, final analysis, whether relocatees' 
recognize and enjoy steady employment depends on their own behavior. Workers j 
must consistently meet the requirements of their jobs if steady employment' 
is to result. If workers cannot meet job requirements, the guarantee of job op- \ 
portunities does not guarantee steady employment. If relocatees do not enjoy; 
steady employment, they may not remain relocatees. Employer comment on job j 
performance can be used to evaluate relocatees' ability to meet job require- 1 
ments ; their ability to keep their jobs. Employer comments also serve as a basis 
for additional relocation program components to improve worker job performance, I 
leading to improved ability to remain on the jobs provided, and to actually 
experience steady employment. 

The language barrier appears to be the most significant single factor causing j 
relocatee employment problems, and the factor most likely to be at the root of j 
poor performance, leading to a return to migrant farm work. High turnover rates, j 
absenteeism, and lack of patience and initiative are likely results of an inability 
to communicate combined with a lack of exposure to industrial discipline. To 
some extent, however, poor performance is a function of the job itself. Higher | 
wage firms, for example, report less problems with turnover and absenteeism j 
than do the lower wage firms which dominate the returns. 

A relocation program which guaranteed employment opportunities could absorb 
the special costs of hiring relocatees and maintaining their jobs even in the face i 
of decreases in production, but unless special efforts were made, absenteeism and | 
high turnover would continue. Relocatees would not see the guarantee of em- 
ployment opportunity as a guarantee of steady employment and would be sus- 
ceptible to the attraction of their former way of life. A comprehensive relocation 
program must provide the means for workers to take advantage of guaranteed 
opportunities so that they actually do experience steady employment. From the 
employer returns, it appears that adult basic education and orientation toward 
the world of industrial work are necessary program components to allow re- 
locatees to actually realize the advantages of steady employment which they 
believe accompany relocation. 

Another probable reason for the return of some relocatees to farm work and an- 
other hurdle to be overcome by a relocation program is the general unavailability 
of suitable housing. It may be surmised that "successful" relocatees not only over- 
came language and industrial experience barriers to successful relocation, but also 
found suitable housing. Suitable, that is, with respect to size and cost considera- 
tion as well as locale. The housing problem would not and did not occupy a 
significant place among relocation disadvantages listed by "successful" relocatees 
because these workers either did not face, or overcame them. In-depth open- 
ended interviews with a number of employers and community leaders, however, 
have revealed that procuring housing at a realistic cost for relatively large fami- 
lies in areas where other Mexican-American families reside and within reason- 
able commuting distance to the job site account partially for "unsuccessful" 
relocatees, relatively high job turnover, absenteeism, and subsequent return to 
migratory farm work. In a relocation program, it may be necessary to overcome 
this hurdle with rent subsidies or investment incentives to encourage private 
enterprise to meet the low cost, specifically located housing needs of workers who 
are encouraged to relocate. 

Retraining 

Up to this point, no mention has been made of worker retraining after reloca- 
tion. The Wisconsin study on which this proposal is based was carried out between 
1963 and 1966 when economic conditions in Wisconsin and in the Nation where 
improving rapidly ; and in fact, at a time when the demand for unskilled labor 
in the industrial centers of Wisconsin was relatively high. Migrant workers could 



4779 

move to Wisconsin and take jobs commensurate with their skill levels — unskilled 
jobs. This may not always be the case. If relocation is to be a successful tool for 
improving the employment and income position of Texas-Mexicans, it must be 
accompanied by retraining so that fluctuations in the business cycle do not always 
result in unemployment for these marginal workers or result in increased costs 
incurred to keep these marginal workers in guaranteed jobs. From another point 
of view, relocation must not mean relocation to dead-end jobs where workers can- 
not improve their socioeconomic position and which will be most susceptible to 
the impact of future technological change. A visible ladder for occupational 
advancement must accompany relocation if it is to be a successful long run tool 
for improving the labor market positions of migrant workers. 

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 

How should the incentives of a relocation and retraining program be imple- 
mented? What form of organization should such a program take? Are there any 
institutions now in existence which might provide a basis for program implemen- 
tation ? These questions will be treated below. 

t Because of its interstate character, the program must be coordinated by the 
[Federal government. Because it seeks to aid people with values and ideas at 
variance with those dominant in the society, it must be administered by a group 
of people from the sub-culture which it serves. Because free worker and employer 
choice are important components of our economy, it must include voluntary 
private employer (and worker) participation. 

Private employers must supply the jobs both for reasons of social conscience 
and enlightened self-interest. Exceptional costs of hiring Texas-Mexicans (those 
above the "normal costs" experienced by these firms) must be defrayed by the 
government. Private employers, however, are not social service agencies. Literacy 
training, world of work orientation, and basic vocational and technical education 
must be supplied at government expense outside the workplace. If time taken 
from the job for these educational aspects of a relocation program work economic 
hardships on employers, they must be compensated by the government. If 
employers are large enough to undertake formal on-the-job training programs 
for relocatees who have passed an initial adjustment period, they should be 
encouraged to do so. If their mode of training is usually informal, again they 
should be compensated for the extraordinary costs of informal OJT of relocatees. 
If the private employers are not accustomed to or are of an inefficient size for 
OJT, institutional training programs through the existing vocational and tech- 
nical education facilities should be tailored to the special cultural needs of 
Texas-Mexican relocatees. 

Recruiting of relocatees, the development of employer cooperation, and the 
follow-up of relocated families should be planned and directed by Texas- 
Mexicans. Their role has several aspects: Recruitment should take place in 
Texas and within the migrant stream. Last minute recruitment when workers 
arrive in a northern state is inefficient. Trust and rapport should be buiLt up over 
a long period of time. Information about new opportunities should not come 
from strangers. Because of Texas-Mexican emphasis on family and community, 
recruitment should be community directed. This cannot be better done than 
through sources within existing communities. Job development should be under- 
taken by people who understand the problems of Texas-Mexican employment in 
industrial environments, not by "Anglo" administrators — even though they may 
be more efficient at lining up jobs. Industrial employment for migrant workers 
involves myriad human problems not directly connected with actual experience 
on the job. Job development and development of supportive social services should 
be undertaken by one group of people, familiar with the whole spectrum of 
Texas-Mexican life. This includes development of suitable housing, although 
government incentives to put developers may be needed. 

The stabilization of migrants once relocated involves an appeal to culture 
values which support family and community importance. Relocatees should not 
be treated as individuals but as a group or community. Follow-up services and 
activities should emminate from this group and involve the group. "Outsiders" 
treating individual workers and families cannot hope to achieve the same results 
as a community organization approach to building stability. 



4780 

The government should supply funds and use of existing institutions where 
applicable, private employers should be encouraged to supply jobs and training 
where practical through government subsidy and appeals to enlighten self- 
interest, but the bulk of the effort and specific planning should be done by an 
organization of Texas-Mexicans. A community organization should be developed 
in the areas of Texas from which these workers come. A community organization 
in areas to which these workers relocate should be developed. The two com- 
munities should be linked by organization within the migrant stream itself. If 
the cultural-social pathway from farm work to industrial employment can be 
made as smooth as possible, the "Anglo" incentives of higher pay and chance 
for advancement will have the desired effect on Texas-Mexicans : A movement 
from farm underemployment to industrial employment will not only appear a 
realistic alternative, it will appear to be a desirable one. 

There are a number of social and political organizations developing within 
Texas-Mexican communities in Texas and in northern cities which might form the 
basis for this retraining and relocation program. Farm labor unions, for example, 
could easily become the hub of community organization aimed at relocation and 
retraining. There are a number of ongoing institutions which are not suitable 
bases for the program. The Employment Service does not have and cannot de- 
velop a Texas-Mexican orientation. The OEO relocation programs in some north- 
ern states (U.M.O.S. — United Migrant Opportunity Services, Inc., in Wisconsin) 
are having difficulty with recruitment and follow-up of relocatees. The reasons 
are many but include lack of contact with workers prior to arrival in the north- 
ern states (U.M.O.S.— United Migrant Opportunity Services, Inc., in Wisconsin) 
cated workers, bureaucratic red tape and inefficiency in providing jobs and re- 
muneration promised upon recruitment, and the imposition of typically "Anglo" 
values upon the Texas-Mexicans working within the programs. This is not to say 
that neither the Employment Service nor ongoing OEO programs cannot be in- 
cluded in an overall program of relocation and retraining of Texas-Mexicans, only 
that they must be subordinate to a community organization which truly carries 
the values and ideas of La Raza from rural Texas to the industrial centers of the 
North. 

CONCLUSION 

The idea of a comprehensive relocation and retraining program for Texas- 
Mexican migrant farm workers presented here is necessarily sketchy. Many con- 
clusions are stated with little or no reference to the research from which they 
have developed. This shortcoming is a function of the brevity of the proposal. 
Solid research has been carried out. The investigator has spent more than four 
years working with and studying the migrant workers of the Mid-Continent 
stream both in Wisconsin (as farm workers and relocatees) and in Texas. Any 
conclusion presented herein can be substantiated. 

To summarize the overall program, it is one of community organization of 
migrant workers in Texas, in the migrant stream, and in northern industrial cities 
to provide a continuum over which these workers may move to obtain steady em- 
ployment of a kind not as likely to disappear as the farm work in which they are 
now engaged. It calls for the cooperation in the form of money and use of exist- 
ing institutions from the government but leaves the final use of this aid in the 
hands of an organization of relocatees and potential relocatees. It asks for pri- 
vate employer cooperation not as social service agencies, but as a rational ex- 
tension of practical business operations. Where business rationality would fail 
to give support to the program, excessive costs are to be defrayed by the 
government. 

Mexican-Americans have employment and social problems within our economy 
and society. Mexican-American migrant farm workers have the most serious 
problems and Texas-Mexican migrant farm workers have the most serious prob- 
lems of all. The proposed program is aimed at this hard core group, but is aimed 
at the problems of life in the United States as the workers themselves see the 
problems, not as "outside do-gooders" see them. The vehicles for change proposed 
herein are the vehicles proposed by the workers themselves as interpreted by this 
investigator. They are the means to the end of improved life styles which the work- 
ers think will be effective. Our social consciences dictate that we seek improved 



4781 

life styles for this sub-group of our population, but our consciences also dictate 
that the "target population" specify the means to that end. The means specified 
herein are broadly within our own concept of what is possible, given our po- 
litical, traditional* and social view of change. It is for us to sanction the means, 
trusting the Mexican-Americans to "know themselves." 

Senator Mondale. I order printed at this point in the record addi- 
tional statements and other pertinent material presented to the 
subcommittee. 

(The material follows :) 



4783 



MEXICAN IMMIGRATION 
AND AMERICAN LABOR DEMANDS 



Julian Samora and Jorge Bustamante 
University of Notre Dame 



Paper presented at Center for Migration Studies 
Brooklyn College, March 13-14, 1970 



This study was produced through the U.S. -Mexico 
Border Studies Project at tha University of Notre 
Dame, under the direction of Julian Samora, spon- 
sored by a grant from the Ford Foundation. The 
opinions expressed in the report do not necessar- 
ily represent the views of the Foundation. 






4784 



Mexican Immigration and American Labor Demands 
Introduction 

The purpose of this paper is an attempt to show the relation- 
ship between immigration to the United States and the demand for labor 
within the United States. 

The first part of the paper will attempt to give a brief his- 
torical review of immigration into the United States up until the 
turn of the century. The rest of the paper will concentrate on legal 
and illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States during the 
period 1910 to the present. 

Mexico appears to be a special case in immigration history 
because of its proximity to the United States, the common history of 
the region, the long border which is almost impossible to patrol in 
its entirety, the conquest of one nation by the other, the internation- 
al relationships which have developed, the question of a developed 
nation next to a developing nation, and the intertwining economy in 
the border area. 

Brief Historical Review 

In this brief historical review we will be concerned primarily 
with certain labor demands in the United States and how the labor has 
been supplied to meet these demands. 

Wittke (1949:8) tells us that as early as 1850 American laborers 
resented the competition which was provided by immigrant labor. The 
protest of the domestic laborers generally centered on the fact that 
immigrant labor threatened the standard of living, the wage rates, and 
the employment of domestic labor. 

Reaction against Irish immigration for example occurred as early 



4785 



as the middle of the nineteenth century. By 1840 1,150,00 Irish had 
Immigrated into the United States. This population was considered as 
completely unassimilable to American society (Wittke, 1949:7). It 
could be said that these immigrants from Ireland were the first to 
receive the scrouge of discrimination from the dominant society, a 
discrimination which was repeated on each successive ethnic group as 
it has arrived in the United States. The usual stereotype of the im- 
migrant has been that they are dirty, stupid, riotous, intemperate, 
corrupt and immoral. Such terms were used to describe the Irish dur- 
ing the decade 1840 to 1850 (Wittke, 1949:9). 

This sterotype which was so easily used to describe the Irish 
immigrant, was also used to describe other immigrants during the 
second half of the nineteenth century. During this period millions 
of Italians, Greeks, and other nationalities from Southern Europe, 
fleeing internal turmoil, made their way into the United States. 
These immigrants were discriminated against in employment and wages, 
without regard to capabilities. (Eckler and Zlotnick, 1949:96) Yet 
Joseph E. Hill (1911) asserted that immigration to the United States 
has always been a response to the demand for "unskilled rather than 
skilled manpower". (Eckler and Zlotnick, 1949:97). 

We see then a paradox which characterizes the reaction of Americans 
to immigration to the United States. On the one hand the doors have 
been opened for unskilled labor which was to fill unskilled occupa- 
tions at low wages (Eckler and Zlotnick, 1949:96) and this labor was 
to meet, in the nineteenth century, the demand and necessity for labor 
necessary for industrial expansion and development. On the other hand 
we see the negative reaction expressed by prejudice and discrimination 
by many, particularly those most threatened by the immigration. 






4786 



Toward the end of the nineteenth century a new source of 
labor was sought, and the United States turned to China and Japan 
for agricultural laborers primarily for the West Coast. This 
source of labor was to replace the immigration from Southern Europe. 
These latter immigrants, too, were received with the same negative 
reaction as the earlier immigrants. 

In 1882, on the recommendation of President Arthur, one of 
the first immigration laws was formalized to establish restriction 
on an open immigration policy. In this same year the Chinese Ex- 
clusion Act was formalized. It limited the supply of cheap labor 
from China. (Wittke, 1949:13). This legislative act brought new 
restrictions to certain immigrants such as prohibitions against 
Japanese to rent or acquire property (Wittke, 1949:13), and res- 
trictions on the acquisition of United States citizenship. These 
limitations then made agriculturalist look toward the Philippines 
for laborers . 

After the assassination of President McKinley new restric- 
tions were suggested in order to prevent the entrance of anarchists 
and professional beggars (Gordon, 1959:8). 

The prejudice and discrimination directed earlier toward 
Irish immigrants were transferred to immigrants from Southern 
Europe, principally from Italy, as well as to later immigrants. 
This prejudice and discrimination were related to the economic 
crises which occurred during the first decade of the twentieth 
century (Gordon, 1959:8). As a result of the report of the 
Dillingham Commission (1911) a new, and important immigration 
restriction was implemented, namely, the literacy test. This was 
the epoch of the reign of the white supremacy which was espoused 



4787 



by poets such as Thomas Bailey Aldrich, Lothrop Stoddard and Madison 
Grant who launched an attack to what they called "invasion of barbar- 
ians", who threatened the social tranquility with "unknown gods and 
rites" and who constituted a danger which threatened "the purity of 
our air" (Wittke, 1949:14). 

The Asiatic immigration was contained by the policy of the lAsia- 
tic barred zone", and the European immigration was contained by the 
policy of quotas in 1921. (Bremer 1949:142-143; Gordon, 1959:9). 

The first law of quotas appeared in 1921 establishing a new cri- 
teria which limited immigration according to "quality and in quantity". 
It was determined that a maximum of 357,000 persons would be received 
as immigrants into the United States (Wittke, 1949:17). This number 
was reduced to 162,000 by the new law of quotas in 1924. Although the 
quotas favored northern European countries, the quota law established 
exceptions, the most important being the lack of quotas for Western 
Hemisphere countries. 

According to Eckler and Zlotnick (1949:92-101), the history of 
immigration to the United States has been a history of accommodating 
cheap foreign labor. The demand for cheap labor has been provided 
by a variety of ethnic and national groups. On the one hand these 
immigrants have been received with open arms, on the other hand 
they have been perceived as threats to the society and on them has 
been heaped the scrouge of prejudice and discrimination. 

As the sources of labor from Europe and Asia have depleted or 
been restricted, it is very clear that Mexico has become the main 
source of cheap labor, notwithstanding the later immigrations from 
Puerto Rico, which over the past fifteen years has supplied both rural 
and urban laborers. 



4788 



Mexican Immigration 
A Border Without Boundaries 

In all of the massive immigrations which have occurred and to 
which we have referred in the previous section, we encounter a common 
denominator and that is the confrontation of the immigrant with a 
new socio-environment, the immigrant encountered attitudes, behavior, 
and symbols which constantly reminded him of his new status as a 
newcomer. The language, the customs, the opportunities, all served 
to remind hira of his status as an alien. 

In most of the immigrations we also find a dramatic and sometimes 
almost complete termination of further immigration into the country, 
at a certain point in history. We find, too, that many immigrants 
came to this country either seeking opportunity, or fleeing oppres- 
sion and tyranny, and almost certainly wanting to become "Americans". 
We find also that the distance between the United States and the source 
of immigration has generally been great and in most cases separated 
by an ocean. 

In the Mexican case we find in the first place that they were 
a conquered people, not unlike the indigenous Indians. We find no 
particular assimilative resolution, that is, a desire to be "American". 
In the early years along the border for many it was never quite clear 
whether they were in their country or in someone else's country. Many 
friends and relatives were easily accessible and still are, on either 
side of the border. The proximity of the one nation with regard to 
the host society is such that their close territorial contact extends 
for over 1800 miles. Restrictive quotas have never applied to immigra- 
tion from the Western Hemisphere as they have for immigrants from the 



4789 



Eastern Hemisphere. As to the cultural differences, to be sure the 
Mexican immigrant does enter into a new and different culture and 
social structure but at the same time there are enough vestiges of 
his own culture in the form of food, language, religion, and forms 
of settlement, that an immigrant whether he opts for the rural area 
or the urban area can find in most instances cultural enclaves into 
which he can settle easily without cultural shock. 

Although there was continual movement back and forth in that 
territory which the United States took from Mexico, there were few 
recorded instances of immigration into the United States from Mexico 
until the turn of the century. Gamio (1930:2), places the Spanish- 
Speaking population at the turn of the century in the United States 
at 221,915. Part of this population was obviously immigrants, but 
perhaps a larger part of this population consisted of those people 
and their descendents who were conquered in the Mexican-American 
War. Saunders (1950:2) estimates this population numbered 100,000 
in 1850. 

The development of the frontier, the expansion of agriculture, 
the building of the railroads, the beginnings of industry and commerce, 
brought with it a demand for labor, at a time when the source of labor 
had been practically cut off from both Europe and Asia through restric- 
tions. The effects of these restrictions particularly as they were 
directed toward Asia shows a decreasing immigration as can be seen 
in Table I. The placement of quotas for other immigration, which 
did not apply to Mexico, made Mexico, then, the great supplier of 
labor for the development of the Southwest. Table I, again shows 
in broad perspective the explosive increase of immigration from Mexico 
from 1880 to 1920. 



4790 



a r^ t-t 



u 

o <u 
o tu 











r-*. 


e 










<M 





* 








ON 




u 








f-« 


13 


a 










<U 


4) 


<t 


oo 


in 




CO 


O 




• 


• 


(4 


cO 


o u 


vn 


<n 


oo 


4) 


-Q 


CT» 4) 




r-t 


to 







00 P* 








a 


G 


.-• 








o 


« 


1 

o 








& 


J8 


03 








a 




S3 U 


v© 


«* 


i^ 


u 


4) 


t-l <u 


vD 


m 


i-i 




> 


jy 


t>* 


si- 


«o 


>» 


i 










JO 




i/"> 


C* 


o 






•z. 






vO 


T3 


4) 








l/"> 


q 


•o 










4J 


<a 








<M 




o 

41 








e 


o 


JS 








14 


o 


o 








o 


9 


c9 








.Q 


e 


4) 








e 


4) 


JJ 








CO 


O 


O 



4791 



1910 marks the beginning of the Mexican Revolution. Among its 
several consequences was the unemployment of people in Mexico as the 
fields were turned into battle grounds. The individual Mexican who 
did not partake in the revolution had little choice but to leave his 
land in search of employment. This migration of peasants was directed 
to either Mexico City or to the Mexican border. (Galarza, 1964:28). 

Thus the economic developnent of the Southwest, the lack of 
immigration quotas for Mexico, the Mexican Revolution, the easy 
access to the border, and the demand for cheap labor, all are related 
to the tremendous increase in Mexican immigration to the United States 
during this period. 

The Mexican Revolution and The First World War 

It did not take long for employers in the United States, with 
a concern for mining, agriculture, industry, railroads, or business 
and commercial enterprises, to see the advantages of employing cheap 
labor from Mexico, since cheap labor from other sources was essentially 
unavailable, and Mexico seemed to have an inexhaustible supply. 

The Corpus Christi Herald for example in 1910 advertized and 
invited investment in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, offering as its 
principle attraction of the region "the cheapest Mexican labor that 
you can find'.'. (Taylor, 1934:105). Parenthetically, we find the 
same type of propaganda being offered by the Chambers of Commerce of 
American border cities and their development commissions as late as 
1969. This is the twin-city concept but it has the same meaning 
namely, cheap labor is available for American industry. Tucson 
blatantly advertised the availability of labor at 30c an hour across 
the border. 



4792 



As a result of the efforts to obtain cheap labor early in the 
century, we find also a reaction of domestic laborers who feel affected 
by such unfair competition. This situation, accompanied by lower 
wages and high unemployment rates of domestic employees in the border 
area, has as a consequence the displacement of domestic employees, 
among them, Mexican-Americans. This situation plagues us even today. 
Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, illustra- 
tes the problem in this way: 

When confronted by demands of high wages, 
shorter hours and better conditions in New Mex- 
cio, the mine operators called across the border 
line and Mexican miners came to take the places 
of the Americans. (Gompers, 1916:633). 

Since the owners of the mines of New Mexico and Colorado also 
owned the mines of Mexico, the experience and ability of Mexican 
miners was well-known in the United States. (Gompers, 1916:634). 

The significance of bringing Mexican workers has had the 

stigma that this labor has been brought to the United States to 

act as strikebreakers, to hamper the union movement, and to lower 

the wages and the working conditions of the American laborer. We 

quote Samuel Gompers again to illustrate this point: 

Distance was no barrier to the coal and gold 
mine operators of Colorado who wished to use 
unsuspecting Mexican miners in order to main- 
tain their domination over the lives of the 
miners of Colorado . . . conditions had 
stultified Mexican laborers. They were not 
fully conscious of the wrongs done to them- 
selves or the injury that they did to 
American workers by undermining existing 
standards and conditions. (Gompers, 1916:634). 

One factor that seemed to be always in favor of the Mexican 
worker when he came to the United States seemed to be the better- 
ment to him which such work signified. Betterment in the sense that 



4793 



to obtain work in the United States as compared with the situation in 
Mexico, particularly in the case of the miners, usually meant higher 
wages. It was not by coincidence that the Revolution of 1910 began 
with strikes by miners from Cananea, Sonora and the workers of Rio 
Blanco, Veracruz, this indicated a situation which Gompers described 
as "It was a revolt of a united people who had been despoiled of their 
political rights as well as their property and opportunities." (Gompers, 
1916:634). 

The number of Mexican immigrants to the United States as of 1924 
is estimated by Gamio (1930:2) at 890,746. Although Gamio himself 
questions the reliability of this figure, we should state that this 
figure referred to immigrants who were admitted legally. No one 
knows how many Mexican immigrants entered illegally into the United 
States at the beginning and during the massive population movement 
which took place between the first and second decade of this century. 
But we can estimate that the illegal number was greater than the legal 
if we take into account the following factors which favored illegal 
immigration. These factors were observed by Gamio in his investigaions 
made in 1926: 

1. The difficulties presented by the American immigration 
laws to illiterates who could not pass the literacy test. 

2. The loss of time and money which was caused by waiting 

on the Mexican side while the legal requisites were taken 
care of before admission to the United States. 

3. The amount of money paid to a smuggler or "pasador" in 
order to get in to the United States was generally less 
than the $18 which the immigrant visa cost. (Gamio, 1930: 
10). 

At the turn of the century the Mexican peasant was by defini- 
tion illiterate. Not only was education beyond his reach, but educa- 
tion was often prohibited to him (Bustamante, 1969:13). Thus his 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 18 



4794 



very ignorance kept him a peasant. Under this conditions his life was 
conditioned by tradition, which he generally accepted with the upmost 
of fatalism. This was a peasant who followed the route north, a route 
which did not really take him away from the cultural influence that 
he had known. McWilliams says "Migration from Mexico is deeply rooted 
in the past. It follows trails which are among the most ancient of 
the North American continent. Psychologically and culturally, Mexicans 
have never immigrated to the Southwest: They have returned." (McWil- 
liams, 1949:58). 

On the one hand legal admission to the United States was terribly 
complicated and quite often beyond the reach of the peasant; on the 
other hand with the exception of five or six points of entry, there 
was little vigilance on the border (Jones, 1965:13) which is 1,870 
miles long. Thus it seems logical that for the most part Mexican 
immigration to the United States would be illegal. (Jones, 1965:15). 

The Border Patrol and The Wetback Era 

The creation of the Border Patrol in 1924 (Jones, 1965:15) made 
necessary a greater distinction between those who cross the border 
legally and those who violated the immigration laws. The mission of 
the Border Patrol was enforcement of these immigration laws which up 
to this date are not well understood or either ignored by the immigrant 
who, in the absence of an official 'who might sanction him upon his il- 
legal entry doesn't really identify himself as a lawbreaker. The Bor- 
der Patrol became this official who served as a reference point to the 
illegal immigrant with regard to the legal consequences of the violation 
of the immigration laws. Before the Border Patrol, the illegal immigrant 
just had to stay out of trouble and not implicate himself with the police 
or the judicial authorities in order to consider himself completely 



4795 



3 









MZICM OvO 










r-l 


CN tAH C^ H 










CCJ 


co m o\ co -<r 










4J 


« « 


* ** ^ 


c 








o 


r-i r-l f^ <T O 


o 








H 


H(S\OH 


•H 










i-4 CM 


XJ 














CO 














N 














•i-l 














r-f 














CO 








(0 






U 








<u 















}^ 






xj 








p 






w 








XJ 






!3 








V-i 














CO 






*o 








a 

CD 




1 CO o 


d 










en co 


co 








O 




( CM CO 


d 




CO 

XJ 




& 




1 <N CO 


o 

•rl 




Cl 




c« 






XJ 




CO 




4J 






CO 




>-( 




c 






^ 




00 











00 




• H 




l-l 






•l-l 




B 




o 











§ 

M 

r-l 


r-i 

o 

xj 


> 






co 




05 


ctj 








<u 




OOP* 


co 






XJ 
CO 
XJ 




f-l 


o 


c 






CO 




M t. 


o 












u 


•H 


p- CO 


cm r»» vo 


T3 




U-( 


o 


XJ 


cm m 


t-i in co 


CD 




O 


PQ 


CO 


m m 


ON r-l O 


XJ 








XJ 


•» »» 


•» •» * 


•H 




CO 


a 


M 


w* r-l 


r*» cm r^ 


C 




C JC 


O 


r-l 


CNO\H 


P 




O 


xj 


a 




r-« 






• r-f 




o 






O 




co 


>n 


p 






.c 




C rO 








XJ 














UJ 

O 








. CO 






XJ 




O. 




C 






U 




< 




O 






o 






•H 




<f r^ 


a, 








</) 




i co m 


CD 








c 




-3- <r 


^ 








<u 




I *\ * 










JZ 




co p* 


r-l 








0> 




I CM «tf 


CO 








J-l 




r-l r-4 


D 








a 






d 


• 






o. 






c 


CD 






< 


O O 

O r-t 


O O O 
CM CO <f 


< 

vO 
vO 

ON 
r-l 


o 

> 

V-l 
CD 
CO 






•o 


on on 


ON ON ON 


• • 











r-4 r-» 


r-t r-l r-l 


C> 








•H 


1 1 


1 1 1 


o 








Vi 


CM r-4 


r-l r-l r-l 


M 








a 


ON O 


r-l CM CO 


D 








P- 


, CO ON 

r-l rH 


ON ON ON 
r-l r-l -* 


O 
CO 





4796 



safe in the streets and roads and fairly free to choose the most con- 
venient work. (Jones, 1965:16) Only the courts could decree his de- 
portation. Generally speaking deportation came as a consequence not 
so much of having entered illegally but rather having become involved 
in some criminal offense. 

The creation of the Border Patrol was accompanied by a new ad- 
ministrative procedure which accelerated the expulsion of the illegal 
immigrant, which before this time was made through deportation. This 
new administrative procedure is called "voluntary departure". An il- 
legal immigrant who has been apprehended is required to demonstrate 
his legal status in the country. If he can not demonstrate this status 
he is subject to deportation. If the illegal immigrant, however, wishes 
to avoid being deported, he is invited to leave the country voluntarily. 
If he refuses this invitation, theoretically he should be taken before 
a judge in order to prove his legal entry. If he can not prove legal 
entry he is then subject to deportation. 

Table II, illustrates the effects on illegal immigration after 
the creation of the Border Patrol and the administrative procedure of 
voluntary departure. 

The very apparent increase which appears in the decade 1921 to 
1930, marks a very important change in the history of the Mexican il- 
legal immigrant. From being one of many migratory workers and almost 
certain that his illegal entry would not bring any sanction, his status 
was changed, beginning in 1924, to that of the fugitive from the law 
who had to be constantly hiding in order to not be apprehended and ex- 
pelled from the country. He became known as the "wetback". 

The establishment of the Border Patrol was accompanied by an 
organized form of smugglers. These have been called by various names: 



4797 



"smuggler", "man-snatcher", "coyote", "enganchista", or "pasador". 
The "smuggler" has usually been a Mexican (Galarza, 1956:60) and he 
operates by keeping abreast of the demand for labor in the United 
States, particularly agricultural labor along the border, and many 
times he acts as an agent or labor contractor. If he acts as an agent 
or contractor he is paid so much a head for each worker. He crosses 
the border into Mexico, secures his workers and assures them that he 
knows the best crossing sites. Sometimes this means that there will 
be less vigilance at the sites or sometimes it means that he has made 
an arrangement with the Border Patrol (Bustamante, 1969:42). None of 
these promises on the part of the smuggler need necessarily be true 
in order to get the necessary men to follow him. The price for his 
services are paid in advance. In 1926 it was less than $18 (Gamio, 
1930:10). Our own investigation in 1969 suggests that the price to 
the smuggler varies between $200 to $300. Some of the workers do in 
fact cross safely, that is without being apprehended, and find work 
as promised by the smuggler. More often than not, however, the wetback' 
is apprehended before he finds work. 

There have been many tragedies with regard to the smuggling of 
aliens, most of which are related to the methods of transportation. 

The establishment of the Border Patrol in 1924 modified not 
only the interaction between the illegal immigrant and the U.S. auth- 
orities, but also modified the pattern of interaction between the il- 
legal entrant and the employer. Before 1924 salaries and working con- 
ditions were established according to the supply and demand of the labor 
force. After the establishment of the Border Patrol a new factor came 
into being, namely the danger of being apprehended and thus returned 
to Mexico. Thus the threat of being turned in presented a new dimension 



4798 



to the disadvantage of the illegal entrant. Since anyone can turn 
in an illegal, such a threat began to narrow down the social contacts 
which the illegal might establish, with the exception that he must 
always have some relationship to the employer. In our estimation the 
implicit or explicit threat of being turned in, even by the employer, 
brings a new element into the situation with regard to wages and work- 
ing conditions. In a real sense the illegal is at the mercy of the 
employer, the alternatives of accepting or not accepting a job are not 
necessarily open to the illegal, because an employer can in fact insist 
that the wages and working conditions be accepted by the illegal or 
face the possibility of being turned in to the Border Patrol. How 
common this is we don't really know but such instances have been re- 
ported by Saunders and Leonard (1951:72), Hadley (1952:352), and Jones 
(1965:14-20) . Seventeen out of 497 wetbacks interviewed by the authors 
in 1969 complained of the employer having turned them in to the Border 
Patrol without having paid their salaries. Fourteen were working in 
Texas, two in California and one in Arizona. The following illustrates 
a situation with regard to the relationships between the Border Patrol, 
the interests of the employer in obtaining cheap labor, and the exploita- 
tion of the wetback: 

The wetback who finds agricultural employment 
in the Valley frequently does not have an enviable 
lot, even in terms of local standards* His hours 
are long, his wages low . . . His work day may 
vary in a length from eight to twelve hours. His 
time is completely at the disposal of the employer. 
His productivity hour for hour is probably less than 
that for the citizen laborers, but he will work longer 



*We must point out that the "local standards" with which Saunders and 
Leonard are comparing the "non-enviable lot" of the wetback in that area, 
were found to be the lowest in the United States with the sole exception 
of the Indian Reservation's surrounding areas. (Select Commission on 
the Western Hemisphere, 1968:113-130). 



4799 



and more steadily than the citizens. He is usually 
afraid to protest against working conditions and will 
accept fairly low wages without comment. He seldom 
bargins for his services, but accepts the rates of- 
fered by the employer. ... It is a common belief 
among those familiar with working conditions in the 
Valley that it is the wetbacks docility, even more 
than the low wages he works for, that makes him so 
attractive as a worker. At least it can be stated 
with assurance that the illegal status of the wet- 
back in the U.S. provides a powerful club that can 
be brandished over his head at any time. And, it 
is not difficult for an employer to see that a re- 
calcitrant wetback is rapidly deported to Mexico. 
(Saunders and Leonard, 1951:54-55). 

The depression of the 30' s brought about a number of measures 
which affected immigration from Mexico. Perhaps the more serious of 
these was what has been called "operation deportation" realized in 1930. 
Although no statistics were kept for this operation (Jones, 1965) the 
general procedure was to require all those suspected of being aliens 
to prove that they were born in the United States. The person who 
could not satisfy this requirement was expelled by the country under 
the administrative procedure of "voluntary departure". This was done 
in order to reduce the number of unemployed during the Depression as 
well as the large number of people who were on welfare. This procedure 
also proved to be a hardship for many Mexicans who had in fact left 
Mexico as many as twenty years before, as immigrants, and now they 
found themselves expelled from the country. 

The number of wetbacks continued to grow after the Depression 
and with it also grew the discontent of Mexican-American workers in 
the Southwest who felt that they were displaced by the wetbacks, part- 
icularly in the border region, and that many of their problems such 
as public health, illiteracy, education, unemployment, and poverty were 
aggravated by the presence of the wetback. 



4800 



Many inhabitants of the urban areas along the border blamed the 
wetback for all their problems without giving much thought to the at- 
titude of the growers which was summarized eloquently by Vice-President 
Garner "In order to make profit out of this (agri-business) you have 
to have cheap labor". A similar attitude was expressed by Senator 
McCarran who pleaded that we look at the situation realistically in 
terms of the interests of the employer and his need for the wetback. 

As the problem grew more serious it also began to get national 

attention. The New York Times said: 

It is remarkable how some of the same Senators 
and Representatives who are all for enacting the 
most rigid barriers against immigration from South- 
ern Europe suffer from a sudden blindness when it 
comes to protecting the Southern border of the U.S. 
This peculiar weakness is most noticeable among 
members from Texas and the Southwest, where the 
wetbacks happen to be principally employed. (New 
York Times, November 28, 1952. Cited in Scruggs, 
1963:149). 

Many Mexican-American organizations exerted pressure on the 
U.S. Government to stem the flow of Mexican illegal immigrants, as 
well as the bracero, and the commuter. The claim being that all of 
these population movements had adverse effect on wages and working 
conditions and standards of living for the domestic population. 

Finally President Eisenhower asked Attorney General Brownell 
who had visited the region to propose a plan. The plan turned out to 
be that General Joseph May Swing* was named Commissioner of Immigra- 
tion and Naturalization Service, in charge of the Operation Wetback 
(The Immigration and Naturalization Reporter, 1954:1). 



♦General Swing's service record includes his participation in the ex- 
pedition that invaded Mexico in 1916. 



14801 
In July of 1954 General Swing presented his plan to a group 
of employers in South Texas and said: "When President Eisenhower 
appointed me for this job his orders were to clean up the border. 
I intended to do just that." (McBride, 1963:5). 

Operation Wetback was pursued with military efficiency and 
the result was that over a million wetbacks were expelled from the 
country in 1954. 

At the end of 1956 some people considered that the problem of 
the wetback was an episode of history. But as we move through the 
years we find that while there was a great decrease in the number of 
wetbacks from 1954 to 1959, we begin again to see an increase of il- 
legal immigrants up to the present time. (See Table III). 

One might in fact suggest that if agricultural production was 
so dependent on wetbacks, then presumably Operation Wetback would 
have brought about an economic castas trophe to the border region. 
Other things happened and the economic castastrophe was not realized. 
The process of legalizing wetbacks and converting them into braceros 
(which we will discuss in the following section), was one thing. 
Many of the wetbacks who were expelled as illegals came back as 
braceros, legally, Operation Wetback may have dried out a pool of 
cheap labor within the United States but it certainly augmented the 
pool of cheap labor across the border in Mexico. 

law. Power and Discrimination 

The decade between the 1930' s and 1940' s was a period in which 
it became obvious that the supply of labor, whether legal or illegal 
(for the Southwest), was obviously based in Mexico. It was during 
this period also that the prejudices and the discrimination towards 



4802 



TABLE III 



Apprehensions, Deportations and Voluntary Departures Recorded by 
The Immigration and Naturalization Service* 



Period 


Apprehensions 
1,337,210 


Deportations 


1941-50 


110,849 


1941 


11,294 


4,407 


1942 


11,784 


3,709 


1943 


11,175 


4,207 


1944 


31,174 


7,179 


1945 


69,164 


11,270 


1946 


99,591 


14,375 


1947 


193,657 


18,663 


1948 


192,779 


20,371 


1949 


288,253 


20,040 


1950 


468,339 


6,628 


1951-60 


3,584,229 


129,887 


1951 


509,040 


- 13,544 


1952 


528,815 


20,181 


1953 


885,587 


19,845 


1954 


1,089,583 


26,951 


1955 


254,096 


15,028 


1956 


87,696 


7,297 


1957 


59,918 


5,082 


1958 


53,474 


7,142 


1959 


45,336 


7,988 


1960 


70,684 


6,829 


1961 


88,823 


7,438 


1962 


92,758 


7,637 


1963 


88,712 


7,454 


1964 


86,597 


8,746 


1965 


110,371 


10,143 


1966 


138,520 


9,168 


1967 


108,327 




1968-69 


151,680 





Voluntary Departures 

1,470,925 
6,531 
6,904 

11,947 

32,270 

69,490 
101,945 
195,880 
197,184 
276,297 
572,477 
3,883,660 
673,169 
703,778 
885,391 
1,074,227 
232,769 

80,891 

63,379 

60,600 

56,610 

52,796 

52,383 

54,164 

69,392 

73,042 

95,263 
123,683 



Total 

1,581,774 

10,938 

10,603 

16,154 

39,449 

80,760 

116,320 

214,543 

217,555 

296,337 

579,105 

4,013,547 

686,703 

723,959 

905,236 

1,101,228 

247,797 

88,188 

68,461 

67,742 

64,598 

59,625 

59,821 

61,801 

76,846 

81,788 

105,406 

132,851 

108,327 

151,680 



Source: 



1966 Annual Report of theU.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service: 
92. (Figures of fiscal years 1967-1968) Report of Field Operations of 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (Unpublished). 
♦Figures in the column of totals include apprehensions made by other 
authorities rather than the Eorder Patrol. Figures include the 
totality of aliens either -voluntary departed or deported. 



4803 



this labor was in a sense institutionalized. This means that the 
attitudes, the values, and the norms of behavior related to this pop- 
ulation were formalized and continue to the present time. A deputy 
sheriff appearing before the LaFollette Committee hearings, illustrates 
the point: 

We protect our farmers here in Kern County 
. . . they are our best people . . . they keep 
the county going . . . but the Mexicans are trash. 
They have no standard for living. We herd them 
like pigs. (McWilliams, 1949:191). 

In tnis eloquent declaration we find a statement of the factors 
which have been related to the interactive process between immigrant 
Mexicans as they relate to the social structure which needs his labor. 
Without elaboration these factors are: 1) The need to protect the 
interests of the growers. 2) The value judgments which justify the 
protection of these interests. 3) The power of the growers as they 
are "protected". 4) The justification to treat Mexicans in whatever 
manner is necessary. 5) The lack of power of the Mexican immigrant 
before the social structure. 6) The prejudicial attitudes and the 
discriminatory behavior directed toward the Mexicans. 

Other writers quoted before (Saunders and Leonard, Hadley, and 
Galarza) have noted the same prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory 
behavior which in a word can be called the exploitation of cheap 
labor. 

Our point is that this exploitation was institutionalized dur- 
ing this period although the historical basis preceded it. Note for 
examp le : 

Mr. Chairman, here is the whole problem in 
the nutshell. Farning is not a profitable in- 
dustry in this country, and, in order to make 



4804 



money out of this, you have to have cheap labor 
... in order to allow land owners now to make 
a profit on thier farms, they want to get the 
cheapest labor they can find, and if they can 
get the Mexican labor it enables them to make 
a profit. That is the way it is along the bor- 
der and I imagine that is the way it is any- 
where else. (Committee on Immigration and 
Naturalization Hearings, 1926:20-23). 

The above quotation was taken from John Nance Garner, before 
he became Vice-President of the United States, during the administra- 
tion of Franklin D. Roosevelt. This statement from such a high offi- 
cial in the U.S. Government suggests if not the power certainly the 
influence of the growers. 

Senator McCarran, many years later declared: 

. . . Senator (Elender) , I think you will 
agree with me that on this side of the border 
there is a desire for these wetbacks . . . 
Last year when we had the Appropriations 
Bill up, the item that might have prevented 
them from coming over to some extent, was 
stricken from the bill ... we might just 
as well face this thing realistically. The 
agricultural people, the farmer along the 
Mexican side of the border in California, in 
Arizona, in Texas . . . want this help. 
They want this farm labor. They just can 
not get along without it. (Senate Committee 
of the Judiciary of S. 1917 Hearings 1953: 
123). 

This again illustrates the institutionalization of the exploita- 
tion of cheap labor with regard to Mexicans. There seems to be little 
regard in these statements as to the morality or immorality of the 
action and certainly not much regard as to the legality or illegality 
of the action. Thus illegal immigration and the hiring of illegal 
aliens seems to be taken for granted, ?.nd it comes as a given in the 
economic situation along the border. 

In the meantime it seems as if the growers viewed the situation 
of the illegal immigrant as a question of supply and demand. Expres- 
sed in these terms they presumably did not view the reduction of wages 



4805 



over time as anything bad. As a matter of fact in the study of the 
Fabens community near El Paso in 1969, the growers still talk about 
their provision of jobs to Mexicans who without these jobs, would 
undoubtedly be starving in Mexico. Gamio found that in 1926 the aver- 
age wage for the Mexican immigrant was $1.50 to $1.75 a day (8 hours) 
in Texas (Gamio, 1930:39-41). Saunders and Leonard found in 1950 
that the average wage of the wetback in the Lower Rio Grande Valley 
$2.50 for a twe lve hour day . This then means that twenty-four years 
later the grower of south Texas has not increased wages during this 
period as the comparison of those figures indicates. On the other 
hand if we look at the profits for agri-business in the same region 
of the Lower Rio Grande Valley between 1920 and 1950 we find an in- 
crease of 1,000%. (Saunders and Leonard, 1950:16-17). 

In view of this situation it is no wonder that domestic workers 
have raised questions about the lowering wages and the unemployment 
and displacement of the domestics with the importation of illegal 
workers. A fruit picker from Sonoma County, California, where work 
in the fall of the year can be found in apples, prunes, grapes and 
walnut picking, express typical bitterness over wetback competition 
in a letter to government officials dated September, 1953. He com- 
plained: 

The Wetbacks are driving the American workers 
out of the fields, the American workers don't 
want to live on charity, they want to work under 
decent conditions . . . 

We are American taxpayers, we have worked 
hard to pay for our small homes, we have also 
been paying income taxes for years when we had 
steady jobs, work has been falling off in 
Sonoma County of late . . . and us taxpayers 
need these fruit jobs badly, it is bad enough 
to compete with Mexican National labor (Con- 
tract Labor usually brought in) but we just 
cannot compete with Wetbacks. 



4806 



We just cannot live under the same conditions 
these Wetbacks live under, and we just cannot 
work under these conditions these ranchers ex- 
pect American people to work under. The Cham- 
ber of Commerce advertises over the radio, also 
in the newspapers, how short the ranchers are 
on help to harvest their crops, there is no 
shortage of fruit help, the reason is, the 
ranchers want cheap labor, that will live and 
work under any condtions . . . (Quoted by Hadley, 
1954:345). 

This letter is illustrative of the problem of the displacement 
of domestic workers, generally local Spanish-Speaking persons or 
Mexican-Americans. They speak frequently and bitterly about the low 
wages that they are offered. They talk about the number of times 
they are refused work because they are citizens, the necessity to 
move northward during a part of the year because of their inability 
to obtain work in places where the aliens have been hired at wages 
on which they can not live, and the educational handicaps placed 
on their children as a result of this migration, which, for many 
starts before- school is out in the spring and ends long after it 
has started in the fall (Scholes in Saraora, 1966:63-94). 

One of the most tragic roles which the Mexican immigrant, part- 
icularly the illegal has had to play is that of strikebreaker. This 
has been true of those who have worked in agriculture in the border 
area, in the mines of the Southwest, and in the industrial setting in 
the Great Lake areas. The result of this has been an unfortunate 
relationship between domestic workers and alien workers, as well as 
a situation which has favored the employers by pitting groups of 
workers, against each other, in many instances Mexican-Americans 
against Mexicans, to the advantage of the employer. Thus a general 
hostile situation has come to pass between Mexican-Americans and 



4807 



e 

10 

u 
oo 
o 

u 

(U 

o 
u 
cy 
o 
n» 

M 

PQ 

<u 

X 



00 

c 
u 

3 
P 



CO 
P 






E 
o 



CO 

o 

Q. 
E 

<U 
H 



> 




U-l 




O 


co 




o 


U 


u 


at 


QJ 


J3 


o 


E 


CO 


3 


^ 


Z 


PQ 




^ 




CO 




0) 




JM 


Un 




O 


w 




o 


H 


M 


(U 


o 


X 


u 


E 


CO 


3 


>-« 


Z 


PQ 




J-l 




CO 




ID 




>< 


IM 




O 


CO 




O 


M 


u 


CD 


<u 


^> 


o 


s 


W 


3 


u 


Z PQ 




v-> 




CO 




<u 




>*\ 



r~> 


CO 


vO 


o 


m 


sr 


ST 


CM 


00 


vO 


00 


sr 


CM 


r*» 


m 


i-\ 


CO 


co 


t-i 


on 


sr 


sr 


ro 


CM 



CO 

m 
on 



on 
m 
on 



co m vo 
r^ no co 
on oo r^ 



o 

vO 

on 



on 



,— I CN 
nO M3 
ON ON 



vO 
00 



CO 

nO 

ON 






vO 
ON 



o 
o 
m 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 


o 

oo 

CO 


CO 
CO 

o 


o 
m 

vO 


ON 


ON 

o 


nO 


CM 
ON 

t-t 


ON 


1-4 

o 

CM 


ON 

o 

CO 


co 

ON 

CO 


m 

st 
sr 


vO 

co 

sr 


o 
m 
en 


ON 


CN 

in 

• ON 


CO 

m 

ON 


sr 
m 

ON 


m 
m 

ON 


no 
m 

ON 


m 

ON 



ON 
ON 



vO 



S 



CO 


00 


o 


sr 


CO 


CM 


m 


o 


o 


ON 


r^ 


m 


sf 


CO 


sr 


o 


CM 


o 


r-i 


sr 


O 


NO 


CO 


o 


■« 


n 


Wi 


•i 


«* 


m 


m 


* 


sr 


CM 


CM 


ON 


CM 


ON 


m 


r>- 




m 


NO 


sr 


CO 


f-4 


CO 


o 



CM 

sr 

ON 



CO 


\ST 


m 


NO 


r* 


sr 


sr 


sr 


sr 


sr 


ON 


ON 


c\ 


ON 


o> 



CO 

ON 



ON 

sr 

ON 



NO 

\0 

NO 
ON 



CO 

u 
o 
E 
<o 

tO 

c 

•H 

10 

0) 

f-t 
o 

X 

o 
to 



CM 

m 

vO 

ON 



CO 
CD 
C 

o 



w 

o 
u 

3 
O 

CO 



4808 



Mexican aliens in which in reality the "bad guy" of the situation, 
the employer, comes out unscathed. 

The Bracero Program 

The Bracero Program was created by an agreement between the 
United States and Mexican governments in July 23, 1942. The ration- 
al for the program was to overcome manpower shortages originated by 
the involvesnetit of the United States in the World War II. Agricultural 
productior was viewed as vital to winning the war. Thus, the lack 
of agricultural labor was considered a concern of the War Food Ad- 
ministration. This agency, in cooperation with the Department of 
Labor and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established 
a labor recruitment program as an emergency war measure (R.S.C. W.H.I. , 
1968:92), based upon the U.S. -Mexico agreement. 

The main provisions of the U.S. -Mexico agreement for the Bracero 

Program were: 

Mexican workers were not to be used to dis- 
place domestic workers but only fill proved short- 
ages. Recruits were to be exempted from military 
service, and discrimination against them was 
not to be permitted. The round trip transporta- 
tion expenses of the worker were guaranteed, 
as well as living expenses on route. Hiring 
was to be done on the basis of a written con- 
tract between the worker and his employer and 
the work was to be exclusively in agriculture. 
Braceros were to be free to buy merchandize in 
places of their own choice. Housing and sani- 
tary conditions were to be adequate. Deductions 
amounting to 10% of their earnings were auth- 
orized for deposit in a savings fund payable 
to the worker on his return to Mexico. Work 
was guaranteed for three-quarters of the dura- 
tion of the contract. Wages were to be equal 
to those prevailing in the area of employment, 
but in any case not less than 30 cents per hour 
(Galarza, 1964:47-48). 

These provisions as they related to adequate transportation, 

housing, wages, food, medical care, and guaranteed length of work, 



4809 



were seldom provided and more often than not, the agreements were 
violated by the U.S. subscribers. (Galarza, 1964; Scruggs, 1963: 
251-254). 

Several factors intervened in the constant violation of the 
provisions of the agreement from the part of the farmers: 1) They 
were able to hire Mexican workers as braceros, by-passing the centers 
for recruitment run by the Mexican government, regardless of the pro- 
visions of the agreement; this made it impossible for the Mexican 
Government to control the guarantees established in protection of 
the bracero (Galarza, 1964); 2) The overt cooperation of the Border 
Patrol to admit workers as braceros regardless of Mexican government 
consent, (Galarza, 1964); 3) The practice of the "drying out" of 
wetbacks by the Border Patrol which consisted in taking large groups 
of wetbacks to the border, after their apprehension for their illegal 
entrance, making them place a tip of the toe on the Mexican side in 
order to make lawful their admittance as braceros. (Galarza, 1964); 
4) The powerlessness of the Mexican government to enforce the pro- 
visions of the agreements over the American farmers and the indif- 
ference of the U.S. Government about its violations, for example, the 
"incident of October".* 

World War II ended but not the emergency war-time measure 
called the Bracero Program. By several extentions the war measure 
lasted 22 years ending on December 31st of 1964. Table TV shows 
the magnitude of the Bracero movement which totaled 4,646,199. 



*In October of 1948, 6,000 Mexican workers marched on the Mexico-U.S. 
bridge at El Paso, Texas admitted as braceros after being hired by 
farmers of the area, in spite of the Mexican government's opposition 
to let braceros go to Texas, as a protest for the discriminatory 
practices against Mexicans in that state. This massive hiring was 
considered as a cynic case of overt violation of the agreement and as 
a deplorable indifference of U.S. authorities to prevent or sanction 
the violation (Jones, 1965:21; Galarza, 1964). 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 19 



4810 



The Bracero history did not accomplish one of the goals as con- 
ceived by the Mexican government, namely eliminating discrimination 
and exploitation of the Mexican worker. 

The Commuter 

It is necessary to distinguish between the official definition 
of commuter and the commuter phenomena. The former has been ex- 
pressed in the following terms: "The aliens referred to as "commuters" 
are those aliens who have been lawfully accorded the privilege of 
residing premanently in the United States but who chooses to reside 
in foreign contiguous territory and commute to their place of employ- 
ment in the United States" (R.S.C.W.H.I. , 1968:101). In the legal 
sense, commuter is the one who bears a form 1-151 known as "green 
card", issued to a person upon the rationale of the official defini- 
tion. 

The commuter history (related to Mexicans) might be traced back 
to the second decade of the century, when the 1921, 1924 and 1927 
Immigration Acts made reference to this category. But it was not 
until the Registration Act of 1940 that the category of commuter 
was sanctioned by the Congress in its actual form. 

The commuter phenomena acquired numerical importance since 1954, 
the year of the Operation Wetback. See Table V. We must point out 
that the figures available for the development of this topic do not 
indicate its actual history, as we learn from the Report of the Se- 
lect Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration that says to this 
respect: 

Many thousands of Mexican citizens are per- 
mitted to enter this country for business or 



4811 



pleasure with entry documents that do not per- 
mit them to work. Undoubtedly some of these 
visitors do work, despite the best efforts of 
U.S. authorities. Such illegal, wetback, 
workers would be regarded in the popular mind 
as commuters but would not appear in any of- 
ficial or semi-official estimate of the volume 
of alien commuters. (R.S.C.W.H.I. , 1963:114). 

With reference to those who enter the U.S. but who are not per- 
mitted to work, the U.S. Counsul General at Tijuana, Mexico stated 
"Considerable in excess of 150,000 are estimated to be holding border 
crossing cards issued by I.N.S. at San Ysidro". (S.C.W.H.I. Hearings, 
Part I, 1968:16). 

That is to say, the volume of the commuter phenomena comprises 
1) The "green card" (Form 1-151) holder, 2) The crossing card (Form I- 
186) holder who crosses legally but may work illegally in the U.S. 
and 3) The wetback who lives in the border side of Mexico and crosses 
back and forth illegally. 

We shall attempt to draw a picture of the commuter phenomena by 
inferring from scattered information about some aspects of each category. 

The first dimension is shown in Table V, although we must point 

out that the figures for 1967 at least, appear to be incongruent with 

a statement made by George K. Rosenberg, Los Angeles District Director 

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who said: 

From time to time a sample count is taken 
and the last such sampling was taken between 
November 1, 1967 and December 31, 1967, the 
total number of commuters crossing the border 
between Mexico and California during this per- 
iod was 15,284. (S.C.W.H.I., Part II, 1968: 
6). 

These figures, however, and those in Table V, are generally 
considered conservative, because regular statistics are not kept and 



4812 



9 



oo 



H 

O 
H 

w 

•U 

s 

o 
o 

w 

< 

•o 



a 

•a 



CD 

| 

S5 






u 
p 






u 

CD 

•§ 

D 



U 
CO 

o 



00 


vD 


r- 


<f 


o 


<?■ 


co 


r-4 


CO 


o 


si- 


vO 


CM 


. o 


o 


•> 


« 


•» 


A 


« 


a 


O 


(-• 


CO 


<r 


S* 


o- 


sf 


<r 


<r 


m 


vO 


l^ 


oo 


vO 


vO 


vO 


vO 


vO 


ON 


ON 


ON 


ON 


ON 



rH 


ON 


CO 


vO 


m 


vO 


ON 


o 


o 


r^« 


o 


00 


r>» 


ON 


r- 


si* 


oo 


ON 


•» 


* 


m 


•» 


« 




vO 


cm 


CM 


f-t 


m 


m 


CM 


OJ 


CO 


sj- 


m 


m 


CO 


ON 


o 


t-« 


CM 


CO 


m 


m 


vO 


vO 


vO 


vO 


ON 


ON 


ON 


ON 


ON 


ON 



ON 


CO 


m 


CM 


o 


r-H 


!>. 


oo 


<r 


o 


CM 


CM 


O 


r-i 


VO 


r* 


CO 


CO 


•» 


m 


•» 


•* 


•» 


n 


ON 


r* 


o 


CO 


r-i 


ON 




rH 


CO 


sir 


vO 


<r 


OJ 


CO 


<3" 


m 


vO 


r^ 


in 


m 


m 


m 


m 


m 


ON 


ON 


ON 


ON 


ON 


ON 



c 
o 

•H 
XJ 

ctf 
J~» 
00 



CD 

M 
CD 

a. 
w 

♦H 

E 

<u 

« 

c 

M 
CJ 
-u 
W 
CD 



o 

a 

o 

♦H 
W 
(0 

I • 

O vO 

o m 
i 

4J O 

O <* 

r-« • 

o a. 
en p. 



<u 
o 

o 



4813 



other than "green carders" commute. 

In reference to category (2) we shall take into account part 

of the testimony of Mr. Rosenberg at the same hearings: 

Mr. Scammon: What about the 72-hour cardholders, 
do you have any estimate as to how 
many there are in the area? 

Mr. Rosenberg: No, Sir, I don't have any estimate 
because we keep no statistics. 



Mr. Scammon: 



Would there be several hundred thou- 
sand? 



Mr. Rosenberg: Yes, I would say that for the reason 

that we inspect monthly at San Ysidro, 
approximately two million people a 
month. Now, that is counting the 
same body each time they cross. And 
the bulk of these people would be 72- 
hour cardholders. 

Mr. Scammon: Rather than commuters? 

Mr. Rosenberg: Yes, we feel that there are about 

15,000 commuters crossing from Mexico 
into California. (R.S.C.W.H. I. , Part II, 
1968:8) 

The Form 1-186 (crossing card or shopping card or 72-hour card) 
is valid for 4 years. (S.C.W.H.I., Part I, 1968:9). Most of the aliens 
working illegally in the border area have entered legally by using the 
crossing card (S.C.W.H.I., Part II, 1968:13). 

No one knows how many persons cross legally using the crossing 
and shopping card and work illegally in the U.S. The number, however, 
must be in the thousands. In Tijuana it is estimated that 150,000 
persons have such cards and 75,000 in Juarez. El Paso issues between 
2,500 and 3,000 of these cards monthly. Brownsville issues 1,500 to 
2,000 monthly. Also hundreds of these cards are revoked monthly along 
all check points, because the violators have been caught working. 
(S.C.W.H.I., Hearings, Part 1:10; Part 111:12). 



4814 



> 
W 

3 



W 

0) 

. jj 

CO 

to o 

co 

u cr> 

CJ 1—4 

ID 

u o 

O -U 

PQ 



•H i_> 

X o 

<u a; 
•»-• _. 
*-> ,r ^ 
o 

a u 
jz a. 
jj 
»o 

c c 

•H CO 

CO O 
60ȣ> 
C CT\ 

CO H 

o o 

4J 

c 
o o 

jj ax 

(0 rH 
rH N-/ 

D 

a. 
o 



c 
o 

•H 

u O 
O CO 
<U ON 
•f-|rH 

o 

rH 



o 

CD 

co DO 



G 
CO 



O O 

u 



o 

xO 
ON 



o 

l/N, 

ON 



a> 

■U 
00 



o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


f-l 


o 


r- 


\D 


-3- 


o 


00 


•i 


•* 


m 


M 


♦» 


A 


* 


CO 


o 


o 


r*. 


m 


ON 


o 


o 


CM 


p*. 


m 


CO 


rH 


vO 


^ 


vO 


co 


vO 


o 


CM 


CO 


n 


■t 


•» 


«% 


M 


A 


•* 


CM 


rH 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 
rH 


r-4 


o> 


on 


vO 


<T 


vO 




on 


•<r 


m 


CM 


CO 


CM 




CM 


sr 


CM 


<* 


m 


<r 




r-4 














m 


CO 


<r 


eg 


CO 


CM 


<r 


vO 


on 


CO 


CO 


r^ 


00 


CO 


i-i 


r» 


r-» 


i-t 


CO 


rH 


sr 


o 


vO 


r>» 


sr 


CO 


<t- 


\0 


CM 


CM 


o 


CM 


CO 


CM 


CO 


«n 


CM 


ON 


o 


r^ 


o 


St 




a 




* 




A 


* 




rH 




r-* 




rH 


•n 


i/S 


<r 


ON 


rH 


r-. 


C- 


CO 


vO 


r-l 


i-l 


ON 


o 


vO 


vO 


ON 


<r 


vO 


r-l 


vO 


rH 


ON 


•» 


M 


•1 


M 


#» 


* 


A 


vO 


vO 


o 


o 


o 


CO 


CM 


CM 


<f 


CM 


<]• 


r-t 


rH 


NO 


CM 


oo 


r» 


!>. 


»o 


r^ 


CO 

»-3 


CO 












< 


•H 












H 


C 












O 


U 












H 


o 














*H 


\ 




C 




w 




•H 


cO 




o 




CO 




rH 


P 


CO 


C) 




0, 




M 


X. 


r-4 


i-3 




•H 




O 


CO 


•H 




CO 


rH 






o 


P 


o 


)-< 


P 




CO 


JZ 


rC 


> 


O 


CO 




••-1 


•H 


CO 


CU 


e 


B 




to 


JZ 


O 


3 


o 


CO 




PQ 


O 


o 


2 


w 


H 





4815 



The third category which we call the wetback-commuter is the 
most difficult to estimate. However, if it is considered that over 
200,000 wetbacks were apprehended in 1969 and the great majority were 
apprehended near the border, the number must be considerable. 

Analysis and Conclusion 

Immigration of Mexicans to the U.S. appears related to a number 
of factors. Without implying either causality nor order of importance, 
these factors are suggested: 1) The demand for cheap labor in the 
United States. 2) The high population growth in Mexico. 3) Mexico's 
inability to keep up with this growth in terms of providing opportunities 
for employment, housing and education, despite tremendous advances 
and rapid economic development during the past thirty years. 4) The 
internal migration, rural to urban, which has taken place, focusing 
on the Federal District and the northern border cities. 

Table VI shows thatMexico' s population, using the 1960 census, 
will double by 1980. (Benitez and Cabrera, 1966). Such growth suggest 
the need for great economic development which will provide the employ- 
ment, housing and education necessary to accommodate this growth. Since 
the economic development has not kept up with the population growth, 
the rural population in the less developed areas have been moving to 
the urban or more developer' areas. This migration had its beginning 
at the turn of the century and its direction has been more and more 
the Federal District and the cities of the northern border. (Galarza, 
1966:28). Between 1950 and 1960 the Federal District received 487. 
of the emigrants from other Mexican states, whereas the border states 
of Baja California, Chihuahua and Nuevo Leon received 387. of the 
emigrants (Benitez ar.d Cabrera, 1966:112). Table VII shows the 



4816 






w 
o 
•H • 

a. 

•H 

o 
c 

u 

<u 

*o 
n 
o 

PQ 
C 

o 



cu 

o 



o 

•H 

CO 

H 

3 
a. 
o 



U-l 




o 




<u 




W) 


a; 


CO 


bO 


•U 


C 


C 


CO 


o 


.c 


o 


u 


n 




<y 




Pn 






r«. 




vO 




o> 




rH 


CO 




>-l 




CO 


O 


(U 


vO 


>< 


CT> 




c-H 




o 




<t 




C7N 




f-t 




o 




•^ 




a. 




•H 




o 




•r-< 




c 




3 




S3 



CO 



s^ 



f-< 00 



o 

CO 



o 

CTN 
vO 



IT> 
vO 



on 



CM 



03 

C 
CO 
3 



O 

o 

CO 



CM 

vO 
CO 



vO 



O 



a\ 
as 



oo 

CM 



o> 
as 
co 



vO 
CM 



CM 
O 

m 



r-l 
(0 
O 

•H 

4J 



co 



CO 

l-l 
co 



o 



CO 

o 



vO 

a\ 



CM 
O 



CO 



o 
<u 

CO 



N 




<D 


O 


P 


> 


tU 


fi> 


3 


3 


•-> 


55 





J-l 




o 




.a 


vO 


c« 


CO 


►4 


i—i 




•» ' 


M-l 


a\ 


o 


o 




r^. 


u 


•> 


C 


CM 


CD 




C 




j_> 


CO 


V-i 


CM 


vrt 


r~* 


a, 


•> 


a) 


CO 


O 


vO 




CO 


• 



CM 



CO 
vO 
vO 
cr> 



o 

•H 
C« 

• O 

•H 

C 

3 

w« 

M 
O 

« 



V) 

<u 
u 

3 
00 



X. 
co 



JO 

3 

c 
p 



0) 

o 

3 

o 

C/l 



4817 



increase (1940 to 1967) of the four largest municiplos on the Mexican 
border. (A raunicipio is similar to a county.) Benitez and Cabrera 
(1966) have stated that the population of the six border states was 
5,486,434 in 1960. Their projections to 1980 for the six states are 
13,860,800 (Benitez and Cabrera, 1966:123-175). If the 1967 population 
of only the municipios along the border was close to three million, 
then it is clear that the cities along the border are the destination 
for this northern migration. The border cities have long served as a 
magnet which has attracted millions of people, many of them hoping to 
jump the border and find employment in the United States. This then 
constitutes the cheap labor pool which we have been stressing in this 
paper. 

With such an abundant supply of labor on the border willing and 
even eager to work, it is not difficult to exploit it, considering the 
economies of the two countries. If the unemployed Mexican could get 
a job in Mexico his wages in all probability would not exceed $2.50 per 
day ($2.00 per day being theminimum). If he is offered between 50c 
to $1.00 per hour in the U.S. he would be doing very well by Mexican 
standards. U.S. citizens, however, would find it difficult to stay 
above poverty even at $2.00 per hour. 

We hypothesize that the demand for cheap labor in the U.S., 
particularly in the agricultural, service, and unskilled occupations, 
complements the movement of Mexicans to the border, resulting in the 
consequent seepage into the U.S. As legal and illegal aliens come 
across by the thousands, wage levels are kept low and the domestic 
labor force becomes unemployed and many leave the area in search of 
employment. For years Mexican-Americans from the border area have 






4818 



been the chief source of supply for the agricultural migrant streams* 
throughout the United States. 

Cheap labor, besides lowering wages and displacing domestic 
labor has other consequences. It frustrates attempts at unionization 
and collective bargaining. Those who profit from this labor are a 
party to the creation of serious problems in the fields of public 
health, housing, transportation, education, delinquency, familial re- 
lationships, public welfare and the uprooting of populations. 

All In all, the ill-gotten profits from the 
exploitation of this illegal lbor seems poor 
compensation for the myriad real evils and pot- 
ential dangers attendant on the use and encourage- 
ment of Wetbacks (Sanchez and Saunders, 1951:3). 

Those population movements from the interior of Mexico to the 
northern border while related to Mexico's population growth and its 
economy, appear to us to be more closely related to the demand for 
cheap labor in the United States. In a sense the United States has 
created the Bracero . the wetback, and the commuter. 

Those who argue that we shouldn't tamper too much with the pre- 
sent border situation for fear of reprisals from Mexico, need but re- 
view the U.S.'s violations of the Bracero agreements and the recent 
Project Intercept. Mexico for years has protested the treatment that 
her citizens have received in the U.S., but seldom has it brought re- 
prisals. And the exploitation, prejudice and discrimination continues. 

The resolution of many of these problems can begin on this side 
of the border by the enforcement of existing immigration laws as applied 
to commuters. We could establish and enforce laws which would punish 
those who employ illegal aliens. We could establish minimum wage laws 

*The build-up of the Mexican-American population outside of the Southwest 
can be noted, as they drop off the migrant stream. 



4819 



applicable to all labor. We could recognize that agribusiness is an 
Industry and does not need preferential treatment and its workers 
should have the right of collective bargaining and unionization. 

Mexico's economic development has ignored the border area for 
years. This development, although beginning, should be intensified 
In proportion to the need. We don't agree that the movement of 
American industry across the border is a sound approach. 

It is obvious that problems of this magnitude and of interna- 
tional consequence require sets of priorities acceptable to both 
nations. Cooperation in and coordination of programs would be es- 
sential. 

Perhaps a step in this direction was the ill-fated U.S. -Mexico 
Joint Border Commission on Development and Friendship, which the 
present administration saw fit to discontinue. 



4820 



LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED 



Benitez, Zenteno Raul and Gustavo Cabrera A. Proyecciones de la 

Poblacion de Mexico 1960-1980 , Banco de Mexico, S. A., Mexico 
D.F., Departamento de Investigaciones Industrales, 1966. 

Bremer, Edith T. "Development of Private Social Work With The Foreign 
Born", The Annals , Thorsten Sellin (Ed.)t Philadelphia, The 
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1949. pp. 139- 
148. 

Bustamante, Jorge A. "Don Chano: Autobiograf ia de un Emigrante 
Mexicano", 1969. (Unpublished). 

Carpenter, Niles. Immigrants and Their Children 1920, Department 
Of Commarce Bureau of The Census, Washington, D. C, U.S. 
Government Printing Office. 1927 

Ekler, Ross A. and Jack Zlotnick, "Immigration and Labor Force", The 

Annals , Thorsten Sellin (Ed.), Philadelphia, The American Academy 
-of Political and Social Science. 1949. pp. 92-102 

Galarza, Ernesto. Merchants of Labor , The Mexican Bracero History, 
Santa Barbara, California, McNally & Loftin, 1964. 

Gamio, Manuel. Mexican Immigration to the United States , Chicago, 
Illinois, The University of Chicago Press, 1930, 

Gordon, Charles and Harry N. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure , 
Albany, New York, Banks and Company, 1959. 

Gordon, Milton M. Assimilation in American Life , New York, N.Y., 
Oxford University Press, 1964. 

Hadley, Eleanor M. "A Critical Analysis of the Wetback Problem", Law 
and Contemporary Problems , Vol. 21, 1956. pp. 334-357. 

Hill, Joseph. U.S. Senate, "Occupations of the First and Second Genera- 
tion of Immigrants in the U.S." (Report of the Immigration 
Commission) Vol. 23, 5, Document 282, Washington, D. C, Govern- 
ment Printing Office, 1911. 

Jones, Laraar B. "Mexican American Labor Problems in Texas", Ph.D. 
Dissertation, University of Texas. (Microfilmed copy) 1965. 

McBride, John G. Vanishing Bracero , San Antonio, Texas, The Naylor 
Company, 1963. 

Mexico, VIII Censo General de Poblacion 1960 . Mexico, D. F., 
Direccion General de Estadistica, 1963. 

Report of the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, 
Washington, D. C, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. 



4821 



Sanchez, George and Lyle Saunders, in Saunders and Leonard, 1951. 



Saunders, Lyle. "The Social History of Spanish-Speaking People in 
Southwestern United States Since 1846", Southwest Council on 

■ Education of Spanish Speaking People. Albuquerque, New Mexico 
1950. 

Scholes, William E., "The Migrant Worker" in Julian Satr.ora (Ed.), La 
Raza: Forgotten Africans , Notre Dane, Indiana, University of 
Notre Dame Press, 1966. 

Scruggs, Otey M. , "Texas and The Bracero Program 1942-1947", Pacific 
Historical Review , August, 1963. 

Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, Hearings, Parts 
I, II and III, Washington, D. C, U.S. Government Printing 
Office, 1968. 

Wittke, Carl. "Immigration Policy Prior to World War I", in The Annals , 
„Thorsten Sellin (Ed.), Philadelphia, The American Academy of 
Political and Social Science, 1949. pp. 5-15. 



4822 



TESTIMONY 
OF 
MIGRANT RESEARCH PROJECT 
1329 18th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

The Migrant Research Project (M.R.P.) of the Manpower Evalua- 
tion and Development Institute is funded by the Office of Economic Opportun- 
ity under the authority of Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act cf 
1964 as amended. The purposes of the Project are to: 

a) Provide emergency food and medical services and funds 
to needy migrants . 

b) Accumulate and document facts which establish the exis- 
tence of practices and attitudes which exclude migrants 
from adequate participation in federal food and other 
relevant federal benefits programs. 

c) Provide technical assistance to migrant groups and 

to government agencies in an effort to improve the pro- 
vision of needed service to migrants. 

FEDERAL FOOD AND BENEFITS PARTICIPATION STUDIES 



We are attaching as appendices to our testimony an in-depth 
study on migrant access to and participation in federal food programs in 
the State of Michigan during the peak migrant months in 1969 (Appendix A) 
and a general report prepared by our staff relating to migrant partici- 
pation in federally funded benefits programs (Appendix B) . These reports 
clearly document the inability of migrant families, who are eligible to 
participate in federal food programs and desperately in need of food, to 
prove their eligibility and thereby receive the benefits of these pro- 



4823 



grams at the time when they are most in need. Through these studies 
as well as other ongoing research activities, our experience in adminis-r 
tering grahts to organizations providing emergency food and medical ser- 
vices to migrants in all parts of the country and reports furnished our 
organization by cooperating local agencies and indigenous local groups, we 
have identified certain basic legal and administrative obstacles to sig- 
nificant migrant participation in the federally funded food programs. Many 
of the most prevalent manifestations are set forth in these appendices. 

None of these obstacles are new. Many were documented in the hear- 
ings before your subcommittee last year.' Yet despite official aware- 
ness of them — and despite the realization that because of increased mechan- 
ization in stream states, the hunger problem will be even more acute this 
year — no measures have been taken to alleviate the stiuation. 

Another serious obstacle to significant migrant participation in 
the federal food programs relate to the date relied upon by U.S. D. A. in 
formulating and evaluating its food programs. Based upon discussions be- 
tween MRP staff members and U.S.D.A. officials in charge of administering 
the federal food programs, the following seems clear: 

1) U.S.D.A. food officials do not consider nor do they rely 
upon information collected by other branches of U.S.D.A 
where it concerns matters directly affecting the hunger 
and nutritional needs of migrants. (An example would be 
the availability of work to the migrants due to weather 
and crop conditions or the increasing use of mechanization, 
even though such information is made available to the 
migrants ' employer . 

2) policy-making officials do not require tabulations or 
studies of migrant participation in federal food programs 
in spite of the availability of such information under 
the record keeping and reporting requirements of relevant 
acts. 

3) the statistical data gathered through the United States 



4824 



Bureau of the Census and relied upon by U.S.D.A. to 
make policy decisions is inadequate because the base of 
the sample used contains less than 50,000 persons, nor 
does the data set forth include a detailed breakdown 
within the category of "Mixed Farm Working Force" of days 
worked and wages earned on farm and non-farm employment. 
The 1970 census offers little prospect of a clearer pro- 
file of the special characteristics of migrants as a pop- 
ulations group. The decennial census, including the 1970 
survey presently underway, is not structured to differ- 
entiate between migrants and all other farm workers. In 
fact, it would be impossible to do so since Government 
agencies have failed to agree upon a definition of a 
"migrant agricultural worker." The U. S. Department of 
\ Labor, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, the U. S. 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the 
Office of Economic Opportunity have developed independent 
definitions for eligibility for their various programs 
with respect to a "migrant." At times, there have been 
conflicting definitions developed for programs within 
a Department. As a result, the "migrant worker" is a 
"migrant worker" for one program, but, at the same time, 
may not be a "migrant worker" for another government pro- 
gram. 

Even assuming that better data collection methods were em- 
ployed by U.S.D.A., there are other institutionalized impediments to an 
effective evaluation of migrant participation in food programs . There 
is no systematic collection of information on an annual basis (e.g., 
a yearly updating of the decennial survey) with suitable detail to 
enable planning, execution and assessment of existing programs or the 
tailoring of programs to meet the nutritional, employment and other 
needs of migrants. In short, there is a need to build into the data 
collection process the utilization of social indicators - a form of 
social accounting - to guarantee that the actual conditions under which 
migrants live are recorded and to measure the changes in those condi- 
tions over a period of time. 

Furthermore, since more than one department of the federal 
government is charged with responsibility for alleviating the migrants' 



4825 



plight, there is a need to create an interdepartmental council to 
oversee and integrate, on a coordinated basis, an effort to redress 
some of the current and easily anticipated problems that beset the 
migrant -- e.g., his health and nutritional needs, displacement by 
mechanization and generally uncertain employment opportunities, and 
substandard housing conditions — to name only a few of the ills 
capable of immediate interdepartmental action. 

Finally, in contrast to limited and contradictory data 
presumably relied upon by government policy-makers, the income and 
demographic data contained in Appendices A, B and C shows: (1) a high 
migrant eligibility for participation in federal benefits programs; and 
(2) low migrant participation due to a variety of administrative and 
legal barriers. 

This pressing need for immediate action is still further 
highlighted by an employment and mechanization report contained as 
Appendix B. This report convincingly demonstrates the limited nature 
of work opportunities available this year for migrants working in the 
"stream states." It also lends substantial credence to the many 
reports of an impending hunger and nutritional crisis — i.e., unemployed 
or underemployed migrants are expected to be stranded in stream states 
in much greater numbers than last year, without food or monetary re- 
sources, and still others will be forced to return to the home base 
states without sufficient savings from instream earnings to allow 
them to subsist until the next season for migratory labor. 

Under these circumstances, at the very minimum, it is sub- 
mitted that the Secretary of Agriculture has a clear legal duty to de- 
velop programs this year to increase substantially migrant access to 






36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 20 



4826 



and participation in federal food stamp and commodity distribution pro- 
grams. In any case, it is now clear that the Secretary of Agriculture 
possesses sufficient discretion to take positive steps by regulation 
or formal instruction to abate significantly the hunger and nutritional 
crises facing the many migrants in our country today under either the 
Pood Stamp or Commodities Distribution statutes. See, Arlett Peoples 
v. United States Department of Agriculture , F.2d C.A.D.C., 

(1970) ; Joy v. United States Department of Agriculture , 308 F. Supp.100 

(N.D. Texas, 1969) . 



4827 



MICHIGAN HOUSING STUDY 



Preliminary Findings 



An intensive effort was made during the summer of 1969 to study 
the housing provided migrants working in the State of Michigan. The pre- 
liminary report of our efforts is attached as Appendix D. One hundred 
and forty-eight camps, situated in 33 different counties and varying in 
size between 6 and 261 occupants, were observed. The housing conditions 
recorded by our observers affected roughly 5,000 migrants. 

The housing provided for migrant workers commonly consisted of 
cabins, farmhouses, motels, barns or garages, and in some instances even 
more primitive facilities. Not only was the housing generally found to 
be inadequate for the purpose intended, but to be structurally unsound 
as well. For example, observations revealed that 34% of the units had 
wet floors, 29% leaking roofs, 25% leaking floors. 

In the same vein, a clear pattern of violations can be discerned 
in a myriad of important areas such as drainage; maintenance of an ade- 
quate, accessible and safe water supply; and provisions for recreational 
areas, eating facilities and lighting for common areas and facilities ad- 
jacent to the camp. Taken together, it is clear that migrants are not 
provided adequate and soundly maintained housing, nor the benefits cus- 
tomarily afforded other inhabitants of dwellings. 

Overcrowding of these basically unsound units further accentu- 
ated the deficiencies found. For example, beds were not always available 
for the inhabitants and, when provided, almost invariably served more 
than two persons. Similarly, the same tabulation showed that 68% of the 



4828 



children over six slept in the same room as their parents, contrary to 
regulations. 

With health hazards due to overcrowding, poor drainage and 
structurally unsound construction already manifest to our observers, 
basic sanitation problems were also documented. For instance, only 22% 
of the camps provided a toilet for each housing unit. For the remaining 
units, the common privies provided were found to be insufficient in 
number and badly maintained and ventilated. 

The camps were also regarded as hazardous by our observers. 
While this finding involves an element of subjectivity, it has particular 
significance since most units are constructed of easily ignitable material 
such as wood. Typical findings included inadequate and distantly placed 
fire-fighting equipment, bare or exposed electrical wiring, and inade- 
quate or non-existent heating facilities necessitating the use of supple- 
mentary heating devices. The susceptibility to accidental fires, parti- 
cularly where the facilities are overcrowded and littered with trash and 
garbage, seems self-evident. 

One other basic finding merits attention. The camps housing 
federally recruited workers, while in violation of many regulations, were 
found to have measurably fewer overall violations per camp than those 
subject only to Michigan regulations. This finding is held to be signi- 
ficant because the federal standard serves as a model for state regulations 
and enforcement procedures. 

RECOMMENDAT ION S 

While limited in scope, our demonstration project documents a 






4829 



compelling case for further investigative and regulatory action. The 
most effective effort would initially involve a comprehensive study under 
the auspices of the state or federal government, followed by an adminis- 
trative effort to correct any abuses found. Short of such an undertaking, 
a serious effort should be made to deputize as researchers, inspectors or 
in both capacities, interested parties such as students or volunteer 
groups. Either of these proposals should provide the ba^is for a systema- 
tic enforcement effort designed to overcome defects presumably attributable 
to limited personnel, budget resources, or other less tangible impediments. 

Basic to any effective system for enforcement is a recognition, 
on the part of those agencies and officials charged with the duty to in- 
spect, that persons employing migrant laborers have a continuing duty to 
maintain the premises in conformity with existing housing, health and 
sanitary regulations. Of primary importance is the prevention of occu- 
pany-related violations which were so frequently documented by our demon- 
stration project. Occupancy related violations can only be determined by 
inspections and re-inspections conducted during the season. Pre-season 
inspection, as is customarily the case in Michigan, provides no meaningful 
inspection for violations of critical regulations such as occupancy limi- 
tations or even general maintenance requirements. 

The present sanctions for violations found - i.e., cancellation 
of federal work orders or revocation of state licenses - are equally 
ineffectual. By the time that an inspection uncovers a violation warrant- 
ing these strong sanctions, the migrant has already been recruited and may 
even be leaving the camp. He gains nothing from imposition of either 
sanction, and he may even lose his job or only source of housing as the 
result of belated enforcement efforts. 



4830 



Two basic administrative reforms , both within the discretion 
of the enforcement officials, offer the most constructive alternative. 
First, the-re is a need for a uniform policy governing the granting of 
conditional licenses. Temporary licenses, as well as waivers of the 
regulations, should only be granted upon a clear showing of necessity and 
of steps to be taken to correct the deficiencies cited. Moreover, per- 
sonnel and resources for efforts to monitor compliance should be allocated 
to accord significance to the probationary status. Secondly, where non- 
compliance or failure to meet conditions attached to the probationary 
status is found, stiff fines should be levied without undue delay. For 
fines to be an effective sanction, it is presupposed that an efficient 
complaint procedure (perhaps, a summary procedure) be implemented, pre- 
ferably one related to the existing license or revocation system. 

The recommendations discussed here are necessarily oriented to 
the short term and confined to the data uncovered by our demonstration 
project. They are included, not to minimize the problem, but to offer 
tangible data and workable alternatives for action now to alleviate a 
disgraceful problem in our nation. 



4831 



RAMIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

T,he data presented has many ramifications regarding the nutri- 
tional needs of migrants. Of the 1,130 families, 69% reported incomes 
of less than $2,500 for the past year. While many studies have been 
conducted to determine the amount of money needed to feed a family, none 
reviewed by U. M.O.I, in preparing this report claim that a family of five 
can meet its nutritional needs on $2,500 a year. 

There are programs available to assist families with emergency 
food needs namely, the Food Stamp and Commodity Programs offered by each 
County Department of Social Services within the State. There are also a 
variety of educational pamphlets designed to educate low income families 
regarding economic ways of meeting family nutritional needs. 

Nevertheless, both types of programs - educational materials or 
free food - remain unavailable to the migrant often for similar reasons. 
They cannot get emergency food assistance because they do not know where 
to go. And, even if they seek out assistance, the hungry migrants may 
not be able to receive the benefits to which they are entitled, either 
because they are unable to communicate their needs, or cannot provide the 
information necessary to satisfy agency certification requirements. In- 
deed, the fact that 40% of the heads of households were functionally il- 
literate and 30% speak only Spanish explains in part the failure of ex- 
isting programs, frequestly lacking bilingual staffs, to reach this 
target, population. 

Based on U. M.O.I, experience last summer, the following recommen- 
dations have been offered to the appropriate State and Federal Agencies 
in an effort to improve the emergency food service available to migrants 



4832 



and seasonal agricultural workers in the State of Michigan. 



1. Agencies distributing food stamps as commodities should 
make special provisions to expedite the servicing of 
migrants. Specific steps to be taken should include 
evening office hours; utilization of bilingual staff or 
volunteers; and the vending of food stamps on a daily 
basis rather than only on certain days. 

2. Migrants should be allowed self -certification when initially 
applying for food assistance. This will do away with the 

5 to 10 day waiting period all too frequently required for 
farmer's or area crew leader's verification of wages. 

3. State plans should be amended to provide for state-wide cer- 
tification procedures. Once a migrant family has been cer- 
tified in one county, a certification card which will allow 
the family to receive service in all other counties in the 
state should be issued, without going through the same 
question and answer sessions. 

4. Commodity counties should make provisions to have additional 
food stuffs available during the harvest season. Furthermore, 
supplemental direct relief monies should be made available to 
provide supplemental but essential foods not available with 

commodities. 



These recommendations are regarded as minimal and of the nature 
that warrant applications to all other states with similar problems. These 
serious deficiencies documented to the report can be met by a concerted 
effort between cooperating state and federal agencies to bring the migrant 
workers as a class within the purview of the food program into which they 
are entitled to participate by law. 



4833 



APPENDIX A 
BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

During the summer of 1969, United Migrant for Opportunity, Inc. 
(U. M.O.I.),* received funds for two programs that enabled the agency to 
become acutely aware of the hunger and health problems confronting migra- 
tory and seasonal agricultural workers within Michigan. The first program 
was one enabling the agency to provide emergency food to meet the needs of 
malnutrition and starvation due to' such factors as low income, lack of 
work, inability of the head of household to work, etc. Funds to meet these 
and other emergency food needs were distributed to needy families only 
after attempts were made to get assistance from the duly mandated state 
agency, the Department of Social Services. 

The second program was a University Affiliated Migrant Research 
and Service Program which provided summer employment for thirty-four college 
students. All but four of them were either bilingual or Mexican-American. 
The student had the following responsibilities: 

1) Provide outreach services to migrants. 

2) Inform migrants of various agency services and programs avail- 
able to assist them. 

3) Provide referral and interpretive assistance in order to help 
migrants get the required services. 

4) Provide follow-up to determine the adequacy of services pro- 
vided. 



*U. M.O.I, is funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity under Title 
III-B of the Economic Opportunity Act, as amended. U. M.O.I, alf.o receives 
funds to carry en its emergency food and medical services from the Migrant 
Research Project, and the study herein elaborated is based on a report fur- 
nished to Migrant Research Project as part of the funding relationship be- 
tween the two organizations. 






4834 



5) Distribute U. M.O.I, emergency funds when necessary. 

6) Gather socio-economic data on the demographic character- 
istics of the target population. 

The demographic characteristics of the migrant family point up 
four salient characteristics of the migrant head of household. 77.2% 
were Mexican-American; 62.7% had eight years or less of education,- 
40.12% were considered to be functionally illiterate; 35% were unable 
to communicate in English. Thus, a substantial portion of this econ- 
omically poor population - a group confronted with the likelihood of 
earning even less money this summer due to unemployment - can neither read, 
write, nor otherwise adequately communicate with most persons they en- 
counter. Furthermore, these families are generally required to travel 
to more than one county to work - frequently as many as three or four 
during the harvest season. Each county will have a food program that 
differs in some manner, a most serious obstacle for persons unable 
to communicate with non-migrants. Some may have food stamps, others 
only commodities; some will sell the stamps at the welfare office; others 
will require the client to purchase them at a bank; some will try to 
vend stamps every day and during the evening, others will only vend two 
days a week; some will have bilingual staff to service those who do not 
speak English, others will not; but all will, however, require the migrant 
to go through a laborious certification. 



4835 



DATA GATHERED 



Number of Families 


Percentage 


283 


22% 


851 


47% 


435 


25% 


109 


6% 


18 


1% 



A total of 1,811 migrant families consisting of 9,630 individuals were 
served by the University Affiliated Research and Service Program. Some of the 
data relevant to food and health needs is listed below.* 

1) Family Annual Income 

Income 

$ - $ 999 
$1,000 - $2,499 
$2,500 - $4,999 
$5,000 - $6,999 
$7,000 - and over 

2) Jwerage Size of Family 

5.3 Members 

3 ) Head of Household Literacy 

Percentage 

36% 
40% 

24% 



Percentage 

77% 
10% 

4% 

8% 

1% 









Number 


Literate 






652 


Illiterate 






724 


Uncertain 






435 


4) Family Ethnic 


Group 


Ethnic Group 






Number 


Mexican-American 






1,394 


Negro 






181 


Puerto Rican 






71 


Caucasian 






145 


Cuban 






19 


5) Head of 


Household 


- Language Spoken 


Language 






Number 


Spanish only 






652 


Snanish and Engl 


ish 




796 


English only 






198 


Unknown 






165 



Percentage 

36% 

44% 

11% 

9% 



*It must be pointed out that the statistical data is not the result of 
stratified random samples; however, it is to the knowledge of U. M.O.I, per- 
sonnel the largest sampling of migrants covered by any study in the state. 



4836 



EMERGENCY FOOD PROGRAM 

During the summer and early fall of 1969, U. M.O.I, distributed $35,000.CJ 
in emergency food monies to 7,000 migrant individuals in 1,324 migrant familij 
who had below poverty level incomes and were in danger of malnutrition and/orj 
starvation, but were unable to get assistance from the local county welfare | 
agencies. Monies were provided only after an attempt had been made to get 
food assistance from established agency sources. The primary reason for the 
migrants' need to obtain assistance was the lack of work available due to 
either a delay in the ripening of crops or a lack in the number of jobs. 

There were eight major reasons that accounted for the failure of the 
county service delivery system to meet the nutritional needs of these migrant! 
thus necessitating resort to U. M.O.I, emergency food monies: 

1) Agency was not open (pertains to migrant clients who arrived on 
week-ends) . 

2) Commodities were the only source of assistance, and families 
could not get such essential items as whole milk, meats, fresh 
fruits and vegetables . 

3) The family was required to wait up to one month to receive 

commodities. 

4) The family was not eligible for food stamps because of its 
previous monthly income which barred participation according 
to state welfare certification practice. 

5) Family did not have available sufficient cash to purchase the 
food stamps to v/hich it was entitled. 

6) The family was unable to get food stamps because the county 
agency only permits application and/or vending on certain days j 
and during certain hours, but the family had immediate food 
needs. 

7) County agencies not allowing self-certification required either j 
the employer or the crew leader to verify the lack of family 
income. (This process often required five to ten days which 

was too long when a family was without food.) 

8) County agencies not being able to establish adequate 
^ certification procedures due to restrictive office 

hours and/or a lack of bilingual staff. 



4837 



APPENDIX B 



MECHANIZATION AND RECRUITMENT REPORT 



■In an effort to document the increasing use of mechanization 
and chemicals and to make tentative projections relating to the employ- 
ment opportunities available to migrants the remainder of this year, the 
Migrant Research Project has recently conducted an informal study of 
selected states where information could be obtained from reliable and 
knowledgeable sources. 

In gathering this information, the Migrant Research Project inter- 
viewed its own grantees, public officials, and migrants and leaders of 
their organizations. To narrow the focus of the inquiry, considerable 
reliance was placed upon specific questions which were directed toward 
the impact of impending mechanization on employment. Yet it must be 
stressed that the sampling taken was limited, and not based on a scien- 
tific effort, although an attempt to obtain representativeness was made. 
The results of this study can analytically be broken down according to 
the various states or regions sampled and are summarized as follows: 

Washington 

An Office of Economic Opportunity grantee there reported that in 
the area where it operated the following crops are to be mechanized 
this year: (a) grapes (there are 32 machines on hand in the area, each 
one replacing 51 nigrant workers); (b) hops; and (c) asparagus. More- 
over, in spite of the impending mechanization, the same source reports 
that the State Employment Service has been recruiting hand-labor for 
these crops in the same numbers as was recruited during the past year. 



4838 



Michigan 

According to a variety of contacts there including those made 
with the Regional Office of the Federal Laobr Service, and Office of Ec- 
onomic Opportunity-funded migrant program, the State Employment Service, 
and an agricultural economist at Michigan State University, 50,000 work- 
ers are expected to arrive in the State of Michigan in 1970. Not all of 
these persons, however, were recruited through the Michigan or federal re- 
cruitment system; nevertheless, on the basis of recruitment by farmers and 
growers, and word-of -mouth transmission of rumored employment opportuni- 
ties, that number is expected in the State of Michigan. 

At the same time, our survey revealed that only a few contracts 
covering 9000 jobs had been let. The number of contracts made to date must 
be contrasted with the number made in the year of 1968: In that year, Mich- 
igan had let 28,000 contracts for the employment of 74,000 migrants. Since 
our information was gathered at a point in time when the normal recruit- 
ment process had come to an end, it can be concluded that there is a decline 
of 65,000 jobs and 27,700 contracts, when contrasted with the recruitment 
year of 1968. Many of these persons will be without employment, as the 
same sources indicate that only 15,000 workers will be employed this sum- 
mer in Michigan. 

Note: A late check before printing of this report reveals (June 10) the 
regional office of the U. S. Department of Labor does not antici- 
pate more than 1500 to 2000 surplus workers in the state of Michi- 
gan djuring the summer. This is due to corrective action taken by 
U. S. Department of Labor since the issuance of the above. 



4839 



Colorado 

.An Office of Economic Opportunity-funded project in Colorado 
informed our personnel that approximately 9000 migrants will come into 
Colorado this summer. Due to mechanization projections, it is anticipated 
that the total employment in the state will be reduced, according to these 
same sources, by 7500 jobs. For example, it was reported that a major 
crop, sugar beets, will employ only 50 to 60 percent of the workers who 
were employed the previous year. The reduction in this instance, however, 
is to be caused by a number of factors: an existing surplus sugar supply, 
the resultant change in crops from beets to corn, reliance on available 
local labor sources, and mechanization. 

Based on information obtained from Texas, recruitment for this 
area is generally down approximately 40%. Similarly, in Reinbeck, Iowa, 
employment is down 30% for the harvesting of asparagus crops and the method 
of recruitment has been changed. In this instance, recruitment was per- 
formed by the processor, rather than recruitment of labor through the 
State Employment Security Commission as has been the case in the past. 
The purported reason for the change in the recruitment method was the 
stepped-up-enforcement of housing regulations by the United States Depart- 
ment of Laobr. 

Wisconsin 

The number of seasonal workers in rural industries declined in 
Wisconsin from 1968 to 1969 according to the State Employment Service. 
The number of rural food processing in-plant workers averaged 10,811 in 
1968 and 10,190 in 1969, while plant employed field workers averaged 2,135 



4840 



per month in 1968 and 1,710 in 1969. Similar drops were reported in 
other rural work categories. 

Mid-Continent 

A telephone inquiry to the U. S. Department of Labor Regional 
Office of the Farm Labor Service revealed the following information on 
clearance orders: 

Clearance Orders for Interstate 
Recruitment 



Date 



No. of Percent No. or Percent' 
orders change workers change 



Michigan 



1969, 3/17 68 

1970, 3/16 59 



-14 



2,298 
3,537 



+54 



Ohio 



1969, 3/18 

1970, 3/16 



135 
189 



+40 



3,753 
5,672 



+51 



Illinois, Indiana 
Minnesota, Wisconsin 



1969, 3/14 

1970, 3/16 



166 
165 



-01 



15,194 
12,998 



In Michigan and Ohio the tendency is toward more workers per order 
The reason for this is not known at this time. 

The other four, mid-western states show a decline in both the num- 
ber of workers recruited and the number of orders placed. However, the 
number of workers recruited seems to be higher than can be employed if the 
information on mechanization properly reflects the decline in jobs. 

Last year gave ample evidence of what happens to the migrants 
when recruitment is higher than jobs. Unless welfare agencies in the 
state are prepared to assist the unemployed in a meaningful way, the depri- 






4841 



vation of the migrant is horrendous. 

Note: Just prior to final .editing of this report, MRP again checked with 
the United States Department of Labor Farm Labor Service, in the Chicago 
region and learned of remedial steps take'n to alleviate the anticipated 
problems in Michigan and the other mid-Continent states. These were: 

1. Establishment of a regional coordinating committee composed 

of representatives of various agencies including United States 
Department of Labor; Housing and Urban Development; Agriculture- 
Transportation; Health, Education, and Welfare to assist 
states in working with migrants. 

2. Worked in cooperation with the Texas State Employment Service 
to alert migrants not to leave Texas without a definite job 
placement. 

3. Developed a special daily reporting system in each state to 
determine amount of surplus farm labor to the regional De- 
partment of Labor to enable corrective action to be taken. 

4. Encouraged the Governors of each of the states to require the 
State Departments of Welfare to accept "self-declaration 

of income" from migrants for certification for food stamps 
for at least the first thirty day issuance of food stamps. 

5. Staff from a United States Department of Labor special research 
program will be available to refer all migrants to available 
welfare programs. 

Florida 

Various estimates of employment recruitment and mechanization 
have been received by our personnel. For example, mid-March 1970 esti- 
mates of unemployment among migrants in Florida was placed at approximate- 
ly 24,000 persons by contacts with indigenous groups and a project funded 
by the Office of Economic Opportunity that serves migrants. Leaders of the 
indigenous groups contacted by MRP indicated that when work was available, 
it was not full-time work, but rather the work consisted of a few hours per 
day or lasted only two or three days in a given week. 



36-513 O - 71 - pt.7B -- 21 



4842 



In contrast, reports from state officials focused on the diffi- 
culty of recruiting labor for the short-term, part-time jobs and not on the 
problem of unemployment or underemployment that the migrants reported. The 
main effort made by Public officials of the state of Florida has been an 
effort by the State Employment Service to fill "hard-to-place jobs", by 
certifying the existence of labor shortage. 

As a result of this conflicting information or perhaps perspec- 
tives — i.e. one report emphasizing that a job shortage existed whereas 
another group argued that, in reality, a labor surplus existed and was 
under-utilized — conflicting information is available to the public and 
regulatory agencies concerned with the affairs of migrants. 

Texas 



Recent contact with indigenous groups residing in the Rio Grande 
Valley, indicated that only 12% to 15% of the migrants in the area were 
working at the time of the interview. Of these workers, 70% were working 
a 40-hour week, 30% a 20-hour week. Approximately 67,000 persons were 
unemployed at the time of our contact. 

Other Data Gathered by MRP 

In the course of distributing emergency food and medical monies 
in the home-based states of Florida and Texas when migrants were residing 
there, other infornation was obtained - information which corroborates our 
view that an employment and hunger crisis is impending. We spent funds at 
the rate of $2000 to $4000 per day feeding people over a seven-day period. 
During the period when the migrants were residing there, the amount of 
money disbursed to individuals ranges from 20v to $1.00 per day per person. 



4843 



Based upon food monies disbursed and information gathered in 
the informal contacts and survey efforts described above, it is the Migrant 
Research Project's conclusion that mechanization has had and will have a 
serious impact on the number of jobs available in 1970 in both the home 
base states and in the stream states. In addition, contacts with leaders 
of indigenous groups in both home base states of Texas and Florida indicate 
that even more migrants than in previous years will enter into the migrant 
stream this year, and that fewer jobs will be made available to them based 
on reports of significant decreases in interstate recruitment for this 
year in those states. The chaotic state of the market for migratory labor 
becomes self-evident. In addition, if poor weather or mechanization at 
the anticipated increased rate further upset an already chaotic labor mar- 
ket, the problems facing migrant laborers will be intensified manyfold. 
In effect, they will be forced to rely upon outside assistance to maintain 
their families while residing in the stream states. Moreover, in many 
instances, their meager earnings will not provide them with sufficient mon- 
ies to return with their families to the home base state where they reside. 
Even if they have sufficient funds to finance the trip home, the money 
saved will be insufficient to maintain the families during the winter 
months when limited work is available in those home base states. The result 
anticipated is employment chaos and hunger of a dimension previously un- 
known in both home base states and stream states impacted by migrants who 
either will be underemployed or unemployed during many months of this 
calendar year. 



4844 



APPENDIX 'C 



BARRIERS TO MIGRANT PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL 
FOOD AND OTHER BENEFITS PROGRAMS 

I- Results of a Ten-State Study 

In the early winter of 1969, the Migrant Research Project con- 
ducted a comparative study of food distributed in 18 counties of ten 
states, all of which are heavily populated by migrants during various 
times of the year. The selection of states in the study expressly 
included those with the greatest migrant populations, persons either 
"home based" there or who migrate into the particular state to assist 
in seasonal agricultural work. The selection of counties, in turn, 
was dependent on the existence of food stamps or commodities distribution 
program during 1968 and their housing a large migrant population dur- 
ing that year. The purpose of the survey was to determine to what degree 
migrants share in participation in Federal food programs, either during 
the work season or during the winter slack employment season. Based on 
information previously gathered, it was our hypothesis that food pro- 
grams as then administered were not reaching a high percentage of the 
migrant population. 

In determining the size of migrant populations in the counties 
selected, the figures so used were those listed in the 1969 Report of 
the Senate Subcommitte e on Migratory Labor . In addition, the monthly:- 
reports of the United States Department of Agriculture Consumer and 
Marketing Service, Food Assistance Programs , were used as the source 
of information as to the average number of persons assisted per month over 






4845 



the designated period. 

Using this information, a dual period analysis was employed. 
This approach was designed to compare the level of participation 
in food assistance programs during those periods of time when migrant 
workers impacted the area against other periods of the year when there 
were few or no migrants in the county. Florida and Texas were used for 
the home base states; Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Ore- 
gon, Washington and Wisconsin were used as the "in stream" states. 

Of the ten states studied Texas, Michigan and Wisconsin showed 
an increase in the average number of persons assisted in a month during 
periods when migrants were present. The rise in the level of assistance 
was not, however, significant. In Texas, despite increased participation 
due to an influx of migrants, less than 16% of the migrants in the 
counties studied were served with food assistance programs during the 
months studied. Yet migrants fared better in Texas than in any of the 
other stream states. In Michigan, for example, less than 2% of the mi- 
grants in any county studied were included in food programs; in Wisconsin, 
less the .001% were included. In the other states, fewer people were 
fed during the peak season than at other times of the year. 

As a follow-up to our survey, our staff members made a study 
of selected state plans and the implementation of such plans. When these 
plans and the practices thereunder are considered in light of previously 
discussed data, it is all too clear that migratory agricultural workers 
were not considered or planned for in the development of or execution 
of these state plans, all of which were approved by the United States 
Department of Agriculture. It certainly seems ironic that the migrant 



4846 



agricultural worker cannot receive a modicum of concern from the 
Department of Agriculture. This government agency, through its tremen- 
dous resources, has available to it information on (a) the rate of 
mechanization in agriculture; (b) knowledge as to the timing of the 
harvest; (c) knowledge as to long-range weather predictions; (d) know- 
ledge as to projected skills needed in agricultural work; (e) knowledge 
as to the number of workers needed now and in the future; etc. Much 
of this information is funded as government sponsored research, and the 
re sults are made available to growers and growers ' associations. Yet 
none of it is apparently made available to assist migrant agricultural 
workers in seeking employment or in meeting recurrent hunger crises. 
Were this information brought to bear in studying and approving state 
plans for distribution of food, most of the problems that migrants now 
face in participating in such programs would be eliminated. 

II. Identifiable Obstacles to Significant 
Migrant Participation in Federal Food 
Programs . 

1. Food Stamps. 

Barriers which made it impossible for food stamp participation 
by migrant and seasonal agricultural workers and thereby necessitated 
resort to Migrant Research Project assistance last year can be categorized 
as follows: 

1) The workers arrived to harvest crops well in advance of the 
season and they needed food to survive; 

2) Both home base counties and stream state counties are not 
prepared to service people other than local residents; 



4847 



3) Extensive documentation is required of non-residents both 
for certification and for the establishment of hardship 
deductions under the method of income computation; 

4) Specific eligibility and certification requirements vary 
from county to county; 

5) Food stamp out-reach workers in farming areas and labor 
camps are practically non-existent; 

6) Office hours vary in different counties and states from a 
few hours per week to a few days per month; 

7) The vending of stamps may be delegated to banks or other 
financial institutions to which the migrants are unfamil- 
iar and whose regular hours do not make allowance for the 
migrants ' work weeks ; 

8) Very limited use of emergency hours during the evening, 
week-ends or holidays when migrants are present; 

9) Income verification, unless standards are relaxed, for a 
worker who has many employers and rarely receives pay stubs 
is almost impossible; 

10) Resources such as work-related resources - e.g., a car 

or a truck - are used to disqualify a person from participa- 
tion in food programs ; 

11) Residency may still be a cause of inablilty to participate 
in food stamps since U.S.D.A. guidelines do not specifically 
repudiate this former requirement; 

12) There is no formal and effective complaint procedure to 
report failure to comply with the stale plan; 



4848 



13) Certification and eligibility standards make no allow- 
ances for persons having no income or an irregular income; 
and 

14) The practice of selling food stamps only once a month and 
not permitting purchase at less than for the full month's 
requirements at one time eliminates migrants and others who 
have only sporadic resources. 

2. Commodity Distribution 

Commodity Distribution programs present many of the same bar- 
riers to migrants who wish to participate in this type of food program. 
Surveys and reports we have studied indicate additional problems such 
as: 

1) Inconvenient location of food distribution points; 

2) A consistent failure on the part of U.S.D.A. to allow 
O.E.O. grantees, indigenous groups or others to administer 
the programs ; 

3) Rigidity in administration of the programs as to dates, 
place and time of distribution, as well as places of 
certification and recertification - all of which effective- 
ly bar migrants from participation in the program; 

4) Income certification procedures force migrants to verify 
matters not possible whereas a simplified affidavit of 
certification' could be substituted; 

3) General lack of uniformity in rules and practices relating 
to certification due to a vesting of absolute responsibility 
for making decisions at the local leval; for example, a 



4849 



simple delay in certification effectively disqualifies a 
migrant whose employment requires him to move on or who 
may find interim work; 

6) Allowable income and liquid assets vary from county to 
county and in some instances seemingly from person to per- 
son; 

7) County agencies too frequently make no provision for persons 
who cannot communicate in English; 

8) Transportation is a major problem to migrants who must 
travel many miles to a distribution center;* 

9) A lack of refrigeration to store perishables prohibits 
migrants from participating in the program; 

10) Fackaging and supply of household allotment in bulk makes 
it difficult for migrants to amnage food; 

11) Available food is not consistent with the cultural and 
eating practices of migrants, nor is it designed to meet • 
the recipients' nutritional needs; 

12) Lack of education programs as to value and preparation of 
foods available; and 

13) Lack of particular foods although listed by U.S.D.A. in 
many counties. 

III. School Lunch 

School lunch programs in stream states also are programmed 



* One county welfare director suggested in an interview with M.R.P. stafj 
that if the migrant had transportation money to go the 70 miles round- 
trip to the center, he had enough money not to qualify for funds. 



4850 



for resident children and rarely have sufficient funds available to provide 
for migrant children who come into the stream states in the spring of the 
year. Frequently, migrant children enter an affluent community and en- 
roll in a school which had no need for a school lunch program for resident 
children. Under current regulations, budgets for school lunch programs 
must be geared to a fiscal year basis and not to a quarterly basis which 
would allow the school to accommodate the very special and seasonal needs 
which accompany the impact of migrants. As a result of this anomaly, 
migrant children do without lunch at school or use emergency food money 
supplied by O.E.O. so they can eat. 

IV. Welfare, and Health 

The exclusion of migrants from welfare programs stems most 
immediately from the indifferences of local welfare administrators. How- 
ever, it also flows from restrictive legislation and budgeting at the 
federal and state levels. 

Based on income, almost all of the migrants served through 
the Migrant Research Project are eligible for welfare. The major reason 
they do not receive categorical assistance is because the father resides 
with the family. In stream states they are denied general assistance - 
even on an emergency basis - because of residency requirements. Even 
if a dire emergency exists , most counties choose to provide the cheap- 
est, most available public transportation to the home base rather than 
providing emergency assistance. This practice seems to hold true even 
in localities where the state office will reimburse the county up to 
100': of emergency costs at the end of the year. 



4851 



Health care for migrants is virtually unknown except through 
migrant health clinics. The services from the clinics are limited, 
however, primarily aimed at immediate minor illnesses and further med- 
ical referrals. Limited funds are available for hospitalization in some 
areas. Illnesses such as birth defects, drug addiction, alcoholism, mental 
health problems are fundamentally ignored by health programs. Moreover, 
in counties where funds are available to provide free health care at 
state hospitals, welfare directors prefer to save these funds for the use 
of permanent residents. 



4852 



MICHIGAN HOUSING REPORT: 
A REPORT OF A STUDY JOINTLY UNDERTAKEN 
BY THE MIGRANT RESEARCH PROJECT AND THE 
UNITED MIGRANTS FOR OPPORTUNITY, INC. 



The project reported herein was performed 
pursuant to a grant from the Office of 
Economic Opportunity, Washington, D.C. 
The opinions expressed herein are those of 
the author and should not be construed as 
representing the opinions or policy of any 
agency of the United States Government. 



Migrant Research Project (M. E.D.I ) 
1329 - 18th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 



May 8, 1970 



4853 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Pa^e 

I. Background 1 

II. Methodology of Research 

III. Preliminary Observations on Housing Con- 
ditions in Michigan Migrant Labor Camps . . 6 

Drainage 8 

Debris 9 

Recreational Area 10 

Adequate and Safe Water Supply .... 10 

Housing Structures 13 

Fire Safety 15 

Cooking and Eating Facilities 17 

Lighting and Wiring 18 

Heating 19 

Overcrowding 22 

Bathing Facilities 24 

Laundry Facilities 25 

Toilet Facilities 26 

Michigan Employment Security Commission 

Study 29 

Footnotes 30 



APPENDIX A - Federal and State Laws and Regulations 
For Agricultural Labor Camps 

APPENDIX B - Percentage Tabulations of Questions on 
Survey Form 

APPENDIX C - Inspection Sheet 



4854 



MICHIGAN HOUSING STUDY 
I. Background 

During the summer of 1969, the Migrant Research Project, 
with the cooperation of the United Migrants for Opportunity, 
Inc . , conducted an intensive survey of migrant housing in the 
State of Michigan. Michigan was chosen because of the large 
number of migrant workers who enter the state each year in search 
of agricultural employment. It is estimated that between 50,000 
to 100,000 migrants annually come to Michigan from other states, 
primarily Texas, in search of employment. Approximately 3,100 
camps, located throughout the State of Michigan, provide housing; 
for these workers . 

Prior to this study, the public had already been informed | 
of the substandard and squalid conditions in which migrants 
dwell. The recent hearings conducted by the Senate Subcommittee 
on Migratory Labor held in 1969, publicity relating to the grape- 
pickers strike led by Cesar Chavez, and numerous books and pub- 
lications had all focused attention on the plight of the migrant 
laborer. 

The purpose of the particular study undertaken by the 
Migrant Research Project was to identify and document thoroughly 
those aspects of migrant housing which could be improved by more 



4855 



rigorous enforcement of existing laws and regulations. It was 
believed that a major impediment to the provision of improved 
housing for the migrant workers was the lack of specific informa- 
tion and statistics on one of the most acute problems facing the 
migrant worker. 

II. Methodology of Research 

The UMOI was selected to participate in this cooperative 
effort because of its willingness to make available the services 
of its staff members and because the organization maintained 
offices serving migrants in the parts of the State of Michigan 
where migrants most commonly reside. It was believed that a more 
balanced geographic distribution could be obtained by making in- 
spections in the manner chosen. 

An inspection sheet was designed to enable persons, having 
little formal education, to report detailed information on hous- 
ing conditions in an accurate and objective manner. The questions 
were also chosen to provide information revealing the existence 

of violations of the State Housing Regulations promulgated and 

2 
enforced by the Michigan Department of Public Health as well as 

3 
Federal regulations set by the U.S. Department of Labor. For 

the most part, the questions were drawn by simply restating the 



4856 



Michigan regulations in the form of an interrogatory or question. 
A copy of the inspection sheet is attached in Appendix C. 

It is initially important to understand the regulations 
set by the U.S. Department of Labor governing housing conditions 
for migrant workers. The regulations apply in situations where 
an employer seeks the assistance of the state employment agency 
receiving federal funds (in this case, the Michigan Employment 
Security Commission) in the interstate recruitment of agriculture 
woods, and related industry workers. These regulations, there- 
fore, apply with particular force to migrant workers. 

According to the procedures set forth in the Federal regu- 
lations, a grower (employer) who solicits the Michigan Employment 
Security Commission in recruiting farm workers from outside the 
state must state that the labor camp which he operates conforms 
to the minimum housing standards. No inspection or other proof 
is required at that time, although an inspection of the camp is 
required within thirty days prior to arrival of the workers. 
If it is found that the grower does not meet the minimum standards 
the work order will be cancelled, and the employer will be denied 
any further assistance from the state employment agency. This 
sanction, however, often involves no more than a futile gesture 
since the workers are already in the camp or enroute at the time 



4857 



of cancellation. Consequently, the enforcement scheme poses no 
immediate problem to the operator: he is already guaranteed of 
having workers to harvest the current crop and, at the same time, 
is not required to make the corrections necessary to bring the 
camp into conformity with the minimum standards required by law. 

The Federal regulations pertaining to minimum housing 
standards set by the U.S. Department of Labor are, as was al- 
ready stated, minimum standards. The state, while prevented 
from enacting regulations sanctioning any lesser standards, is 
not required to set any higher standards. For this reason, 
Michigan, as most of the other states receiving federal funds 
for their state employment agency, departs very little from the 
Federal regulations. Thus, the inspection sheet, by restating 
the Michigan regulations in an interrogatory form, permitted an 
analysis of violations under both State and Federal law. (A 
summary of Federal and state regulations set by the Michigan 
Department of Public Health may be found in Appendix A.) 

The inspectors who surveyed the camps in Michigan were, 
for the most part, employees of the UMOI. They were familiar 
with the locations of the camps and the set-up inside. The 
actual determination of the camps to be surveyed was not made 
by means of a random sample because a list of all the camps was 
not available. Nevertheless, the selections were informed 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 22 



4858 



choices, ones made on the basis of information and knowledge 
accumulated by the UMOI staff from their extensive contacts 
with the migrant workers throughout the state. It should also 
be emphasized, however, that no attempt was made to inspect 
only the worst camps, nor could it be said that the most 
desperate migrants sought assistance at a UMOI office or that 
any such selection process colored the survey. In fact, if 
anything, the studies conducted by the UMOI show just the 
contrary. 

By the end of the summer, 148 camps had been surveyed 
representing 23 counties out of a total of 68 counties on the 
lower peninsula. In only 45 of these 68 counties, however, 

are there a significant number of workers who migrate during 

4 
the peak summer season. The 148 camps selected housed over 

5,000 migrant workers and their families, and varied consider- 
ably in size, ranging anywhere between 6 to 261 occupants. 
Although this represents only a small percentage of the total 
3,100 camps in Michigan (approximately five per cent), it 
should be noted that access into the camps is exceedingly diffi- 
cult. Operators or the crew leaders are generally hostile to 
outsiders seeking to inspect the housing facilities which are 
provided for the migrants. 






4859 



Having established the background and methodology of the study, 
it is now possible to proceed into a discussion of some pre- 
liminary observations concerning housing conditions in Michigan 
migrant labor camps, based on the data which was collected. 
Although it is stressed that the comments made herein are only 
preliminary, subject to possible further modification, they 
are no less based on information that was accurately recorded 
and well documented. For these reasons, it is felt that the 
credibility of the foregoing observations rests on firm 
foundation. 



III. Preliminary Observations On 
Housing Conditions In 
Michigan Migrant Labor Camps 



Under the applicable provisions of Michigan law, any 
migrant camp housing five or more workers must be licensed by 
the Agricultural Labor Camp Unit (ALCU) of the State Department 
of Public Health. In order to receive a license, an ACLU in- 
spector must first visit the camp and find that it "conforms or 
will conform to the minimum standards of construction, health, 
sanitation, sewage, water supply, garbage and rubbish disposal", 
as well as other applicable provisions from the regulations. 
Upon approval and issuance, the camp owner is then required to 



4860 



display his license in a "conspicuous place" within the camp 
area. Despite this clear standard, licenses were observed in 
83 or approximately 56 per cent of the survey camps. (In only 
67 of these camps was the license actually posted as required.) 
As will be seen below, this pattern of wholesale violation of 
every elementary licensing requirement is not atypical. 

The remainder of the discussion on the preliminary find- 
ings will be devoted to a textual discussion of housing con- 
ditions in the migrant labor camps by specific areas of concern. 
The breakdown will be made under the following categories : 
drainage, debris, garbage disposal, recreational facilities, 
water supply, housing structures, fire safety, cooking and eat- 
ing facilities, lighting and electricity, heating, overcrowding, 
bathing and shower facilities, laundry facilities and toilets. 
It is believed that the above breakdown is comprehensive and 
touches upon most all areas relevant to housing conditions. 
In addition to text and the statistics which are to be discussed 
below, a table containing the relevant figures upon which the 
findings are based is provided in the Appendix. Due to 
problems which the inspectors encountered, as discussed earlier, 
many of the figures are not based upon the total number of 
camps. Reference to Appendix B will, however, disclose the 



4861 



actual number of camps studied in cases where the specific in- 
formation could be obtained. 

Drainage 

Michigan regulations require that the camp area shall 
be well-drained and free from any topographical depressions in 
which water may stagnate. Results of the survey showed that 
54 per cent of the survey camps were in violation of this 
provision. The responses revealed that undrained rainwater, as 
well as water collecting from faucets, wells, showers, laundry 
tubs, and septic tanks, were the primary sources of the mois- 
ture that was observed. Ditches and depressions on the camp 
topography further added to the problem of poor drainage. 

Although standing water resulting from poor or non- 
existent drainage systems might on first impression appear to 
be of minor importance, it is a condition which encourages a 
large mosquito and insect population. When added to factors 
such as poor screening and other unsanitary conditions dis- 
cussed below, this problem significantly fosters a major health 
problem in the camps. 



4862 



Debris 

51 per cent of the camps inspected were found to have 
debris and trash strewn about the camp area. Although the 
presence of debris is an admittedly subjective determination 
to be made by the inspectors, this finding gains considerable 
credence in view of the finding that 30 per cent of the camps 
lacked the adequate number of garbage cans as required by the 
regulations, while another 53 per cent indicated that the 
garbage cans were not properly sealed to protect against in- 
sects, rats and vermin. 

Several other observations further explain the presence 
of the debris observed in most camps. While state regulations 
require that garbage be collected at least once a week, only 41 
per cent of the camps complied with this requirement. Moreover, 
in one- third of the instances where compliance was found, it 
was learned that it was the migrant worker who was responsible 
for collecting the garbage, rather than the operator or local 
sanitation officials. 



- 9 - 






4863 



Recreational Area 

The regulations require that "the camp shall include a 
space for recreation reasonably related to the size of the 
camp and type of occupancy." The results of the Michigan survey 
showed that, in 37 per cent of the camps, no recreational area 
was provided. This finding takes on significance when consid- 
ered in conjunction with the fact that the typical migrant worker 

traveling to Michigan brings his family (the average household 

6 
size being 6.5 members) which includes many young children. 

While it is commonly reported that children under age 12 have 

been found working in the fields, it is important that when they 

are left by themselves, a recreational area is provided in 

which they may play. 

Adequate and Safe Water Supply 

The health regulations require that each camp have "an 
adequate and convenient water supply." The Procedural Manual 
for Sanitarians , also published by the Department of Public 
Health, is more specific in this respect in stating that "cisterns, 
springs, ponds or open streams shall not be used as a source of 
potable water." Yet, it is significant to point out that in 15 



10 - 



4864 



per cent of the camps, the inspectors found the water to be 

"unsafe," because of unusual, often rusty colorations of the 

water, unpleasant odors and excessive sediments. 

The following table illustrates the extent of illegal 

water sources on the camps: 

TABLE I: 
Illegal Sources of Potable Water 

(1) Cistern, spring pond or open 
streams 3 camps (27.) 

(2) Hand- pump with open top or 

open spout wells 47 camps (327.) 

(3) Open top wells 8 camps (57.) 

Perhaps even more shocking is the fact that, in many 

cases, well water was located within 75 feet of unsanitary 

facilities in disregard of the provisions set forth in the 

Manual . The following table indicates the number of camps where 

wells providing drinking water were located too close to the 

various unsanitary facilities: 

TABLE II: 
Camps Where Drinking Well is Located 
Within 75 Feet of Unsanitary Facilities 

(1) Privy 30 camps (20 7.)* 

(2) Septic tank 8 camps (57.) 

(3) Till field 5 camps (37.) 

(4) Other sewage or waste areas 16 camps (117.) 

♦Percentage calculated out of total survey group. 

- 11 - 



4865 

Another indication of the inadequacy of water facili- 
ties relates to their accessibility. The regulations require 
that a cold water supply be located within 100 feet of each 
sleeping facility. Not only were 16 per cent of the camps in 
violation of this provision, but in only 17 per cent of in- 
stances reported was there a water source piped directly into 
the dwellings. Furthermore, where the water was not piped 
into the units, it was the migrants' responsibility to carry 
the water which, as was already pointed out, could be from 
over 100 feet away. Finally, in so far as the sufficiency of 
the water is concerned, 18 per cent of the camps were found to 
lack enough water to meet the drinking, cooking and washing 
needs of the migrant occupants. 

The seriousness of the overall violations relating to 
water supply cannot be underplayed. The compounding of many 
violations in this category including improper and unsanitary 
water sources, the often distant proximity of the water supply, 
and the insufficiency in the amounts of water available, 
presents a rather bleak picture. 






- 12 



4866 



Housing Structures 

This category includes both the type of housing provided 

in the camps and the structural condition of these units. 

Many types of housing units were seen during the course of the 

survey, and some camps contained several types of structures. 

The following table lists the kinds of units which were found, 

as well as the number of camps where these units were seen: 

TABLE III: 
Types of Housing Units Found Provided 
to Migrant Workers and their Families 



(1. 


i Cabin 


(2: 


Motel 


(3. 


) Shed 


(4 


i Farmhouse 


(5. 


i Barn or Garage 


(6. 


i Quonset Hut 


(7 


) Bus 


(8 


i Trailer 


(9 


> Other types 



94 camps i 


;64%)* 


23 camps i 


;i6%) 


6 camps 1 


:«) 


2 7 camps i 


;i8%) 


18 camps 


;i2%) 


5 camps 


;3%) 


1 camp 


:i%) 


5 camps ■ 


:3%) 


7 camps i 


.57.) 



The above figures do not, however, describe the condition 
of the units. Although these figures are, in themselves, most 
revealing, additional information contained in the following 



*The percentage figures are based on the total survey group. 
Since various types of structures may be found on a given camp, 
these figures will total over 1007.. 



13 - 






4867 



table highlights the extent of disrepair and structural un- 
soundness of the houses: 

TABLE IV: 
Structural Defects in Migrant Housing 

(1) Leaky Roofs 43 camps (297.) 

(2) Leaky Walls 37 camps (257.) 

(3) Rough Floors 58 camps (397.) 

(4) Wet Floors 51 camps (347.) 

(5) Windows do not close 30 camps (207.) 

(6) Faulty Doors 47 camps (327.) 
To aggravate matters even further, where structural 

problems were found to exist, other data collected shows that 
little or no effort is made to make the necessary repairs. 
For example, the inspectors reported that broken windows are 
not replaced or repaired in 34 per cent of the camps. Further- 
more, in the 79 camps which have screens on all of the windows 
and doors as the regulations require, only 50 per cent of the 
residents indicated that any disrepair or malfunction in this 
respect would be rectified. 

Once again, these statistics can only be fairly appre- 
ciated when considered in conjunction with several figures cited 
earlier. The degree of structural unsoundness --particularly 
the extent of broken windows, those failing to shut, and the 



14 






4868 



lack of screening on windows and doors--cannot be regarded as 
providing protection against mosquitoes, other insects, and 
rodents. In view of the debris, puddles of water and other un- 
sanitary conditions found to exist in the camp, these structur- 
al defects can only contribute to the generally poor health of 
migrant laborers, as revealed by other studies indicating that 
the medical problems suffered by migrants are far above the 
national average. For example, it has been shown that the 
incidence of tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases among 
migrants is significantly higher than for any other group and 
that migrant mortality rate from these diseases was nearly two 
and one-half times the national average. It should, therefore, 
be emphasized that the statistics, like others presented 
throughout this report, have meaning apart from the figures 
themselves. 

Fire Safety 

The Michigan regulations require at least two means of 
escape in one-story dwellings. Nevertheless, the survey re- 
vealed that only 56 per cent of the camps had met this require- 
ment. Furthermore, all camps are required to maintain a means 
for extinguishing fires. Once again, the presence of some 



- 15 - 






4869 



form of fire extinguishing equipment was found in only 49 per 

cent of the camps. The following chart lists the various types 

of fire-fighting equipment that was provided to satisfy this 

requirement: 

TABLE V: 
Types of Fire Extinguishing Equipment 
Found on Migrant Camps in the Survey 
Camps. (Basis: 72 Camps indicating 
that such Equipment was Provided ) . 

(1) Fire Extinguishers 

(common cannister type) 25 camps (35%)* 

(2) Hose 36 camps (507.) 

(3) Bucket 20 camps (28%) 

I 

(4) Other types 5 camps (77,) 

♦Percentages listed exceed over 1007., as various types of 
equipment could be found on a camp. 

In spite of the general lack of adequate fire safety 
protection in those camps where the equipment is provided, it 
is also noteworthy to point out that only 26 per cent of the 
camps comply with another regulation requiring that the extin- 
guishers be placed within 100 feet of the unit. Had the dwell- 
ings been structurally sound and fire-safe, the situation would 
not be so acute, but it becomes alarming since most of the units 
consisted of easily ignitable wooden structures. The figures 
cited below regarding the cooking facilities, types of heating 



16 






4870 



components, and the condition of the lighting and wiring make 
the "tinder box" nature of these structures more clear. 

Cooking and Eating Facilities 

There are several regulations which define the broad cate- 
gory of cooking and eating facilities. They require that, when 
individual cooking is permitted in the dwelling units, "a cook 
stove or hot plate with not less than two burners" shall be 
provided. The regulations further require adequate food storage 
shelves and counters for preparation; mechanical refrigeration 
that will maintain a temperature of not more than 45 degrees 
Fahrenheit; and a sufficient number of tables to accommodate 
the capacity of the shelter. 

The following observations were made with respect to the 
above requirements: Cooking was permitted in the individual 
units in 128 or in 86 per cent of the camps. In all of these 
dwellings a cooks tove was provided. However, 20 per cent of 
the camps were without sufficient food storage shelves or work 
counters and 31 per cent lacked sufficient tables and chairs to 
accommodate the occupants. Another 17 per cent lacked any re- 
frigeration whatsoever. 

Although these figures might appear a bit confusing, 
especially in view of the 100 per cent compliance in providing 



- 17 



4871 



the required cooks toves as contrasted with the deficiencies 
in other respects, the reason for this inconsistency becomes 
apparent upon the presentation of one additional factor to be 
enumerated upon in future discussion -- i.e., overcrowding. 
For present purposes, however, it is important to realize that 
while the units themselves may contain the required pieces of 
equipment, the overcrowding of people into the housing units 
renders them generally inadequate to accommodate the large 
numbers that actually use the facilities. Although the 
licenses specify the maximum number of occupants allowed in 
the camp, it is noteworthy that in twenty instances the actual 
occupancy exceeded the licensed occupancy. In view of the fact 
that licenses were posted or observed in only 83 of the total 
survey camps, these twenty camps take on added significance. 

Lighting and Wiring 

Nearly all of the camps in the Michigan survey were pro- 
vided with electricity. Only one camp out of the 148 group 
total was not electrified. The regulations, however, go far be- 
yond the mere requirement of furnishing electricity. They 
specify, for instance, that there must be at least one wall plug 
in each room. Eighteen per cent of the camps indicated non- 
compliance in this respect. Whereas the yards and pathways, 

- 18 - 



4872 



privies, showers, dining halls and other common facilities 
are required to be adequately lighted, 62 per cent recorded 
violations of this provision. 

Another area of serious concern involves the electrical 
wiring provided in dining facilities and in the homes. 
Seventeen camps were found to have bare wires in the various 
units. Furthermore, in another eighteen camps these wires 
were exposed to paper, cardboard and other combustible mater- 
ials. In light of the deficiencies in the fire extinguishing 
equipment, as well as in the type of housing structures, the 
fire hazard which exists in the camps cannot in any way be 
understated. 

Heating 

The regulations require that shelters and commonly 
used rooms occupied before May 31 or after September 1 be pro- 
vided with heating capable of maintaining a temperature of not 
less than 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Although the data presented 
below is limited by the sample size -- i.e., most surveys were 
conducted during the summer when heat was not required -- there 
remains a basis for concluding that the heat furnished was 
inadequate. 

- 19 - 



4873 



Migrant labor is used throughout the year on the lower 
Michigan peninsula, although peak activity comes in the summer 
months. The bulk of the M.R.P. survey inspections were made 
during the peak period between June and August. However, 
twenty-four inspections were made before May 31, with the 
earliest occurring on April 24, 1969. In sixteen of these 
twenty-four camps, or two- thirds of them, migrants were present. 

Having seen that sizeable numbers of migrants are 
present in camps when there is a duty to provide heat, we can 
better examine the results of the overall survey which revealed 
that nearly 39 per cent of the camps lacked any form of heating 
mechanism. In a select group of 70 camps, an attempt was made 
to identify the type of heating system provided, and the re- 
sults of this effort are presented in the following table: 

TABLE VI: 
Heating Systems Provided Migrant 
Labor Camps. (Basis: 70 camps) 

(1) Furnaces 44 camps 

(2) Electric Heaters 6 camps 

(3) Cookstoves ^ camps 

(4) Other 3 7 cam P s 

Although earlier figures stated that 128 camps had been 
equipped with cookstoves, there may be several reasons to ex- 
plain why a total of only 44 camps indicated that the stoves 



20 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 23 



4874 



were also a heating source. Variations in the type of cook- 
stove, as well as in room size, may explain why the burners 
were not regarded providing sufficient heat. It is also 
possible that in some cases, for obvious reasons, the in- 
spectors did not consider a cookstove as an adequate heating 
system. 

Further analysis of the fuels used for heating illus- 
trates but another contributing factor to often discussed fire 
hazards on the camps. Out of a total of 70 camps (55 per cent) 
where heating was provided, the inspectors reported that in 
only 15 per cent of those camps did the system appear to be 
"safe." Although this figure is open to question for its sub- 
jectivity, the following figures on fuel sources help to ex- 
plain the inspectors' reports: 

TABLE VII : 
Fuel Sources for Heating in 70 
Camps where Heating, was Provided. 

(1) Kerosene 5 camps 

(2) Oil 5 camps 

(3) Coal 1 camp 

(4) Wood 9 camps 

(5) Butane 40 camps 

(6) Other 31 camps 



21 - 



4875 



Overcrowding 

The fact that overcrowded conditions exist in the 
camps has been mentioned previously. One reason for this 
condition could lie in the fact that in nearly one-fourth of 
the camps the number of occupants exceeds the maximum occu- 
pancy permitted under the license. The determination of 
allowable occupancy is made by the Agricultural Licensing 
Camp Unit (ALCU) of the State Department of Public Health on 
the basis of square footage of living space available in all 
of the dwelling units combined . For example, if a camp had 
only two houses, the first having adequate space to house 
legally eight persons and the second house could accommodate 
only two persons, and if two families each having a household 
of five moved into the camp, there would be no violation of 
the regulations even though one family of five is living in a 
unit which could accommodate only two persons. 

The factor of overcrowding is clearly evidenced from 
the shortage of available bed space. Table VIII, based on 
statistics obtained from 55 camps, shows that in a majority of 
instances, more than two persons sleep in a single bed. 



22 






4876 



TABLE VIII: 
Average Number of Persons Sleeping 
in One Bed . (Basis: 55 Camps) 

One to Two Persons 14 camps 

Two persons 12 camps 

Two to Three Persons 9 camps 

Three Persons 9 camps 

Four or more Persons 13 camps 

Furthermore, in 68 per cent of the camps surveyed, it 
was learned that children over six years old are sleeping in 
the same room with their parents, contrary to the regulations 
which specifically provide that "a family having one or more 
children over six years of age shall have a partitioned sleep- 
ing area for the husband and the wife." In 34 camps, the 
children sleep in the same bed with their parents, while it 
is not within the confines of this report to discuss the 
psychological ramifications of overcrowding and lack of 
privacy, it should suffice to say that these conditions hold 
the potential for creating serious problems in the future. 

While the figures presented above may already appear 
somewhat disconcerting, it should be realized that migrants 
regard the opportunity of sleeping in a bed a privilege. 
Indeed, in 33 camps in the survey, migrants had nowhere else 
to sleep except in their automobiles or on the floors. 



23 - 



4877 



The regulations broadly state that there be "sufficient 
bed space consisting of comfortable, rigidly supported beds, 
cots or bunks." The array of statistics clearly suggests that 
this requirement has not been met by the operators. 

Bathing Facilities 

The work of the migrant worker is spent largely in the 
fields, being exposed to dust, dirt and pesticides, some of 
which may be harmful to his health. In spite of this fact, 30 
per cent of the camps were found to be without bathing facili- 
ties of any sort. In the 94 camps where bathing facilities 
were available, only 65 had hot and cold water under pressure. 
Additional potential violations were recorded in 24 camps in 
this group because the facilities were located over 200 feet 
from the dwelling units. More than half of the 94 camps had 
less than one shower head for each 15 persons as the regula- 
tions shall also require. Furthermore, the inspectors found 
that, in a significant number of camps, the facilities were in 
an unsanitary condition. 

Nearly half of the 94 camps with bathing facilities did 
not have sufficient space for dressing and changing, adding 
further credence to the factor of overcrowding. Furthermore, 



24 



4878 



as in the case of garbage disposal, it was found that the 
migrants were often responsible for making the collection. 
In 42 camps where it was possible to gather information on 
this subject, 95 per cent of the respondents indicated that 
the migrant was charged with the responsibility. 

The regulations pertaining to adequate bathing facili- 
ties do not go into effect until January 1, 1971, although 
they do apply with respect to any camp built after July 1, 
1969. Thus, while the information collected fails to show 
present violations of the regulations, nonetheless, it does 
demonstrate inadequate and unsanitary bathing facilities 
presently do exist. 

Laundry Facilities 

Due to the nature of the migrant's work in the field, 
as well as the debris and unsanitary conditions existing in 
the camps, their clothing becomes considerably soiled and dirty. 
Nevertheless, only 40 per cent of the camps provided a place 
to wash clothes. Of this group, only half of the camps were 
supplied with hot and cold running water. Many camps lacked an 
ample number of tubs, trays or, in a few instances, washers. 

Once again, the regulations relating to adequate laundry 
facilities do not go into effect until January 1, 1971, except 



25 



4879 



for those camps constructed after June 1, 1969. Although they 
will require that laundry facilities be available, that they be 
supplied with hot and cold running water under pressure, and 
lay down specific ratios governing the number of tubs and trays 
per adult occupant, this new regulation has little bearing on 
the immediate problem. There is also little reason, based on 
past history and experience, to believe that the camp operators 
will take voluntary steps to fulfill these requirements ahead of 
schedule, especially where there are so many violations in those 
areas where the regulations are now in force. 

Toilet Facilities 

Toilets pose one of the greatest health hazards in the 
camp. Only 22 per cent of the survey camps indicated that a 
toilet was provided for each of the housing units. In these, 
and in the remaining camps, common privy facilities were provided. 
The common privy facility is, typically, the outhouse. The regu- 
lations specify that where central facilities exist, a toilet or 
privy seat shall be provided for each sex in a ratio of at least 
one unit for each fifteen adults. A urinal may be substituted 
for a toilet seat in the case of male adults. Only 56 per cent 
of the camps indicated compliance with this provision. 

- 26 - 



4880 



In approximately one-half of the camps there were no 
separate facilities for men and women, also contrary to the regu- 
lations. Other violations pertaining to inadequate or unsanitary 
toilet facilities under the Public Health regulations are listed 
on the following table: 

TABLE IX: 

Miscellaneous Violations Pertaining 

to Toilet Facilities 

Violation No. of Camps 

(1) Poorly lighted 118 camps (807.) 

(2) Inadequately ventilated 102 camps (697.) 

(3) Toilet paper and holders 

not provided 106 camps (727.) 

(4) Privies are not fly tight 93 camps (637.) 

(5) Privy closer than 50 feet 
to dwelling or cooking 

unit 57 camps (397.) 

(6) Nearest privy located 
over 200 feet from the 

living unit 26 camps (187.) 

The regulations also require that the toilets be "impervious 
and maintained in clean condition." The inspectors found this in 
only 35 per cent of the camps . Perhaps a reason for the lack of 
cleanliness is due to the failure to annually lime the pits. Only 
20 camps indicated that this procedure had been done. 



27 - 



4881 



Once again, these violations should be considered in con- 
junction with deficiencies observed in other aspects of migrant 
housing. For example, the fact that the privies were not ade- 
quately sealed against flies in 93 camps takes on added meaning 
in view of the puddles and dampness, the debris and garbage, and 
other unsanitary conditions which further encourage the likeli- 
hood of large insect populations. When weighed against the 
figures on the number of broken windows, windows which fail to 
close, faulty doors and lack of screening, this leaves the migrant 
with very little protection. 

The issue of who is charged with the responsibility for 
maintaining the standards set forth in the Public Health regula- 
tions has been mentioned several times throughout this discussion. 
Once again, the same question was raised as it specifically 
related to the cleaning of privy facilities. Out of a total of 
79 responding camps, 82 per cent stated that this responsibility 
rested with the migrant. Furthermore, in 48 camps where the 
question was posed, 58 per cent indicated that the migrants dug 
the pits for the outhouses . 



28 - 



4882 



Michigan Employment Security Commission Study 

It was learned that of the 148 camps surveyed, 14 of them 
were believed to house migrants who had been recruited through 
the Michigan Employment Security Commission. The legal significan 
of this method of recruitment was discussed earlier. When an em- 
ployer seeks the assistance of the State employment agency, the 
Federal regulations on minimum housing standards set forth by the 
U.S. Department of Labor must be met. Basically, these are exactlj 
the same as the state regulations enunciated by the Michigan Depart 
ment of Public Health. 

It is highly noteworthy to point out that these 14 camps 
averaged 13.8 violations per camp, in contrast to 15.3 violations 
for the overall survey. This indicates that when the camps come 
under the jurisdiction of Federal regulations, the conditions appea 
to be somewhat better. Since the standards and enforcement mechani 
isms are virtually the same, the better showing of the federally 
regulated camps can be attributed to the slightly more effective 
sanctions available against growers using the federal system. 



- 29 - 



4883 



Footnotes 



The United Migrants For Opportunity, Inc. (UMOI) is a 
private non-profit corporation funded by the Office of 
Economic Opportunity under Title III-B. The UMOI was 
organized to provide a variety of social services to 
migratory and seasonal farmworkers in Michigan. 

R. 325. 1501-15. These regulations were promulgated by 
the Department of Public Health pursuant to Michigan 
Compiled Laws, § S 286.621 - 286.633. The Act sets 
forth the conditions governing the granting of a license 
to an operator of any agricultural labor camp occupied 
by five or more workers and their dependents. The 
criteria for determining whether or not a license shall 
be granted is set forth in the regulations. Any further 
reference in the text to either the licensing pro- 
visions or the regulations may be found in the above 
sections . 

20 CFR 602.9(d). 

The Migrato r y Farm Labor Problem in the United States- 
1969 Report of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 
made by its Subcommittee on Migratory Labor pursuant ^o 
S. Res. 222, p. 120 /Hereinafter cited as 1969 Report/ . 
The table appearing here lists those counties having 
approximately 100 or more seasonal agricultural workers 
and family dependents that migrated into Michigan during 
1967-68. 20 of the 23 counties in the survey appeared 
on the list. 

For a more thorough discussion on the issue of access 
into migrant labor camps, see Spriggs , '"Access of Visitors 
to Labor Camps on Privately Owned Property," 21 U. of 
Fla. L. Rev. 295 (1967). 

1969 Report, p. 11. This figure is the average household 
size for migrant households in Texas, the home base state 
for the bulk of Michigan's migrant population. 

Migrant Health Program-Current Operational and Additional 
Needs, prepared for the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 
December, 1967, p. 15. This report contains a wealth of 
valuable statistics concerning the grave health problems 
confronting migrant workers and their dependents. 

- 30 - 



4884 



APPENDIX A 



Federal and State Laws and Regulations 
For Agricultural Labor Camps 

Both the Federal Government and the State of Michigan 
have promulgated housing standards to be met by the operators 
of agricultural labor camps. 

A. Federal Standards 

The Federal involvement with migrant workers' hous- 
ing problems has been one of long-standing interest and little 

action. Recommendations for action have been made by Presidents' 

1 
Commissions and Interagency Committees since 1946. By 1956, 

President Eisenhower's Committee on Migratory Labor had issued 

a draft housing code as a guide for State employment agencies, 

farmers and civic groups in their efforts to secure voluntary 

improvements. Finally, in 1968, compliance with these standards 



1 

A work group of the Federal Interagency Committee on 
Migratory Labor, appointed in 1946, developed a bill granting 
authority to state labor commissioners to regulate labor camps, 
and suggested language for a labor camp code. The President's' 
Commission on Migratory Labor, appointed in 1950, made recom- 
mendations in 1951 for improvement of housing and other conditions 
of migratory farm labor. "Housing for Migrant Agricultural 
Workers: Labor Camp Standards," Bulletin 235, United States De- 
partment of Labor (November 1962), p. 3. 

2 
Id. at 3-4. 



4885 



was made a condition of access to the interstate recruitment 

facilities of the United States Training and Employment Service 

3 
(USTES). 

The actual standards are considered minimal, and are so 

designated in the language of the regulations. They are applied 

to deny interstate recruitment only to growers in states whose 

4 
codes are less stringent. They are, for the most part, sup- 
planted by Michigan's regulations, which are comparable and, in 

5 
a few instances, more stringent. 

To appreciate the impact of the Federal policy, it is 
necessary to review the procedures for interstate recruitment. 
Early each year growers apply to offices of the Michigan Employ- 
ment Security Commission (MESC) for work orders, specifying the 



20 CFR § 602.9, 620.1, et se£. USTES is the successor 
to the former Bureau of Employment Security of the Manpower 
Administration of the Department of Labor. 

4 20 CFR § 620.1(b). 

Michigan regulations are published in booklet form, and 
may be obtained from the Michigan Department of Public Health, 
Agricultural Labor Camp Unit, Division of Engineering. The 
Federal and Michigan standards vary in their detailed specifica- 
tions for certain items. In some instances, the Federal standards 
are more stringent; for example, the Federal minimum standard for 
the dimensions of windows to be available as fire exits specifies 
a larger window than the Michigan Rule. Compare Rule 325.1508 
with 20 CFR § 620.17. Our conversations with USTES officials in 
Washington confirm that USTES policy is that both sets of regula- 
tions are to be used by inspectors, who are directed to apply the 
stricter standard for each item. 






4886 



type of work and the number of workers required, and certifying 
that the housing provided is in compliance with the regulations. 
Most of these orders are placed during the first four months of 
the year. Once approved, the orders are forwarded to the cen- 
tral State office of the MESC in Detroit, and from there to the 
corresponding offices in the "supply States." No order may be 
cleared by a local office until a housing form has been signed 
by an authorized inspector and by an MESC official approving 
the inspection. Variances may be obtained only from the USTES 
Regional Administrator in Chicago, only where livable space 
would otherwise be wasted and "appropriate alternative measures 
have been taken to protect the health and safety of the 
employee. ..." 



The conditions, more fully stated, are that the "extent 
of the variation is clearly specified," and that the Regional 
Administrator is satisfied that: 

"... (1) such variation is necessary to 
obtain a beneficial use of an existing facility, 
(2) the variation is necessary to prevent 
a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, 
and (3) appropriate alternative measures have 
been taken to protect the health and safety of 
the employee and assure that the purpose of 
the provisions from which variation is sought 
will be observed." 20 CFR § 620.3(a). 



- 3 



4887 



In practice, the Federal policy is not effectuated. Local 

MESC officials make some inspections on their own, but usually 

rely on the work of State and local inspectors. USTES approval 

of an inspection involves no more than a cursory review, based on 

7 
the inspector's own statement of his findings. The USTES Regional 

Administrator may grant a variance without requiring a statement 

of the 'alternative measures" promised by the camp operator, as is 

required. No very systematic effort is made to see that these 

promises are kept. If facilities are not maintained during the 

season, there are no effective penalties levied against camp 

operators. If a violation is reported, the MESC may cancel an 

employer's work order; but by the time this has occurred, the work 

has been advertised for some time, and needy workers are likely 

to arrive despite the cancellation. 

The initial inspection, then, almost entirely determines 

the efficacy of the Federal policy, and the Federal officials 

here readily delegate their duties. 



Prior to 1970, MESC officials relied exclusively on the 
work of inspectors employed by the Michigan Department of Public 
Health or county and local agencies. This year, until mid-April, 
MESC officials accompanied Michigan inspectors pursuant to a 
USTES effort to secure better enforcement of the housing standards, 
This practice has been discontinued; however, MESC officials will 
make spot-checks on camps housing workers recruited through USTES 
facilities. 



4888 



B. Michigan Standards 

All of Michigan's migrant labor camps are governed by 
the general provisions of Public Act 289 of 1965, and by the 
regulations promulgated in 1969 by the Department of Public Health 
These regulations, as noted, also constitute the standard of eli- 
gibility for Federal recruitment. 

Each camp must be inspected annually, and a permanent or 

temporary license is granted upon a finding that a camp and its 

"proposed operation . . . conforms or will conform" to the 'minimu 

8 
standards" set forth in the rules. 

Licenses may be suspended or revoked when violations are 

9 
discovered. For several reasons, revocation procedures afford 

no real protection to the workers. First, most camps are inspecte 

only once a year, before the season of occupancy. This casts the 

burden upon the workers to complain of deficiencies not apparent 

to an inspector visiting an empty camp, or deteriorations related 

to occupancy which are, nonetheless, the legal responsibility of 

10 
the camp operator. Many workers simply do not know the procedur 



8 

Michigan Compiled Laws § 286.624. 

9 Michigan Compiled Laws § 286.627. 

*-Q Rule 325.1505 assigns responsibilities to camp operators 
and occupants. The division is not as sharp as it may appear at 
first, as may be seen by reading several of the rules, together 
with this one. 



4889 



for complaining. Most of them are Mexican -Americans , unable to 
read the licenses posted in the camps, which are in English. 
Being away from their own homes, the workers cannot take the pro- 
prietary attitude toward local governmental institutions that 
resident citizens have. They also fear, for good reason, that 
seeking redress through local law enforcement or public health 
officials will cost them their jobs. 

Again, where a complaint is made, the camp operator may 
demand a hearing with ten days' notice, and may appeal an adverse 
ruling to the courts. Since the workers stay in one place only 

for a period of weeks, sub-standard conditions may well persist 

11 
until the work is finished and the workers move on. 

Finally, it would seldom be in the workers' interest to 

have a camp closed in mid-season, since it would burden them with 

finding new housing and, often, new employment. 



Michigan Compiled Laws § 286.627. Section 286.632 now 
authorizes the State Health Commissioner, through the Attorney 
General, to sue for injunctions against the operation of camps 
whose licenses have been revoked or suspended. House Bill 4362, 
pending at this writing in the Michigan legislature, would allow 
such actions to be brought, without the assistance of the Attorney 
General, against camp operators who have never been licensed, as 
well as those who have lost their licenses. The proposal, clearly 
a worthy one, does not address the key problem of delay. 






36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 24 



4890 



The basic legislation provides that violation of its pro- 

12 
visions, or of the regulations, is a misdemeanor. Still, al- 
though statistics are not now available, the experience of people 
active in the field of farm workers' problems is that prosecutions 
are rarely brought, and that convictions rarely result in the sort| 
of sentence that could deter future violations. A recalcitrant 

operator would find it far cheaper to pay fines, even year after 

13 
year, than to make the needed improvements in his housing. 

The remaining available remedy would involve greater reli- f 
ance on civil actions for damages or injunctive relief against the 
camp operators. However, migrants cannot afford the legal fees, 
nor can they remain for the duration of the litigation without 
foregoing needed employment at other areas. Similarly, they could! 
not return as witnesses in such litigation from their distant 
homes during periods when they have little income. 

Thus, Michigan's policy, like that of the Federal system, 
must rely almost totally upon the stringency of the inspections in| 
order to effectively enforce the housing regulations. 



12 Michigan Compiled Laws § 286.633. 

13 

In a 1968 case in Grand Traverse County, a grower was 

fined $35.00 for operating a camp without a license. In Antrim 
County, a grower who pleaded guilty on two counts was fined $75.00 
and sentenced to 90 days in jail, but the jail sentence was sus- 
pended. Not surprisingly, there appear to be no cases in which 
growers have actually served time for violations, however egregious 



u g 

o co 



4891 





50 






c 






•^ 


w 


'4-1 


XJ 


a 


o 


B 


5 







cO 


S-S 


a.cj 




(0 













ad 





* * * m 
<r i*i h 

vD i-l <J 







«* 




--I 


a 


vO 






^O 


14 


-J 




C-J 


Q) 


U] 




111 








l-i 


CO 




■U 








0) 


0) 




tO 









c ££ 



CO 00 

<4-l C 
1-1 o- 

<u > 3 



Q ^h o Han 









-a 


01 c 




01 


3 


■WH 5 


-a 






01 41 


til 


k 


£ 


O 


« 0) CO 


V 






x: c 


01 


u 


'-O 


OS 3 b 


4-1 


O" 


<u 


U -i-l 


•I-l 


•u 








03 


V 


M 


to- 


-^ (0 


CO 


c 






O 


4) 


<d 


la U 


cd u 


3 


o 


J3 





4892 





oo 




c 




•rl CO 


y-i 


•u a 





c e 




O CO 




AO 




co 




<u 




at 



****** 

6~! 8~* B-S 5*S g-S B-S 
H N N -J- 



* * * 

5-S ^S 5-S fri 

MNC1J 

conh 



^ « a 
one 
. 3 * 

*-! H O 



r-l ^NtljMO 



Ovinciio is ^ 





jz a. 




CO CO >-. -H 




co s-i >-i iJ a 


c 


3 «t) «£ e 


o 


J3 3 c r-t y -h 


•H 


to O 3 -i-l J-> CO 


CO 


a --o J H Q a 


0) 




3 




o 





25 



0) <4-l 






co e>- 


0) 0) 


£ o 


c 




c -a 


X! J-» 


•u 


•r-i 


c— 


co at 


U o 


U 




CO 


o u 


a 


01 CD 


en 


a) 


V 


CO r-l 


fc -O 


c 


Vj 


<u > 


•H ,-1 



H J) IJ u < U 



3 n 



0) .y 

01 01 

3 0) 

3 



01 Jd cj Oi co - 
l-i cu i-l o co C 

&% £5 33 








w 




01 




w 




c 




o 




a, 


c 


00 


o 


0) 


•z. a 



60 




c 




•f< 


M 


«-l "O 


a 


O C 


E 


O 


n3 


R-S A U 


ca 




01 




peS 





4893 





ao 




c 




•i-( U] 


IH 


•a a 


O 


c e 




O CO 


s~? 


a. u 




CO 




0) 




a! 



O cfl 
B-S H O 






M 


M 


4) 


4> 


> 


a 


O 


o q 


u oo 


■ a 


C 


vi e 


ed <-< 


0) -a 


U « 


3 -^ 


60 o 


o at 


SS 


U i-l 
CJ IM 



C "O to 

01 CO 4) 41 

H .-I 41 U 

< P. 3 CO 



a 


<>• 




O- 


(0 


E 




n) 


Ol 


o 


u 




0) 


Ol 


£ £ 



4) 60 60 










■> 


4J C C 






60 




00 


flrl-HC- 






c 




.5 


»^£ a 


0) 




•H 




c a e 


>H 




^ 




>J 


j: -h to «o 


<fl 




c 




a. 


aO u 3 o 


W 




•H 




w 


3 TJ 






u 






o "O at 


l-l 




■a 






C 0) C -G 


0J 








E 


41 J3 CO U 


■U 




MH 




u 


CO 


c^- 







0) 


4) - u-t 


3 ^ 






u 


HJ too 




C 


CO 




CO 


41 4) C 


tt) 


•H 


4) 




■H 


jC 41 i-l CO 


j= 


u 


o 


1-1 


U 


U g^T) 


aj 


-o 


Ij 


01 




O 4) 






3 


u 




CO O O 4) 


Ul 








(0 


« 


M u o C 


M 


u 


CO 


3 


' — 








w 









in 




C 







1 


a 


c 


<n 


o 


01 


2 OS 



4894 



S-S B-S S-S 

vO -J vO 

r>. ctv o> 



vO 0> r-t 

so r— oo 





00 




c 




•H 0) 


IM 


•a a 


O 


c e 




o eg 


s-S 


a. o 




(0 




a> 




as 



u e 

O 01 
H O 



•a c c 

c 01 0) 

« a. o. 

X o o 



r-l 0) l-» 4J 41 4) U 

0) 3 .* 004J C 

60-W O fl) r-l 3 C[) 

O. C J2 U«ltl3 00<-l 

O -H 4J >>, -r4 CO C->-l 

4J j{ »l fi •• O 1-1 "O -H O 

C 3 « 00 >>-^ M -rl C W 

C -rl C > J-» r-l 0) 3 -rJ 

o) v* , o<«'i-i'HO-r-(j3tr(do) 

a. •o«03m«^u-hI(£ 
O 4-1 OhHHO'Ht) u 

«1 Cfl 4J r-l 
^\ O 0) r-l /-\/-\/~»^ 

U COOOIOCO.ao'O 



s i 



4J H "O 




H Q. 






■rl <*■< r-l 




0) J3 O 




0) C 


§ u O 




4J o 0> 




> 3 




HI fl o. 




cfl o 


0) 




3 0) 




£ 


00 0) 4J 




0) 




u 


S"W CO 




MO H 




CO i-l 


•H 01 




C u 0) 

•3c£ 




VI 01 


r^ O W 






0) X, 


r^ O O 




C -h 3 




X, *J 


fl) H p4 


r-. 


C 




rl 


3 O 


H 


313 01 


c^« 


O X 


•o c 


01 


U 0) O 


0) 


3 rl 


tfl 01 


u 


Q. (0 


> 


S 


U3 -C -C 


<fl 


CO -fl r-l 


•H 


S3 


HUM 


3 


M Q. Q.r-1 



a q 

Z A, 

w 



4895 





to 




a) 




g 




3 




4J 


c 


U 





3 


•w 


H 


u 


ii 


en 


c/j 


4) 




3 


w 


O 


c 




•H 




M 




3 









s 



oo 

■5-S 

en o> 
3 -O 
O •* 
J2 > 



oo>£u«MhOnidj: 

caofiacd 3 3 >i *j 

oa (ouxcnCbttO'cQHO 

Q.1-1 /-\ ^~N /~V ^\ ^-» /-\ /-\ /-» /-> 
>-. G «J3 CJ T> 0) M-l O0.C -H 
H 3 ww n^ w w v-* >w s^ v-» 



M 




efl 




i-i 


>M U « 




3 




44 


o -h j: 










c *J 




V 




V 


C 3 




X! 




J3 


O (0 




4J 




U 


tI M« 








e— 


4J C 

T-l •.-! Q 


c^» 


a 


C^' 


0) JS 

M 4J 


•a » 


M 




.* 


O 


C 3 /-n 


cO 




CO 


/-s O 


O «J 


a> 


J3 


o> 


o G 


O X ^ 


l-l 


>-^ 


.-I 


•>-' 01 



o 


cil to 


01 c>» 


r-l 


3 0) 


jC 01 


<4-l 


r-t 


u o) 




at u 


o 


<u 


£. 


.-1 r-l 


£, 


t> >, 


r^ y 


4J c>. 


i-l 


CO 


U 


C -rl 


(0 


sg 


CO en 
U cfl 


So 




0) 


"0 


/■»» 4J 




m -5 


•o <1) 


01 (1) 


— ' 60 


--'JO 


W J 



4896 



cm co a 

o u e 

O co 

?-« H O 



2 A. 




W 




Hi 




PLl 


00 


< 


c 




•H 0) 




cm -a a 




o c e 





? 


* * * * 

«-? 5"* S-S S-S 

m o oo r>» 


00 

•5 

co 

B 
co 




s-s s~s ^s &^ 

I s * <* -4- CI 


co 



0) 

c o 
at co 

^ 1-1 C-. 

O O.T3 
m a) <u 
x> u u 



o 

■H 


CD CO 
M S 


n) 


■u 


< o 


(V 


0) 


•o 


h 


m 


<-» c 




3 


00 -H 


w 


O 


w 3 






(0 

U "D 

o a) 
o c 
•o a) 
a 
« o 
jc 

4J -O 

e 

o> ttj e» 

•3 T3 H 

i-l -M 

<-s^-l 10 

-C O CO 

v-/ 01 0) 





c 


CO 




0) o- 


C •» 




O. CO 


0) c 




u 


01 O 




o 


M -H 




.-1 o 


O w 


a) 


r-l T3 


CO i-l 


m 


cd 


T3 


0) 


•o 


01 C 


£ 


c c 


JS O 


u 


O ctj 


U (J 


o> 


(0 CO 


0) -O 


< 


C 5 

01 o 
0) T3 


00 


^ 


H C 


^^ 



n-' CO » 



> 






co 


<u 




£ 


M 
•H 




CD 


CH 




4J 






•H 


cn 




S 


u 

CO 




.-1 


CO 


c- 


f-H 


01 


co 


CO 


I-l 


•u 



CM 




u-| vO 


o 


CO 




I-. 




CM 


ro 


CN 




•o 


>> 












01 


(0 c- 


i 










u 


9 co 


O 


CO 








CO 


01 


M M 


H 








F-l 


CO U 


co a. 


0) 








3 


S 


JC 


J2 








o 


0) <M 


3 co 


CO 








rH 


H 


i-l 


•I-l 








CO 


■ • 0) W 




3 








O 


<j j: a 


O « 


oo 




4J 






c « o 


CO C 


c 




0) 


H 


CO 


0) 


0) 


•r^ 


0) jrf 


01 


0) 


S CO M 


cm B •• 


•U 


GO 


o 


£ 


00 


O.M 3 


M 0.-0 


X 


o 


3 


u 


CO 


•w a 


i-l 0) 


Cd 


s 


CO 


O 


4J 


3 >~n 


ss. 3 TS 










e 


cr co o 


js cri-i 










4) 


H ^" « 


d oi > 










O 



4897 



41 

O to 

U O 3 

C nH O 

01 X 

B C 

<H £ O 

3 4J Cd 

tr-H 4) 
4) 3 



■r-l 


4) 


•a o 


u 


x: 


4) 


03 


u 


cj u 


41 




CO 4) 


a 


u> 


r-l 4) 


o 


M 


o-y-i 



co 4) 3 

h J O 

4) O JZ 






.C co 

•r-l 4) 

3 C 



.. 4J CN 

50 CO 

C .* 4-> 

•rH O CO 

O CJ 4) 



< >*-l O 3 < > 



k -h o cd -u 



U T3 




00 o 


■H g 


4J c 


co C 




C J-> 


o tj ca 


cd o 


cd 




i-i cd 


•w c m 


3 •<-< 


TJ 


en 


.* n 


CM « 


tr u 


O co 


U 


(J 4) 


<4-l 4) 


4) cd 


4) 


4) 


O 60 


3 in* 


•o f-1 


Eh > 


U 


S -H 


co gj u 


cd ft 


r-l 


§ 


n 


r-i 


4J 


^. 41 


^m 


/-N.O n 


/-% C 


.O JC 





y 41 


•a « o 


41 4) 



4898 



O i-l <0 

T* 3 

U TD O 

u CD X 

O XI 

« en a) ««- 

r^ 1-1 X 01 



HI 

73 01 

•i-l 5^ 

> CO 

O 3 

U X . 

CO 



u co 

x -o 



o) co g 

•^ X o 

> o 

•i-l 60 <>• 

._ U C U CO 

r-l >s O. -i-l cu CO 

C x <u 

01 c O tH U U 

M i-l tt T3 O CO 



<U ol 

l-i <u 

CO >-i 

X -.-I 
3 
CU 

»J r-l 

CU CO 

X O 

U -i-l 

u 

4) i-i 

n o 

< <U 



0) •> C O -rl 

X !-i W S-i <U <M O 

i-i 01 0) 3 X i-l 

Q.X X *-> >> U 

CD to i-i CO i-J 

ij a. o i-i o: a. (j 

< cfl 0) 4) 

O H X O O r-l 

^-v u o f Qua) 





Ul 




OJ 




en 




C 




o 


1 


u 


c 


c/1 


n 


(1) 


^ 


erf 



4899 



* * * * 

g-S g*S g*S 5*S 
CI <y\ <£> r<-> 



•X * * * * * 



pinriio 



ui u-| r- 1 (^ O i— I 



O w 
H 3 
D. O 

00 
C 4) 

U u 



UH W OH 3U 
H 3 o W tu O 



(1) 


(>• 


J3 


01 




IH 


4) 


01 


J3 


01 


tJ 






F= 


CO 


0) 



E 














01 


01 












u 


c 












01 


0) 








<U 




>, 


Ul 








C 


U 


10 


o 




^-1 


■3 


0) 


0) 




M 


H 


nj 


O 


4-1 


x; 



■rt 3 -w 

iDnmuiijju^o'H 

<D .C M <D ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ '-' 

s5«£ 





co 




QJ 




w 




c 







1 


a 


c 


co 


o 


0) 


Z OS 





oo 




c 




•H 0) 


IH 


xi a 


o 


C G 




o « 


£"! 


AO 




(0 




(1) 




aS 



4900 



***** 

5~S S-S g^ B-S 5-S 

tri CM VO *X> <t 
CM CM i-l i-l CM 



O 00 \0 ^O ON 



<f cm o~\ o\ co 





to 




C 


n 










V 




•■-1 


•h 










1-1 


o 




a> 






cd 




l-l 




O-Xi 




O.C- 






•H 


VJ 


a> 


4-1 




41 CO 


C 




e 


a> 


0) 






41 4-i 


CM t4 




<o 


> 


.-I 


CO 




r-l C 


O 




CM 


o 


CO 


flj 




CO 41 


00 

n c 




H 


c 


C 


E 




e « 


41 T-1 




o 


D 


0) 


o 




o a. 


xi a. 




14-1 


)-l 


tl 


o 




u 


e 4i •• 






XI 


Xi 


u 




■o u 


3 41 XI 




CO 


.— 1 


--I 






i-l v-l 


C i-l 41 


01 


V 


•r-l 


•r-l 


4> 


c^- 


•i-l 01 


CO XI 


c 


CO 


JC 


x: 


e 


CO 


XI Xi 


4> 


•i-i 


3 


O 


o 


a) 


u 


CJ 4J 


00 41 4" 


XI 


O 






CO 


C 




Cfl l-l l-l 


3 


Xi 


x: 


u 




01 


*J X! 


u a. t* 


o 




u 


co 


4> 


l-l 


CO 4-1 


tt> o c 


M 


C 


•r4 


3 xi 


cfl 


3 -H 


> 41 t4 


a 


H 


3 


B 


u 


a 


2 3 


< a. co 


u 
















CD 
















> 


«tf 










u-i 


vO 


o 


CO 










CO 


CO 



XI XI XI XI 4) 

4) 41 l-l 

H XI U Xi Q 

4i 41 e 

a u a. m 

0) 41 U 

CM Cuco Cu O 
I I 

i-inn n-* 



r-l 


IM 


CO 


a. 




u 


o 


C 


n) 


CD 





o 


0, 








a. 


c 


4-1 


CJ 


•r4 


CO 


41 




3 


r-l 


Vj 


X 


CO 


o 





co 




0> 




</> 




c 




o 


1 


a 


c 


DO 





CD 


z ei 



4901 



c e 

O CO 

0.0 





u x; -a 




>-h oi 3 




■H- > 




y an 




4-1 T3 4J 




4) >, cfl 




O0T3 (U 3 


c 


C -H J3 


o 


•i-l > 4J -o 


•H 


J3 O r-l 


u 


U h O 


CO 


4) 


■O 


3 


0) /-N-O 


Oi 


M-l H etf c 




M D^K 










1 41 






u oo 






rl 




CO 


*-» C 


C 






O U 


CO 




2 c 






o 




01 01 


CO 01 


o 






u 


T3 




3 -h 










•r< n 


u e 








a. a) 


CO 




O (0 CO 






CO 




4-1 cd 


<o o 


X) 


a 




XI 


01 


<v* 


£ i-i co 






H 




•1-1 


a. 3 


01 


•i-i 




(I) 4J 


-C 


•u 


CO 0' 






o 


C-- 


i-l co 


OJ 


4J 


J3 




M 




G 


- u 




H e^. 





a 


•H U 


CO T3 


CO 


4J jz 




0) 01 


4-1 


co 


i-l "O TJ 




-o 


4-1 


o 


O 01 


B 


r-l 


"£ ° 




u 


o 


0, 


CO 01 




4-i 01 


CO 




4 3 


Oi co 


3 


3 m 




CO 0) 




3 


I-i CO 0) 




•o 




u 


4-1 O 


M 


CJ 


o> 




U J3 


M 


CJ 


■U p 4J 




2 *• 


01 


1-1 


£ 


01 C 


i-l 


>% 




01 4J 


4) 


o 


C CO 




^ > 


1-1 


CO 


01 CO 


-C 01 


CO 


0) 4-1 




» 


£t 


o 


01 co 3 




2 o 


0) 




u 


u 6 


CJ 


x: o 




O 01 






O'rl C 




2 u 


4 


o 


cO i-( 






u 




X n 




4J 


01 




.c p, 


4J 


u 


i-i a) 


01 M- 


CO 


4J 




to co 


C 


1-1 


cO OOTJ 










CO 14 


n 


01 


(U oi 








9 


C cO 




01 CO 


4) 


CO 


a. 4J 


(0 4-1 


00 


u oi 


*>• 


IM - 


■o 


■u 


4-1 i-l 


cv 


l-i 0) 


H 


41 


0) c 




cfl 


<j 4-1 


4> 


H x> 


01 


« 


M -O 01 


0J 


<: j= 


< J= 


C/J 01 


> 0) 


4-1 




CO 


01 


>-i 




r-4 U 


CJ 


<j 




CJ 


O 


T3 CO 


q 


--NO 


3 


^-vT3 


•i-i 


l-i 


/N-H « 


CO 


^N O 




c 




01 01 


4) 


o o 


o 


•a -h 


3 


01 


0) 3 JS 


a 


<4-l i-l 


00 01 


J3 4-1 


CO M 


CJ 


n-'CM 


J3 


V > 


cr 


B. 


s-^jO *-> 


CO 


w y 


w 


1? 


M 


3 CO 


H 





01 




4> 




01 




C 




o 


1 


a 


c 


</> 


o 


0) 


■z. 


aJ 





01 




0) 




01 




c 




o 


I 


a 


C 


oi 





4) 


Z a! 





00 




c 




•i-l oi 


tu 


XI J. 


o 


c e 




O to 


S~S 


O.CJ 




to 




o> 




aS 



4902 



tt 









01 01 




0) 




a. a. 




-C •• 




to « 




■U 01 






e 




o u 




01 O 05 






c 


COt) 




«* «N 


o 


cd M C 


01 


CJ\ <t 


•w 


01 <d 


M 




•u 


Hh h 


01 


e e 


U) 


y 01 t>0 




o o 


4) 


3 2j 






a 


2 




XI X" 


o^ 


11 




01 0) 






0) (0 








<d at 




d 

-* 




:? 



0) XI 


•H « 




•H c 


<4-l 01 




O 4J ed e" 


<U £ 




*J -H M 


3 3 c« 




^ u a) 


01 i-> 01 




0) -i-l o w 


M 




O O £ cd 


cd w o> 


01 


ed «d 3 


O J3 


a, 


r*e- <u £ 


01 01 


g 


a, oi u oo 


p M ed 


01 0) "rt C 

cd H £ 3 -H 


0) 01 3 


o 


•£ -2 




4J U C 


4J B XI 


CTN 


01 O X> g 

U r-l 4) 4) 3 


3 c 


m 


«gC«d 




tluh'Dh 


c 


jc ■< -h 


■ AJ CO 





4J J3 > X) 


c ►> 




»«OH 


/-* 01 ed 


XI 


til <d cd h o 


J3 •* Vi 


01 


m 3 >^ a o 


v- ' (J 4-1 


0] 



01 


c 




o 


> 


0) 




a 


td 


•H 


c--- 




5 -S~ 


o 


to 


0) C" 


•H 


rH 


** c 


>% u 


<4-l 


<d 


cd 0) 


J 4J-H 


>w -c 


•5 


u e 


cd -H 


3 co 


cd o 


oi 3 


M 


a.3 


<H 


D 


0) 


1*4 O oo 


cd *n 




CO XI 


x»S 




Vl 


c 


4) <M 


o 


4) Cd 


3 §3 


U o 




u 


0) 


to 


01 c 


4) 


£ u 


u 


fig 


£ 


u oi 


4) 


CO 0) 


A 


r-l 




41 U 41 


■31 


fl 


oi u 


s-^-s 


o 


u o 


c 


u 


<•« 





(f> 




01 




tn 




C 




o 




a 


c 


U) 





01 


2 


cc: 





en 




0) 




Ul 




C 







I 


a 


c 


w 





01 


■z 


ai 



4903 



c e 
o <d 



* * * 



w e 

o tfl 
H CJ 



0J 


a 


<o 


■H 4J 


^ V 


e^. 


3 


» 


o- 


> X 


> oj 


4-1 






n -o 


•H 60 


•H U-l 


•H 


0) 


DO 


01 01 


n -^ 


14 


c 


u 


4-1 


0.-0 


Q.4J 


Q.O 


p 


ai 


V 


(0 i-l 




U1 




»-( 


i-l 


a. > 


OJ >» 


>, 


00 


i-l 


1-1 C" 


o 


fc .-I 


C C 


C 





O 73 


■U H 


CO '-W 


cd eg 


•H 


4J 


4J oj 


a) a. 




jS 


W 


o- 


«j 


.-i 


0) >, 


01 4J 


3 


OJ T3 


01 <0 


•h ca 


I-l 0) 


h 


O 


£ 01 


£ r-l 


o u 


4) £ 


01 l-l 


x: 


4J u 


4J -r-l 


4J OJ 


jr 4J 


Si 01 




A 


4.) 


•o 


u 


4-> (0 


CO 


oj ao 


01 C 


01 r-l 


a) 


O 





< > < X! 



c o 


0) 


3 


rH 


4J 


•r4 


oo oj 


O 


C 0) 


4-1 


•H >4-l 




> 


u 


•H o 


01 


.-1 o 


0) 


CM 


l-i 


r-( 


CO 


-4 C 


01 


Q i-l 


c 


x; 




OJ 4-1 


41 


W -"I 


X 


< » 


4J 



01 


01 


c 




01 


C 


•H 


CO 


i-i 


c 


CO 


> 


u 


Ol 





01 


•H 


ati 






!-H 


h 


•W 







o 


o-S 


o 


z 


O T3 


^ 


^ 


^~. 


£ 


c 


CO 


x> 


o 


CO 


v ~' 


— ' 


*— ' 



4904 







c 











a 


o) 




o 


4) 




z as 




od 






C 






■r-l 


01 


y-i 


■v 


A 


o 


c 


1 



* * 

?4 if* 

O O 



s-s s< s< 8-S 6-* t>s 

O ^J CO 00 00 CM 
.-I CM CM r-l r-l 



a , 


01 Q. 


3 






01 0) 


01 




03 


r-( 


f-l CD 


c 




i 


CO 


to 


0) 


CO 


<d 


4J 


4J 4J 


•C 


4-1 


o 


•H f>. 


•nl O 


4-1 


c w 




Q. U 


a. o 




CO r-l 


CO 


CO 


IM 


01 


U (U 


<r 


01 4) 


0) 


00 


60 C 




J2 >> 


J= -H 


ft 


•H 5 


c 


u 

■C 
01 cj 


4J 

c 
a) crj 


"O 


£ O 





o 


/-V/-S 


T3 


u <o 


u si 


£ 


CO -O 


0> 


< 0) 


< « 


V^>S-/ 


0) 



0) 3 










« 


«T) rl 










V 


H -H o 










!>s 


0) CO 41 






>% 






» *-> H 






c 




H jC 


3 






tfl 




01 o 


CO o o 






a 




iw r-i cd 


u -5 






e 




4) a) 4) 


0i 6 3 






o 




•rl a) 


.* O 






o 




£ J3 CO 


UK" 








P 


*£n 


O >*-l 0) 






4) 


4) 


3 « 




CJ 


60 4J 


3 4) 3 a) 


•O tfl 




co 


V4 


•rH 


si d 4J s: 


41 01 4-1 
£O<0 


f>. 


S3 


3 


U U CD 4J 
UhcdO 


•U 1-1 


e 






u 




3 4) 


4) 






01 




«-4 u j: 


J2 


fl 


-O 


u 


UTJ «<rl 



H u U U v^ ^-* 



4905 



APPENDIX C 



Inspection Sheet 



Please answer as many questions as possible. 



Inspector's Name 



Date Inspected 



Inspector's Phone Number 



Name of Camp 

Location of camp: 

Be as specific as possible 
so a stranger could find it. 



County 



Owner s Name 



Nearest Town 



Nearest Street Name 
and Number 



Direction and Dis- 
tance from nearest 
town 



Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 



1. Are farm workers living in the camp now? 

2. Did you see the license or permit for the camp? 

(a) Is it posted for all to see in the camp: 

(b) How many people does the license say can 
live in the camp? 

(c) What is the license number of the camp? 

(d) How many people do you think can live in 
the camp? 

3. How many people in this camp are 12 years or older?_ 
How many people are under 12 years old? 



7R - . 0^ 



4906 



CAMP AREA 



Is the Camp well drained? (That is, free from 

swampy areas where mosquitoes can breed.) Yes No 

When it is not raining, is there water or wet 

areas on the ground? Yes No 

Is Yes, is this from: (make check marks) 



rain ( ) 
the well ( ) 
water faucets ( ) 



dish water ( ) 
septic tank ( ) 
showers ( ) 



laundry ( ) 
toilets ( ) 
ditch ( ) 
drain pipe ( ) 



6. Is there junk or trash in the camp area? Yes No 

7. Number of garbage cans in the camp area? 

(a) Are they tightly covered? Yes No 

(b) How often is garbage collected: (check one) 

twice a week? ( ) once a week? ( ) 



ire than twice a week? ( ) 



less than once a week? 
don ' t know ( ) 



8. Who collects the garbage ?_ 



9. Are there poisonous plants or poisonous weeds 
in the camp area? 

10. Is there a play area? 

WATER SUPPLY 



Yes 
Yes 



No 
No 



11. Is there enough water to meet the drinking, cooking, 

and washing needs in the camp? Yes 



12 



Is the water safe to drink? 
If No, why don't you think so_ 



Yes 



No 
No 



13. Does drinking water come from any of the following 

(a) cistern, spring, pond or open stream? Yes No 

(b) hand pump with open top or open spout? Yes No 

(c) open top well? Yes No 



- 2 



Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 



4907 



14. Is any well located within 75 feet of any of the 
following: 

(a) privy? 

(b) septic tank? 

(c) tile field? 

(d) other sewage or liquid waste draining into 

the soil? Yes No 

15. Is any home more than 100 feet from the closest cold 

water? Yes No 
If Yes, how far is it? 

16. Is running water piped into each place where people 

live? Yes No 

17. Do workers have to carry their own water? Yes No 
HOUS ING 

18. Type (s) of housing units provided: 

Number of separate Approximate outside mea- 
Type structures surement of each unit 

Cabin (small house) 



Motel 

Number of separate 
living Units 

Shed 

Farm House 

Number of rooms 

Barn or garage 

Quonset (metal) hut 

Chicken House 

Bus 

Trailer 

Other (please explain 



3 - 



4908 



19. (a) Does the roof leak? Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 



(a) 


Does the roof leak? 


(b) 


Do 


the walls leak? 


(c) 


Is 


the floor safe? 


(d) 


Is 


the floor smooth? 


(e) 


Do 


the floors get wet? 



If yes, where does the water come from? 



Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


' Yes- 


No 


Yes 


No 



(f) Can the walls be easily cleaned? 

(g) Do all windows close? 

(h) Are broken windows replaced or repaired? 

(i) Are doors solid and do they open easily? 

(j) Are there screens on all windows and open doors? 

(k) Are they fixed? 

(1) Other problems you saw: 



20. Do all units have at least two ways to get out in 
case of fire? 

(One may be a window big enough to crawl through- - 

24x24 inches and not more than 2>\ feet from the 

floor.) Yes No 

21. Is there a way to put out fires? 
(a) How? 

(1) fire extinguishers ( ) (3) bucket ( ) 

(2) hose ( ) (4) other ( ) 

explain 



(b) Are they kept for this reason within 100 feet of 

each house? Yes No 

22. Is the worker or family allowed to cook and eat in 

his house? Yes No 

If Yes, are the following provided: 

(a) Cookstove with at least 2 burners? 

(b) Food storage shelves and work counter? 

(c) Working refrigerator? 

(d) Enough tables and chairs for the family? 

(e) Adequate ventilation? 

23. Is electricity furnished in all the homes? 

24. Is there at least one wall plug in each room? 



Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 



- 4 



4909 



25. Is lighting provided for yard pathways to privies, 
showers, dining hall, etc.? 

26. Are there bare electrical wires? 

Are they exposed to paper, cardboard, or other 

materials that burn easily? 

Does family have to pay electricity? 

If Yes, is there a light meter? 

27. Is there a place for hanging and storing clothes in 



each home? Which? (check) 

(1) closets ( ) 

(2) ropes in living area ( ) 



(3) pipe ( ) 

(4) hooks ( ) 

(5) other 



Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 



Yes 



No 



!8. In houses for families with children over 6 years old, 

must children sleep in the same room as their parents? Yes 
Average number of people per bed. 



No 



29. Do people have to sleep on the floor or in cars? Yes No 
Must children sleep with their parents? Yes No 
Average number of people per bed 



HEATING 



30. How are the houses heated? 

(a) cooks tove ( ) 

(b) electric heater ( ) 

(c) furnace ( ) 



(d) open fire ( ) 

(e) nothing ( ) 

(f) other ( ) 



31. 



When do workers arrive in camp?_ 
When do they leave? 



32. Is the heating system safe? 

If No, why don't you think so? 



Yes 



No 



(a) Kind of fuel used: 

kerosene ( ) charcoal ( ) 

oil ( ) wood ( ) 

coal ( ) butane gas ( ) 



paper ( ) 
cooking stove 
other ( ) 



( ) 



BATHING AND LAUNDRY 



33. Are bathing facilities provided? (only showers, bath 
tubs, or large metal tubs are acceptable) 



Yes 



No 



5 - 



4910 



34. If bathing facilities are provided: 

(a) Do they have hot and cold water under pressure? 

(b) Are they clean and sanitary? 

(c) Are they within 200 feet of each house? 
If No, how far must people living in the 
farthest house walk to get to them? 



Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 



Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 



(d) If showers are provided, how many shower heads 
are there? 

(e) If central shower buildings are used, is there 
adequate space for dressing? 

(f) Are there hooks for clothes? 

(g) Are there stools or benches to sit on? 
(h) If central shower buildings are used, are there 

separate shower rooms for men and women? Yes No 
(i) Who cleans the shower room? Migrants ( ) 
Paid Migrants ( ) Owner ( ) 

35. Is there a place to wash clothes? Yes No 
Does it have hot and cold running water? Yes No 
How many wash tubs are there? 

How many laundry trays are there? 



How many working mechanical washers are there? 

TOILETS 

36. Does each family have their own toilet? Yes No 

37. If toilets are shares: 

(a) Number of privy seats 

(b) Number of flush toilets 

(c) Are there separate toilets for men and women? 

(d) Number of Urinals 

38. Are toilets well lighted? 

39. Are toilets well ventilated? 

40. Are toilet paper and holders provided? 

41. If there are privies, are the pits fly tight? 

42. Is any privy closer than 50 feet to any house? 

If Yes, how far is it to the nearest toilet? 

43. Are all living units within 200 feet of the nearest 

toilet? Yes No 
If No, how far is it to the nearest toilet? 



6 - 





Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


'No 


Yes 


No 



4911 



44. Are toilets and privies clean? Yes No 

45. Who cleans them? Migrants ( ) Paid Migrants ( ) 
Owner ( ) 

46. Are pits limed each year? Yes No 

47. How deep is the pit? 

48. Who digs new pits? 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

49. If the workers are from out of state, how were they recruited? 
State Employment agency ( ) Free Wheeler ( ) 
Large Company Recruiter ( ) Returns each year 

Crew Chief ( ) to each grower ( ) 

Other (explain) 



50. List any charges made by the camp operator to the occupants, 
(for example, maintenance, upkeep, gas, rent, electricity, 
showers, blankets, bedding, gloves, aprons, boots, etc.) 



7 - 



4912 




MIGRANT RESEARCH PROJECT 

immL bw wm 



MANPOWER EVALUATION & DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE 

1329 1 8th STREET N.W.. WASHINGTON. DC. 20036 202 387-1028 



4913 



Annual Report -- 1969 



Migrant Research Project (M. E.D.I.) 

1 329 1 8th Street N. W. 

Washington, D.C., 20036 

Miss Margaret Garrity, Director January 31, 1970 



4914 



Table of Contents 



Introduction ' 

Methodology - ' 

Demographic Characteristics II 

Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations Ill 

Part I 

Chapter I — Perspective 1 

Chapter II — Lack of Food as it Relates to Lack of Income. 4 

Chapter III — Sources of Income: Wages, 

Bonus — Impact of Mechanization 5 

Chapter IV — Housing: A Fringe Benefit of Employment 11 

Part II 

Chapter V — Administrative Barriers to Welfare 16 

Part III 

Chapter VI — Negotiation for Change 20 

Part IV — Special Studies 

Chapter VII — Worker Survey Sampling 23 

Chapter VIII — Special Wisconsin Project 27 

Chapter IX — South Texas Survey 30 

Chapter X — Special Housing Survey 34 

Chapter XI — Diary of Sugar Beet Worker 37 

Part V 

Acknowledgments 42 



4915 



INTRODUCTION 



The Migrant Research Project of the Manpower 
Evaluation and Development Institute was funded by the 
Office of Economic Opportunity in 1968 under two 
grants. One, from the Office of Emergency Food and 
Medical Services was to provide emergency food and 
medical services to needy migrants. The other, funded by 
the Office of Demonstration and Research, was to 
determine whether migrant agricultural and seasonal 
farmworkers were discriminated against by public 
agencies delivering services to the poor. If they were, 
we were to determine the extent and nature of that 
discrimination, and to propose and effect solutions which 
would serve to correct the problems of hunger and 
malnutrition among migrants. A small amount of money 
for legal advocacy was available. 

Therefore, the project saw as its mandate, a three- 
fold purpose: 

a) to provide Emergency Food, and Medical Services 
funds to needy migrants. 

b) to accumulate and document facts which estab- 
lish the existence of practices and attitudes 
which exclude migrants from adequate participa- 
tion in federal food and other relevant programs. 

c) to provide technical assistance to migrant groups 
and to government agencies in an effort to im- 
prove the provision of needed service to migrants. 

Methods were selected to gather current and unbiased 
information seeking to determine whether migrants 
generally are excluded from participation in federal 
programs established to assist other American citizens. 

The result of the scope and approach of this project 
has provided, what we believ=, is valuable information 
and insight into the nature of the problem of the mi- 
grant worker. In view of this, the purpose of this report 
is not, in all instances, to provide clear reasons for the 
necessity of legal remedies to the plight of the migrant; 
but rather through the composite of information, provide 
a framework for further discussion and investigation of 
the many issues which cloud the lives of those who labor 
in the fields of this Nation. We acknowledge the immense 
complexity of the issues and problems here raised. We 
also acknowledge the need for all citizens to find 
solutions to the social and economic ills that plague the 
lives of those affected by migrancy. It is hoped this 
report may serve as a tool to more clearly define the 
problem and point to solutions. 

METHODOLOGY 

The Migrant Research Project was funded as a 
national program with a partial mandate to fulfill emer- 
gency requests for food when there was no alternate 
solution. Therefore, it was necessary to so structure 
the agency to cope with the life pattern of the migrant 
and the vocation he pursues. Secondly, it was necessary 
to collect information from and about the public agencies 
responsible for implementing programs from which he 
was to benefit, at the federal, state, and local level. 

This double duty made it necessary to develop a 
distribution system by which the agency could have 



both a strong and informed base for information and 
advocacy and maintain available field contacts with 
migrants. The migrants and their representative organ- 
izations, e.g. indigenous groups and Office of Economic 
Opportunity, Title III-B grantees were to distribute 
funds, respond to the need for local advocacy, and to 
gather data. Consequently, the agency developed a 
methodology of funding sub-contractees, hereinafter 
referred to as "grantees." Thirty-two such grantees 
were funded by The Migrant Research Project to handle 
emergency food money and, with the assistance of the 
Migrant Research Project staff, gather data to be used 
as the basis of this report. Two other grantees were 
funded for special projects ; one medical, the other tech- 
nical assistance to a producers' cooperative. In addition, 
a study was made of official state welfare plans and food 
plans to determine whether or not they contained suffi- 
cient flexibility to meet the emergency needs of migrants, 
and whether the state and local officials were using this 
flexibility to the best advantage of hungry migrants. 
In conjunction with this, the Migrant Research Project 
staff studied the federal laws and regulations pertain- 
ing to these programs to determine the amount of flexi- 
bility possible at the state and county level to administer 
to the needs of migrants. 

Laws pertaining to employment conditions which di- 
rectly contribute to hunger problems of migrant workers 
were studied to determine the extent to which migrant 
workers were protected by these laws, and whether the 
laws were implemented. These included the Employment 
Security Act, the Crew Leader Registration Act, and 
the Fair Labor Standards Act. Other laws, such as the 
Workmen's Compensation Acts of several states, were 
studied to determine the exclusionary practices of such 
laws as far as agricultural workers are concerned. 

Field data was collected in three ways: 1) Personal 
interviews with migrants by Migrant Research Project 
staff or delegate agency staff, 2) Questionnaires, corre- 
spondence, or special projects with state public agencies 
and; or grantees; and 3) Special projects or conferences 
with federal agencies or congressional leaders. 

It was clear from the beginning that providing food 
services to needy migrants in emergency situations 
offered a potential for information gathering that could 
be important in determining the cause of the poverty 
of migrants. Thus, the Migrant Research Project in so 
expanding and developing this potential has demon- 
strated the ability to be effective as a catalyst agency 
and as a coordinator while successfully aiding migrants 
to seek and secure needed food services. 

The information and data gathered by The Migrant 
Research Project is large in volume. While no claim is 
made to present these facts as detailed in-depth research, 
enough documentation exists to present the broad 
pattern of problems that migrant workers face in every 
state. Consequently, on the basis of the data collected, 
it is possible to make recommendation that certain 



4916 



changes must take place in the legislative process as it 
affects migrants, and in the enforcement of laws to alter 
the economic and social pattern of their lives. The 
statistics presented are based on a sampling of migrants 
who, by reason of an emergency, requested food assist- 
ance, and who, in many cases, were served in a pressed 
time situation. The results, therefore, are subject to 
errors of response and reporting as well as being subject 
to sampling variability. 

The total number of migrants served by the Migrant 
Research Project, reflected in this report, was 3,078 
families. This represents 20,949 individuals fed for a 



total of 192,007 people days.l or an average of 9 days 
per person. Cost per person averaged 53 cents per day. 
The assistance was given in 18 states, 5 home-base 
states and 11 stream states. The time during which the 
assistance was granted was from December 1968 through 
September 1969 — 10 months. 

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 

The demographic characteristics of the group are re- 
flected in the following tables. Please note the tables do 
not include total figures from Colorado, Michigan, 
Missouri, northern Utah, Indiana or California. Sub- 



(1) — People days — individ 


uals fed X days fed. 


too late for tabulation or it was in 


an 


ncomplete stat 








TABLE I 
Annual Family Income 










Over $3000 


$2500-$3000 


$150O-$250O 




Below $1500 


% 


308 




292 


751 




2720 




8* 




1% 


18* 




67* 








TABLE H 
Ages of Family Members 






0-5 


6-15 


16-21 22-44 


1*5-64 


65+ 


Total 




4440 


7317 


2910 




3977 


1803 


491 




20,949 


% 


21* 


35* 


14* 




19* 


1095 


2?5 




101* 



It is interesting to note more than one-half of the individuals fed 
through the Migrant Research Project program were children under 
the age of 15 years. 

TABLE m 
Family Size 



14+ Total 




4917 




Migrant workers at Yoder Bros, flower propagating farm 
in Ft. Myers, Florida, Jobs arranged through CAMP. 



CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 



- 4918 



SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 



The Migrant Research Project, over the past year, has 
documented and disseminated facts regarding those 
practices which exclude migrants from adequate partici- 
pation in federal food and other relevant programs. The 
major conclusion from this study is that migrant 
workers are administratively kept from such participa- 
tion by exclusionary clauses in federal and state labor, 
social, and other protective legislation. 

Special Provisions Needed 

Insistence of government, at all levels, that proper 
implementation of legislation must be developed to the 
advantage of the majority of its voting citizens insures 
that the "voiceless" migrant will have little considera- 
tion in the passage of such laws. Further, regulatory 
agencies charged with administration of such programs 
are equally as zealous in the guidelines they develop to 
assure careful "implementation of the act" in accord- 
ance with the "intent of Congress." Narrow interpreta- 
tion and bureaucratic red tape is a major result. 

Governmental agencies implementing labor, welfare, 
and other programs must be accountable for following 
the statutes that created these agencies. They must 
develop fair and equitable rules and procedures to carry 
out the intent of the law. They must also provide fair 
procedures to persons seeking redress from the agency. 

Careful analysis of the problems of migrancy both 
to the workers and to those communities who utilize 
the services of migrants as a part of the community's 
economic life, must be related to the ability of both 
governmental and private agencies to accomodate such 
workers to the benefits of community life. Of necessity, 
this requires an extraordinary amount of coordination 
of services and common goals between those agencies 
able to control and deliver such benefits. Accomplish- 
ment of such coordination can only be achieved with 
careful planning of goals, staffing patterns, and re- 
sources of the entire community. Critical to migrants 
receiving services is the attitude of community leaders 
and the accomodation they are willing to allow to the 
non-resident migrant. Significant data are contained 
in the pages of this report as a result of the special 
projects conducted by the Migrant Research Project 
to have demonstrated that such coordination and 
common goals do not exist nor are they likely to occur. 

Therefore, it is the second conclusion of this report 
that it is not possible to incorporate citizens of a mobile 
nature into present structures of welfare assistance de- 
signed to meet the needs of a resident population. The 
reasons for this are more fully developed under the 
section entitled, Administrative Barriers to Welfare. 

Agencies distributing food stamps or commodities 
should make special provisions to expedite the servicing 
of migrants. Specific steps to be taken should include 
evening office hours, utilization of bilingual staff or 
volunteers, and the vending of food stamps on a daily 
basis rather than only on certain days. 

Commodity counties should make provisions to have 
additional food stuffs available during the harvest 
season. Furthermore, supplemental direct relief monies 
should be made available to provide supplemental but 
essential foods not available with commodities. 



Necessity for National Standards 

Since it is incumbent, in a democratic society, for the 
government to provide equally for the needs of all of 
its citizens, it becomes essential for government to 
establish programs that will assure equal treatment for 
the mobile agricultural migrant. However, those who 
argue that all citizens must be served under identical 
regulatory procedures should bear in mind the small 
proportion of migrants who are able to receive assistance 
under the exclusionary regulations presently in effect. 
Equal consideration under the law is impossible when 
the regulations enacted do not consider the inability of 
the mobile migrant applicant to comply with eligibility 
requirements under the conditions which are basic in his 
life style and employment pattern. 

Each of the states of this Nation develops guidelines 
and receives approval for the federally assisted welfare 
programs they administer. This not only allows for, 
but insures there will be variances in the eligibility re- 
quirements and the benefits of such plans. A migrant 
worker must make application for assistance in each 
county where he travels and finds himself in need of 
welfare services. Not only does his lack of knowledge 
concerning the variances in eligibility requirements and 
benefits in the state plans compound his confusion, but 
generally he cannot furnish the variety of documents 
that are necessary. 

Because of the combination of these factors, the Mi- 
grant Research Project recommends the enactment of a 
National certification process for migrant agricultural 
workers which will provide for national eligibility cer- 
tification in the homebase state. It should be based upon 
the applicant's annual wage on a self-certification basis. 
Once eligibility is determined, the migrant worker should 
be issued a card which shall be honored for services 
at all welfare offices in the United States for all 
Federally assisted programs during that period of time 
such eligibility is declared to be in effect. The costs to 
the individual counties for such assistance should be 
100% reimbursed by the federal government. Eligibility 
should be determined during the off-season and be 
established for one-year periods of time. 

If it is deemed necessary and proper, random checks 
to determine the percent of accuracy achieved on the 
self-certification basis can be made through the United 
States Social Security Administration which should have 
an accurate recording of all earnings. It should be 
pointed out, however, that the cost /time factor of the 
lengthy verification procedure required to certify mi- 
grants under the present system far outweighs the cost 
of services for that small percentage of migrant workers 
who might receive services for which they were techni- 
cally ineligible. This is particularly true in food 
programs. 

Responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture 

It is the final conclusion of this report that the United 
States Congress must impartially and fairly consider 
the needs of all of its citizenry ; and acting in its be- 
half, make sweeping legislative changes in programs and 
laws at the federal level which will create a proper, 
efficient and profitable method of maintaining the agri- 
cultural economy, provide for equal protection of the 
civil and civic rights of the agricultural migrant workers, 
and, thereafter, insist upon fair and just implementation 



4919 



of such laws. The United States Department of Agricul- 
ture has demonstrated an ability to serve the need of the 
farm owner, whether large or small, in a variety of 
programs which protect his land, his crops, and his 
income. There can be no question about the high prior- 
ity the Congress has placed on the farm programs of 
the various administrations. It is time for the farm 
worker to be brought under the same protection of the 



income supplement programs of the United States De- 
partment of Agriculture as are established to the benefit 
of the farm owner. It is our recommendation that the 
vast resources of staff and budget of the United States 
Department of Agriculture be charged specifically by 
the United States Congress with gaining for the farm 
workers a more equitable share of the benefits of the 
vast numbers of programs available to the farm owner. 




CHILD OF HOPE. 



4920 



A common focus on migrancy is difficult to establish. 
The Migrant Research Project has utilized simple in- 
formation gathering techniques in the three major 
stream areas to enable us to describe a family repre- 
sentative of the migrant population. 

The Migrant Research Project migrant population 
presented here is a composite of the black migrant in 
the East and the Mexican-American migrant of the 
Mid- West and Southwest areas. Therefore the reader is 
cautioned to keep in mind that this population is a com- 
posite of two ethnic groups facing similar problems, 
that cut across cultural lines. This is possible because 
agricultural migrancy is a vocation, not a cultural 
group. The problems and difficulties presented apply 
to all streams and in all geographic areas. Thus it 
matters little where the field work is performed, the 
facts of the employment, as revealed in the Migrant 
Research Project surveys are constant and the same. 
No work was done by the Migrant Research Project in 
the predominately Appalachian white migrant areas. 

The typical agricultural migrant applying for Migrant 
Research Project emergency food assistance was travel- 
ing in a crew with a family of averaging 6.7 total per- 
sons. He wintered in the home-base states of Texas, 
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, or Louisiana. He was 
largely unemployed during the winter months, particu- 
larly if his homebase area was the Rio Grande Valley 
of Texas. He often tried to seek work as an unskilled 
laborer in industry', just as his summer grower em- 
ployer in agriculture in the north, often seeks and is 
employed in industry during the winter. Since the 
mechanization of cotton has become almost totally com- 
plete, more of his family group and his friends have 
begun migrating across state lines into other winter 
homebase states. 

The constant battle to maintain his family has forced 
the migrant into a debt economy from which he never 
emerges. Loans against future earnings are necessary 
and sought from every possible source. This compli- 
cates even the small bargaining power he may have 
for gaining better working conditions and better wages 
— a bargaining power which is almost solely his wits. 

A low educational level and lack of knowledge of not 
only assistance resources but his right to such assist- 
ance requires concerted outreach effort on the part of 
the welfare and health agencies. This effort is almost 
never made nor is it administratively planned for by 
federal, state, or county agencies with such responsibility. 



HI— An one 


lysis of automobile operati 


ng costs by 


the E 


ureau of Public 


Roads of The 


Federal Highway Adm 


ms 


rot.on. U.S 


Def- 


of Tronsporta- 


tion is base 


j on a $2,800 car dm 


en 


100,000 m 


ies 


:vet a 10 


year 


period.* 














2 8c o 


iginal vehicle cost dep 












2.1c rr 


omtenance, accessories. 


fire 


s and parts 








1.7c gos and o.l lexcludmg la 


es 










1.8c g 


Drage parking, tolls 












1.2c s 


ate and federal taxes 












("November 


1968. Some costs have 


increased since 


this 


report was 


pre 


pared in Ja 


uary, 1968, but the ir 




ases are no 


t yet 


deemed 


o be 


sufficient to 


warrant making and issu 


ng 


a new report.) 







PART I 

Chapter I- PERSPECTIVE 



Understaffed and underbudgeted local agencies use the 
variances in state plans and durational residency re- 
quirements as justification for eliminating migrants 
from desperately needed assistance. In this way, the 
government reinforces the debt economy status of the 
Migrant and firmly establishes his peonage. 

Entering the Stream 

Our typical migrant family left the home-base area 
in early spring. He was recruited to work in the north 
without any type of legitimate contract which spells 
out wages, working conditions, fringe benefits, etc. In- 
deed, 85 percent of the migrants studied by the M.R.P. 
worker survey form were not told when recruited what 
their wages would be for the work for which they were 
recruited. Seventy-nine percent of the migrants surveyed 
had not signed a contract. Of those 21 percent who had 
signed any papers, 79 percent had not received a copy. 
During recruitment, our MRP migrant was often en- 
couraged by the recruiter, vying to fill work orders 
from the north on a per capita fee basis, to list as work- 
ers as many family members as possible. Loans made to 
cover travel expenses are made on a per worker basis. 
Food for the entire family must come from this loan. 
Thus there is considerable incentive to list children 10 
years of age and sometimes younger as workers. 

An average travel pattern in the Mid-West stream — 
from Crystal City, Texas to Washura County, Wiscon- 
sin for pickle and cucumber harvests, is an 1800 mile 
drive. At $ .11 per mile operating costs2, the migrant 
needs $198.00 to operate an automobile, his usual means 
of transportation. 

Taking into consideration the cost of transportation 
plus the additional necessary costs of food and lodging 
on the way, the migrant worker has spent as much 
money trying to get to his place of employment as he 
may make for the first several weeks of the season. 
If the crop is poor, he is left with very little or, more 
often, no money with which to purchase food. 

Debt Economy for the Workers 

On the average, the Migrant Research Project typical 
family arrived in the work area three weeks prior to the 




4921 



time field work was available. Again, the necessity for 
food forced the family deeper into debt and further loans 
against future earnings were obtained from the grower.3 

At times, these were made in the form of grocery 
coupons which had to be redeemed in a specified store. 
Wage collection laws prohibiting this practice did not 
cover him as an agricultural worker, and thus, his 
limited freedom was further entailed by limiting the 
way in which his money could be spent to purchase 
food — often at inflated prices. He could not purchase 
food stamps where his purchasing power would be 
greater, better enabling him to nourish his family. Nor 
could he buy fuel to warm them and guard against the 
upper respiratory infections which are chronic with his 
family. Small wonder his newborn child died at a rate 
of 200% higher than for the rest of the population or 
that he, himself, has a life expectancy of 49 years. 4 

The other major factor in the life of the Migrant Re- 
search Project migrant family is "hope for a good 
season." It is this hope which propels him into the 
stream and makes him vulnerable to the verbal promises 
of the recruiter. 

Once the typical Migrant Research Project migrant 
family began work, need for rapid income and the 
grower's need for immediate field work meshed. All 
family members went into the fields. There was little 
evidence of the willingness of public educational agencies 
to enforce school attendance laws even though the 
children in the Migrant Research Project family were 
on the average two grades behind normal for their age 
level. Overcrowded classrooms, language difficulties, 
transportation problems and shortness of the term were 
the major reason for this lack of interest. 

Most public school agencies held the belief that the 
migrant children completed their school year in Texas 
before coming north ; thus, parents, employers, and 
public school systems implement the child labor recruit- 
ment that takes place in the homebase. 

Wage Difficulties 

Field and work conditions brought about by weather 
and the use of herbicides are the major cause of the wage 
and hour complaints expressed by the migrant, but 
rarely filed formally. To further insure the availability 
of ready labor; and as a condition of employment, the 
Migrant Research Project migrant family generally 

(3) — The mojority of migrants who received MRP food assistance in the 
stream states hod not previously applied to public welfare assistance 
offices for certification for food programs The reasons for this ore not 
clear nor was MRP able to gather sufficient documentation to draw 
definite conclusions. A major difficulty was the requirement for verifica- 
tion of income Another contributor appeared to be lack of out-reach 
personnel <n public assistance offices for there to be serious effort to 
extend services to migrant labor camps. However, it must be said that 
when such out-reoch did occur, whether it was provided through the 
welfare office or from an outside agency, and when the migrant worker 
was able to provide sufficient documentation so os to prove eligibility, 
the majority of workers who did apply for food programs did receive 
such assistance. 

141 — U.S. Public Health Service — Migrant Health Division. (Although all 
of the migrant families requesting emergency food assistance met the 
income eligibility standards to receive public welfare assistance, only 
495 actually received such help This was either Aid to Dependent 
Children or Social Security in most instances- A total of 2.19S families 
applied for welfare assistance The principal reason given for denying 
general welfare assistance upon application was residency, yet the 
Migrant Division of the Office of Economic Opportunity found 12% of 
the migrant population to be malnourished.) 



agreed verbally to a "hold-back" of a percentage of his 
weekly earnings which is referred to as a "bonus." This 
money is paid him at the end of the season if he 
"satisfactorily" completes his work and moves from 
field to field as requested. "Satisfactory completion of 
work" is interpreted to mean that the migrant must 
remain for as little as nine or ten hours work per week 
or until the grower has no further need of hand labor! 



1968 MERIT CARD 
Graciano Espinoza 



Head of Family or Group 

empioyd b . Am 03 Larson 



S*e; 



An American Crystal Sugar Co. Grows 
Factory District. 
Social Security No 



^kr 



Minn. 



461 



48 



1245 



. Paper 10*7 1—172 



1-351 




-"^ Texal Office Manager ' 



In addition, regular deductions from wages were made 
to insure repayment of past loans. This diminished the 
availability of ready cash with which to purchase food 
stamps, food, or medical treatment, let alone the trans- 
portation needed to seek other work. At times, a migrant 
negotiated for an early release in order to keep com- 
mitments to growers in other areas. When not success- 
ful, he was sometimes forced to leave without all the 
wages he felt were due him to avoid being "black- 
listed" at the next worksite which would mean not only 
loss of work this crop season, but in ensuing years as 
well. If the crew leader or recruiter had committed 
him to another worksite, he felt compelled to honor 
this non-existent work contract. Since generally he 
received no payslips of weekly earnings with itemized 
deductions, there is no proof of any descrepancy in wages 
earned and received. 

Altogether our typical migrant family had twelve 
employers during the year and traveled through at 
least eight states. Since the summer of 1969 was a 
disaster in the crops, he had little to show for his sum- 
mer's earnings, and returned to Texas hungry, without 
resources, a victim of administrative structure and ex- 
clusion from the legislative processes. His average an- 
nual wage was less than $1500. 

It should be stressed that the above circumstances 
are his everyday facts of life not experienced piece-meal 
in several areas, but wherever our Migrant Research 
Project migrant traveled. We shall deal with some of 
the many difficulties he experiences in the following 
sections of this report, and make an attempt to clarify 
from our research, the many conditions and structures 
which collectively insures that these problems do and 
will continue to exist. The recommendations based upon 
our study may prove startling to all who strive to 
alleviate these conditions under the present structure 
of government. We hope they will receive careful study 
and consideration. 



4922 




[Photos by Jo Moore Srewo 



"Every man beareth the whole 
stamp of the human condition." 



— MONTAIGNE- 



4923 



Chapter II 
LACK OF FOOD AS IT RELATES TO LACK OF INCOME 



The serious problem of malnutrition and nutritional 
deficiency in the United States has not limited itself 
only to to the poor, but has demonstrated itself to be a 
problem of the affluent as well. Consequently, health 
educators and nutritionists have made a strong case for 
the need of effective education programs. Food additives 
and concentrated snack items have appeared on the 
market and much attention has been given to publicizing 
the appalling nutritional problems that exist. 

The relationship of family income to malnutrition, 
while not clearly demonstrated, must be basic to any 
argument in support of food programs. Thus, poverty 
as a basic cause of malnutrition among migrant workers 
in an assumption of this report. 

To argue this supposition, the Migrant Research 
Project entered into an agreement with the Migrant 
Action Program of Iowa to determine the effect of in- 
come upon food purchases and diet of poor migrants. 

MAP was able to utilize emergency food money pro- 
vided by MRP in three ways: 1) to purchase federal 
food stamps to take advantage of their bonus purchas- 
ing power, 2) to augment food stamp purchases with 
direct purchase from retail outlets, 3) direct purchase 
from retail outlets in those places or at those times 
when food stamps and commodities were not available. 

Using the direct purchase of food from retail outlets 
as the basis of the study, MAP arranged with grocery 
stores to accept food vouchers issued by MAP workers 
to needy migrants for purchase of food. No attempt was 
made to influence the items purchased nor was any 
health and nutrition education program attempted. The 
only condition placed upon purchase was that they be 
made for edible items under the terms of the Federal 
Food Stamp Act. 

Grocers, in turn, agreed to bill Migrant Action Pro- 
gram and to supply itemized lists of food items pur- 
chased by the migrants. 

MAP later reported that "even with the food stamp 
program, many families simply cannot afford an 
adequate diet. Furthermore, many families cannot . . . 
get certified for the food stamp program or cannot 
afford to purchase stamps." 

To be eligible for participation in the project, a mi- 
grant had to meet the Office of Economic Opportunity 
guidelines as defined by the Migrant Division of OEO. 
Emergencies which generated the assistance were de- 
fined as "including periods of unemployment when the 
family lacked sufficient money to purchase food stamps 
or when emergency medical situations arose." No attempt 
was made to document classification of purchased food 
items when resources other than MRP funds were the 
major source of food purchased, or when food was pur- 
chased with food stamps. This will be picked up in the 
coming year. 

Purchases under the MRP contract totaled 310, serv- 
ing a total of 1,906 individuals for an average family size 



of 6.1 members. The average cost per individual served 
was $ .57 per days. Of the $12,942 total food outlet, 
twenty-two percent was for the purchase of food stamps, 
and seventy-eight percent was for the purchase of food 
at a retail outlet. The latter represents the basis for the 
argument herein presented. 

Total amount expended by MAP for direct purchase 
was $10,103. 

Frequency of items purchased by migrants in the 
basic food classifications were as follows: 

Meats 22.0 % 

Milk Products 12.6 % 

Cereals 19.8 % 

Vegetables 17.0 7. 

Fruits 11.6 V. 

Other 17.0% 

On the basis of the above study, it can be clearly 
demonstrated that the percentage of income available 
for food purchase does effect the basic diet of an in- 
dividual family. Thus, it can be concluded if a person's 
income falls below the index of poverty, either less ex- 
pensive or less nutritious food will have to be purchased 
or other expenses reduced. 

It is notable that when families received emergency 
food assistance this past summer, they purchased items 
which they normally cannot afford: particularly meats 
and fruits. The MAP report concluded; "Health educa- 
tion is important, but families must also be provided with 
enough assistance to make an adequate diet feasible."* 

Thus, it can be demonstrated that income, rather than 
culture is the basic ingredient necessary to assure an 
adequate diet among migrant workers if the level of 
malnutrition is to be reduced. 




MIGRANT RESEARCH PROJECT 



(5] — Migrant Action Progr< 



Report, 1969. 



(6) — MAP onnuol report, 1969. 



4924 



Chapter HE 

SOURCES OF INCOME: 
WAGES, BONUS - IMPACT OF MECHANIZATION 



If we accept the validity of the necessity of income as 
the basic ingredient in combating malnutrition and lack 
of food among migrant workers, it becomes obvious that 
some method must be employed to raise the income level 
of those so afflicted. Other necessary functions, e.g. 
education in areas such as consumer protection, nutri- 
tion, preventive medicine, budgeting, etc., can only be 
effective when income for food purchase (or adequate 
food itself) is available. 



WAGES 

Migrant and seasonal farm workers report annual 
incomes substantially below other members of the 
nation's work force. Their claims have been upheld 
and documented by the United States Sub-committee 
on Migratory Labor which reported the average annual 
farm wage in 1966 for migratory workers to be $1,046; 
and astoundingly enough, a drop in annual farm wage 



.«,— nii™i»iifMmnm»mni^ 



• GIBSON CITY. ILLINOIS • 



NOT GOOD FOR OVER $200 OO 



405 CARLOS DE LA CRUZ 



FACTORY PAYROLL ACCOUNT 



si «■ £6 1. "ie a «• i:o? i t-'Ogsqi: 



66^923 JUL S 69 



G64923 



$0.69 



STOKELY-VAN CAMP. INC. 



AitWi- 



• HOOPESTON. ILLINOIS • 



NOT GOOD FOR OVER S200 OO 
CHECK 




1.U0* SARA R CARRILLO 



710.237 mi%& 



SO 26 



FACTORY PAYROLL ACCOUNT 

CITY NATIONAL BANK HOOPESTON Illinois 




4925 



work in 1967 of $124 to $926 average annual wage.7 
This despite the fact the average daily wage earned rose 
from $10.80 to $10.85.a Those who worked outside of 
agriculture averaged around $2,100 of which $800 was 
from farm work. 

By 1968, migrants whose activities were restricted to 
farm work earned only $1,018, still below the 1966 
level!' On the average, migrants earned only $1,562 
from all sources in 1968. However, the 43 '/. who obtained 
both farm and non-farm employment had a considerably 
higher average — $2,274 of which $1,491 was for non- 
farm work. The average hourly farm wage rate in July 
of 1969 was $1.58 (without board or room) which is an 
increase of only 9% over 1968. The Department of Labor 
in February of 1970 reported the cost of living rose 6.27. 
over the previous year. 

During this same period of time, the median United 
States family income was $7,400. Irregularity of migrant 
employment is one reason for the low annual wage. 

Negative Income for Migrant Workers 

In spite of recent improvements in farm wage rates, 
which has risen from $1.14 an hour in 1965 to $1.58 an 
hour in July of 1969, there are still 13 states with 
average wages below the present federal minimum wage 
for agriculture. The low of $1 hourly average in South 
Carolina to over $1.70 in California, Connecticut, Nevada, 
and Washington must be related to the 120 10 total 
average number of days worked by those workers who 
did only farm work. The low average income on the 
basis of an average 8-hour day would vary from $1,360 
to $2,312 as contrasted with the United States mediam 
income. 

According to William H. Jones writing in the Wash- 
ington Post on November 16, 1969, the median family 
income in the United States will approach $10,000 next 
year; an increase of 757. since 1960, but a rise of only 
307. after allocation for inflation and taxes. If this same 
percentage is compared to the 15.6 7. increase in the 
migrant workers wage since 1959, it is easy to see the 
migrant worker is left with a negative income. 

Under the Fair Standards Practices Act, farm workers 
are covered under a minimum wage of $1.30 per hour if 
the employer utilizes farm workers for a total of at 
least 500 man hours per quarter. In 1966, only two per- 
cent of the farms using hired help in the United States 
were covered under this legislation, the rest were exempt 
from the Federal minimum wage. In 1967 only 35% of 
the farms were required to pay a minimum wage under 
the provisions. 11 

In 1969, the composite hourly wage rate for migrant 
workers averaged $1.33 per hour; the January 1970 
composite hourly rate was $1.50; up 9 7. from January 
of 1969. 

Those who argue that raising the wage of farm work- 
ers will price food out of the market are ignorant of the 



161 — US. Department of Labor, Sept 1967 & 1968. 



|9] — Robert C. McElroy The Hired Farm Working Force of 1968" 
Ag. Econ. Report No. 164. 



110] — US. Department of Agriculture. Sept. 1967 & 1968 pp. 53. 



112) — United States Department of Labor. 



percentages of the cost of the product through wages — 
for example, lemons cost 24 cents per pound; field cost 
are 0.6 to 1 cent per pound. Grapefruit, costing 8 to 
10 cents apiece, cost the grower in field labor 2 to 4 
cents.u 

Irregularity of Employment — Need For 
Legislative Protection 

While the above figures show that there was a 15.67. 
increase in the wages paid migrant farm workers be- 
tween 1959 and 1968, the monetary gains made by this 
sector of our Nation's work force can be shown as 
virtually negligible when evaluated in light of several 
other factors. 

The migrant worker still finds himself victim of an 
ever tightening availability of work. This is due to 
several factors. The two most important are irregu- 
larity of employment and the increase in mechanization 
of crops. 

It is important to note that unemployment and 
irregularity of employment is the chief reason given 
by migrants for entering the stream. For example, the 
unemployment rate in January, 1970 in the Laredo, 
Texas area, was 10.8% of the total work force and was 
rising. The Texas Employment Commission attributed 
this "mainly to the continued inflow of migrant workers 
into the area.'' They went on to say, "By Mid-March 
the unemployed total should begin to subside as the out- 
flow of migrant workers returning to their jobs in the 
north gets underway." The hardships and lack of income 
suffered by migrants in the homebase states during the 
off-season increases the attractiveness and pre-supposed 
increased earnings in the north during the crop season. 
However, the low wages in agriculture are not caused 
only by unemployment, irregularity of employment, 
mechanization, or the low-profit margin of individual 
growers as opposed to the larger employers. The lack 
of legislation governing wages and working conditions, 
plus discriminatory practices cited in this report further 
diminish wages and the chance for a fair standard of 
living. 

It is interesting to note that 67 7. of the number of 
migrants requiring emergency food assistance under the 
MHP program in 1969 earned an annual wage of less 
than $1,500. (See charts Introduction.) 

The MRP study also shows the largest percentage of 
migrants traveling in the stream did so in family group 
sizes of from 5 to 7 members. This was true in every 
region of the United States. Only in the Eastern region 
of the country did the project serve families larger than 
17 members. 

Due to the irregularity of the migrant's employment, 
it would seem logical that in time of unemployment, he 
would be covered by unemployment compensation as in 
all other major job classifications in private industry- 
Traditional excuses have kept the migrant from this 
important protection; this results in discriminatory ex- 
clusion from the law. 

Rate for Sugar Beet Workers 

Under the Sugar Beet Act, the Secretary of Labor is 
directed to set a fair and reasonable rate. He is author- 
ized to make payments on the condition that, among 
others, all persons employed on the farm in the pro- 
duction, cultivation, or harvesting of sugar beets or 
sugar cane with respect to which an application for 
payment is made shall have been paid in full for all 
such work, and shall have paid wages, therefore, at rates 
not less than those that may be determined by the 



4926 



Secretary to be fair and reasonable after investigation 
and due notice and opportunity for public hearing. 

The regulations for 1968 provided for payment to 
workers either on a minimum wage rate of $1.50 per 
hour, or on one of several piece rates per acre as 
specified for each of five different functions. The $1.50 
hourly minimum wage was set for 1968 as a fair and 
reasonable wage rate based on evidence presented at 
hearings. However, the piece rate alone does not 
guarantee that all workers receive a fair and reason- 
able wage. In fact, the piece rate does not assure any 
minimum hourly rate per man. 

In July, the Utah State Employment Service reported 
to the U.S. Department of Labor on wages of sugar 
beet workers in various regions of that state. In the 
South Central sugar beet area, Utah reported that' the 
average wages of one group of employees working at a 
piece rate of $11.00 per acre for weeding were $ .92 per 
hour for each worker. In the same region for the same 
activity during the same time period those working on 
a piece rate of $10.75 per acre made $1.67 per hour. 
The Migrant Research Project has found the piece rate 
as used by the Secretary of Labor as the sole means of 
determining fair and reasonable wage rates for em- 
ployes in certain sugar beet activities to be unsatis- 
factory. A piece rate could be maintained if it were 
combined with an absolute minimum wage below which 
each worker could not be paid. Whatever the Secretary 
finds to be a fair and reasonable wage rate for all em- 
ployees should apply as a minimum to all activities. 
It is MRP's contention that a piece rate may have no 
necessary relationship to a fair and reasonable wage 
rate, and that the piece rate alone is not an adequate 
standard to ensure that fair and reasonable wages are 
received by all employees. Therefore, MRP believes 
that by using the piece rate as the sole standard for 
determining fair and reasonable rates for some activities, 
the Secretary of Labor has not met a necessary con- 
dition to payment to growers under the Sugar Beet Act. 
The Act also requires that as a condition to making 
payment to sugar beet producers, the Secretary' shall 
ensure that a fair and reasonable wage rate is received 
by all workers. MRP believes this is another condition 
to payment that has not been met. 

BONUSES 

As already noted, the earnings of a migrant worker 
vary greatly due to several factors. During the sum- 
mer when weather is bad, many families do not break 
even by the end of the summer; consequently many 
leave, if they can, in search of better field conditions. 
Crews that leave the homebase together, do not always 
stay together throughout the season. Many factors can 
and do cause the division of the crew. 

Since many crops, such as asparagus and tomatoes, 
are perishable and labor is difficult to recruit during the 
season, most companies and growers have established 
a "bonus" system with the intent of making it difficult 
for the mig'rant to leave before the end of the crop 
season without losing a substantial amount of money. 

The "bonus" system operates in a number of ways. 
It may be 1) a deduction from wages withheld until the 
end of the season; 2) travel advances made at the be- 
ginning of the season to help the family with expenses 
from Texas. These advances need not be repaid at the 
end of the season if the work has been satisfactorily 
performed; or 3) based on the amount of work per- 
formed, i.e. the asparagus worker receiving a 4 cent 
bonus for each additional pound over 8,000 pounds. 



If the bonus is a deduction from wages earned, but is 
withheld until the end of the season, it is a "hold-back." 
This amounts to garnishment of wages. When bonuses 
have been withheld from wages, it is important to see 
if the wages paid meet the federal or state minimum 
wage requirements. Since most migrant workers do not 
receive paycheck stubs listing wages earned, hours 
worked, deductions made, this is generally very difficult 
for the migrant worker to document. Further, when 
the worker performs the work on a contract basis, it is 
exceedingly difficult for him to prove that he was not 
paid the federal or state minimum wage. He must 
document carefully the hours actually worked, the 
pounds, bushels, or acres covered, and payment received. 
This is difficult to do, particularly in sugar beets where 
the workers are not paid until the end of the season. 

Use of Bonus To Retain Labor 

Whenever the bonus system is used, the overall intent 
is to retain labor regardless of working or living con- 
ditions. As one company notes of its bonus, "This refund 
will be made only to those workers who stay and com- 
plete the full season, or who are excused by mutual 
agreement by the crew leader and the company manage- 
ment. The workers must have done a satisfactory job, 
in that he worked when necessary .moved from farm to 
farm with his crew when requested, and did a clean 
job of snapping (asparagus) . . ." In some instances, 
completion of the full season requires that the family 
remain until late fall working in warehouses or clean- 
ing fields, even when only a few hours of work each 
day are available. For migrants, the presence of the 
"hold-back bonus" which in effect, is garnishment of his 
earnings not only places him in peonage, but diminishes 
the available money with which to purchase food or food 
stamps. Thus, he may be at the peak of his earning 
capacity, and still be without ready cash with which to 
provide the necessities of life for his family. This places 
him in jeopardy when he applies for participation in 
the foodstamp program, since he must verify his earn- 
ings to the welfare office. When he is unable to do this, 
county welfare officials generally accept telephone veri- 
fication from the grower instead of self-declaration 
from the migrant worker. The employer may or may not 
given accurate information. When a portion of the 
migrant's earnings are withheld from him, he often does 
not have the cash to make the necessary purchase even 
though he may succeed in being certified. 

Migrants frequently reported to MRP loss of bonus 
when disputes developed with the employer regarding 
field or crop conditions and the wage to be paid. Typical 
was a family in a mid-west stream state who came to 
work at the tomato harvest. Altogether, the family had 
twelve members, and each worker was paid 15 cents for 
each basket of tomatoes picked. However, 2 cents from 
each 15 cents earned was withheld as a bonus to be 
collected at the end of the season. If the working con- 
ditions were excellent, the family might be able to pick 
as many as 90 to 100 baskets per day. 

Toward the end of the season, the grower told the 
migrant to pick the tomatoes in a field where the crop 
was thin and there were many weeds. The migrant 
estimated that he would only be able to pick one basket 
per hour; earning 13 cents per hour for his labor. When 
he refused to pick the field at the 15 cent rate, the 
grower presented the family with a one day eviction 
notice and withheld the "bonus" for failing to remain 
until the end of the season and performing the work as 
required ! 



4927 



COUPONS 

Many migrants, because of irregular employment due 
in part to low wages and weather conditions, are pro- 
vided with advances during the summer by their em- 
ployer. In general, advances are made for 1) travel 
from Texas to the field location, 2) food and other pur- 
chases when fields cannot be entered because of weather 
conditions or work is not available, 3) purchases 
necessary for the performance of the work such as 
gloves, aprons, and other items needed. Since small 
growers particularly are not paid by the processor until 
the end of the season when the harvest is complete, they 
often arrange credit at local grocery stores for their 
migrant labor, guaranteeing this to the store owner; or 



they issue the migrant coupon books w.hich must be re- 
deemed for food items at specified grocery stores. This 
arrangement is, in effect a method of borrowing operat- 
ing capital for the grower/employer at the expense of 
the migrant laborer who cannot afford to finance the 
interest-free debt of his employer. 

This practice also prevents migrants from doing com- 
parative buying, and often subjects them to higher food 
prices with an income already too low for an adequate 
diet. It practically assures, they will not have the money 
to purchase foodstamps and gain the bonus purchasing 
power of the stamp program. 

Two examples from southern MinnesotaU this past 
summer illustrates the problem. 



N? 130 

GOOD FOR $8.00 IN TRADE 




CANNING COMPANY 

:6u?on from any 
in Steele County 



$1.00 
$1.00 



INING COMPANY 
k upon from any 
'tela County 



$1.00 
$1.00 



WATONNA CANNING COMPANY 
this coupon from any 
ra In Stool* County 



$1.00 



Mr. G. earned $232.50 for his work in the fields, but 
was not paid by his employer. Instead, without his con- 
sent, the employer deposited $100 in the local super- 
market as credit for food purchases made by Mr. G. 
Furthermore, the food prices in this particular store 
were considerably higher than elsewhere for the same 
items. It was estimated that Mr. G. could have had an 
additional $25.00 of groceries had he shopped at another 
store with his $100. The purchase of food stamps, had 
they been available in this particular county, would have 
resulted in a considerably higher amount of food items 
for the family. 

Nor are migrants allowed to withdraw the money 
credited to their account (their earnings as recorded by 
the grower) or to cash in the coupons, again issued in 
lieu of earnings or instead of cash payment for work 



113) — Migrt 



i Pfogr< 



-Annual Report, 1969. 



performed. Mrs. V. was advanced coupons at the rate 
of $8.00 each. She was given a total of six coupons 
amounting to $48.00. The coupons could be used at 
only one supermarket specified by the employer. On 
June 27, 1969, Mrs. V. spent $6.81 of the $8.00 coupon 
and requested her change. The store manager refused 
and said they did not give change on coupons. Mrs. V. 
was then obligated to spend the remaining $1.19 im- 
mediately. To further complicate the problem, the 
Departments of Social Welfare must count these food 
coupons as income when certifying a migrant for welfare 
assistance programs, even though the migrant did not 
have the availability of cash and a choice as to whether 
or not to purchase food stamps or any other item. 
As a result, many families do not qualify for food stamps 
at minimum rates, and do not have the funds with which 
to purchase the stamps at the rate they are qualified 
to receive them. 



4928 



MECHANIZATION — A CRISIS SITUATION 

For many years, it has seemed apparent that mechani- 
zation was having an impact on the number of jobs 
available for migrant workers in agriculture. Techno- 
logical advances and American "know-how" has made 
it possible for fewer workers to produce a greater abund- 
ance of foodstuffs than ever before. Small family farms 
began to be replaced by giant agri-business. Each year, 
it seemed that migrant farm workers traveled more miles 
in seach of employment and found fewer jobs. The im- 
pact was slow in developing, but always the migrant 
heard that the "machine" was "almost perfected" and 
was winning the competition for speed and endurance 
at less cost to the producer than even his meager piece- 
rate wages. 




LETTUCE FIELDS IN WISCONSIN 

The Migrant Research Project determined to under- 
take a very limited sampling to forecast what effect 
mechanization of crops would have on availability of 
jobs for the coming year. Projections for the year 1970, 
in a few selected states where information is available, 
raises the question of an employment crisis caused by 
increased mechanization and use of chemicals. The Mi- 
grant Research Project staff interviewed grantees, public 
officials, and migrants to determine what the employ- 
ment profile for migrant labor would be in the summer 
of 1970. While our interviewing was on a limited basis, 
the information obtained is startling and may be sum- 
marized as follows: 

1) Farmers are doing their own recruitment in 
greater numbers than ever before 

2) Number of available jobs will be less than ever 
before 

3) Growers are placing work orders with the 
federally funded Farm Labor Service for 
migrant workers; while at the same time they 
have machines on hand to perform the same 
labor 

4) Unless remedial steps are taken immediately, 
more migrant workers will enter the stream this 
year than in the past several years due to lack 
of employment in the homebase states. 

It seems evident that the hand labor is being recruited 
strictly as a back-up labor force to mechanization versus 
weather at the expense of the migrant workers. If the 
machines prove effective, (and there is no reason to 
believe they will not) the workers will be unemployed 
despite the fact they were recruited and traveled hun- 
drds of miles for non-existent jobs. 

It must be stressed that the sampling taken was 



limited, and not based on scientific effort, although an 
attempt to obtain representation was made. The results 
of this study can analytically be broken down according 
to the various states or regions sampled and are sum- 
marized as follows: 

Washington 

It was reported by an Office of Economic Opportunity 
grantee in one area that the following crops are to be 
mechanized this year: 

a) grapes (32 machines are on hand — 
each replacing 51 people) 

b) hops 

c) asparagus 

Moreover, in spite of the impending mechanization, 
the same source reports that the State Employment 
Service is recruiting hand labor for these crops in the 
same number as last year. 

Michigan 

According to a variety of contacts there including 
those made with the Regional Office of the Federal 
Labor Service, an Office of Economic Opportunity funded 
migrant program, the State Employment Service, and 
an agricultural economist at Michigan State University, 
50,000 workers are expected to arrive in the State of 
Michigan in 1970. Not all of these persons, however, 
were recruited through the Michigan or federal recruit- 
ment system; nevertheless, on the basis of recruitment 
by fanners and growers, and word-of -mouth transmission 
of rumored employment opportunities, that number is 
expected in the State of Michigan. 

At the same time, our survey revealed that only a 
few contracts covering 9,000 jobs had been let. The 
number of contracts made to Mid-March 1970 must be 
contrasted with the number made in the year of 1968. 
In that year, Michigan let 28,000 contracts for the 
employment of 74,000 migrants. Since MRP information 
was gathered at a point in time when the normal re- 
cruitment process had come to an end, it can be con- 
cluded that there is a decline of 65,000 jobs and 27,700 
contracts, when contrasted with the recruitment year of 
1968. Many of these persons will be without employment, 
as the same sources indicate that only 15,000 workers 
will be employed in Michigan in summer 1970. 

NOTE: A late check before printing of this report 
reveals (June 10) the regional office of the U.S. Depart- 
ment of Labor does not anticipate more than 1500 to 
2000 surplus workers in the state of Michigan during the 
summer. They state this will be due to corrective action 
taken by U.S. Department of Labor since the issuance 
of the above report. 

Colorado 

An Office of Economic Opportunity funded project 
in Colorado informed our personnel that approximately 
9000 migrants will come into Colorado this summer. 
Due to mechanization projections, it is anticipated that 
the total employment in the state will be reduced, 
according to these same sources, by 7500 jobs. For ex- 
ample, it was reported that a major crop, sugar beets, 
will employ only 50 to 60 percent of the workers who 
were employed the previous year. The reduction in this 
instance, however, is to be caused by a number of 
factors: an existing surplus sugar supply, the resultant 
change in crops from beets to corn, reliance on avail- 
able local labor sources, and mechanization. 

Based on information obtained from Texas, recruit- 
ment for this area is generally down approximately 
40%. 



4929 



Iowa 

Reinbeck, Iowa, employment is down 307. for the 
harvesting of asparagus crops and the method of 
recruitment has been changed. In this instance, 
recruitment was performed by the processor, rather 
than recruitment of labor through the State 
Employment Security Commission as has been the case 
in the past. The purported reason for the change in the 
recruitment method was the stepped-up-enforcement of 
housing regulations by the United States Department 
of Labor. 

Wisconsin 

The number of seasonal workers in rural industries 
declined in Wisconsin from 1968 to 1969 according to the 
State Employment Service. The number of rural food 
processing in-plant workers averaged 10,811 in the 
1968 and 10,190 in 1969, while plant employed field 
workers averaged 2,135 per month in 1968 and 1,710 
in 1969. Similar drops were reported in other rural 
work categories. 

Mid-Continent 

A telephone inquiry to the U.S. Department of Labor 
Regional Office of the Farm Labor Service revealed the 
following information on clearance orders: 

CLEARANCE ORDERS FOR INTERSTATE RECRUITMENT 



!"*-* I =t 


-"" 


"™- "« j ss 


'•»' * 


!'":£■ £ .«o j !:": 


»i«™*.. «— . .370. 3/1. | l.S 





In Michigan and Ohio the tendency is toward more 
workers per order. The reason for this is not know at 
this time. 

The other four mid-western states show a decline in 
both the number of workers recruited and the number 
of orders placed. However, the number of workers 
recruited seems to be higher than can be employed if the 
information on mechanization properly reflects the 
decline in jobs. 

Last year gave ample evidence of what happens to 
the migrants when recruitment is higher than jobs. 
Unless welfare agencies in the state are prepared to 
assist the unemployed in a meaningful way, the depriva- 
tion of the migrant is horrendous. 

NOTE : Just prior to final editing of this report, MRP 
again checked with the United States Department of 
Labor, Farm Labor Service, in the Chicago region and 
learned of remedial steps taken to alleviate the 
anticipated problems in Michigan and the other mid- 
Continent states. These were: 

1, Establishment of a regional coordinating committee 
composed of representatives of various agencies in- 
cluding United States Department of Labor; Hous- 
ing and Urban Development; Agriculture; Trans- 
portation ; Health, Education, and Welfare to assist 
states in working with migrants. 



2. Worked in cooperation with the Texas State Em- 
ployment Service to alert migrants not to leave 
Texas without a definite job placement . 

3. Developed a special daily reporting system in- each 
state to determine amount of surplus farm labor 
available to enable the regional Department of 
Labor to take corrective action. 

4. Encouraged the Governors of each of the states to 
require the State Departments of Welfare to accept 
"self-declaration of income" from migrants for cer- 
tification for food stamps for at least the first 
thirty day issuance of food stamps. 

5. Staff from a United States Department of Labor 
special research program will be retained to refer 
migrants to all available welfare programs. 



Mid-March 1970 estimates of unemployment among 
migrants in Florida was placed at about 24,000 by the 
indigenous groups and the Office of Economic Oppor- 
tunity funded migrant projects. Leaders of the in- 
digenous groups interviewed by MRP staff indicated that 
when work was available, it was for a few hours per day. 
and only for two or three days per week. 

Reports from state officials centered on the difficulty 
of recruiting labor for these short-term, part-day jobs 
and not on the problem of unemployment migrants 
faced. As a result, conflicting information, one group 
stating a labor shortage, the other a labor surplus was 
released. Therefore, no planning was done to either 
determine the extent of the problem nor to attempt 
solutions. 

Mechanization and weather have reduced the man- 
hours and man-days required to harvest the crop. For 
the migrant, who is accustomed to and needs several 
weeks of work in the winter and spring in the homebase 
area, steady jobs are difficult to obtain. To the Em- 
ployment Service recruiting for short term field jobs, 
available jobs are not being filled. This is caused in 
part because the migrant looks for the better job, and 
partly because the offered work site is often so far from 
his home that he must leave his family in order to 
accept the job. It is also difficult and expensive for him 
to maintain two homes. Additionally, he is often un- 
skilled in the crop for which he is recruited and trans- 
portation may be a problem. 

As a result of this conflicting information or perhaps 
perspectives — i.e. one report emphasizing that a job 
shortage existed whereas another group argued that, in 
reality, a labor surplus existed and was under-utilized — 
conflicting information is available- to the public and 
regulatory agencies concerned with the affairs of mi- 
grants. For the State Employment Service, attempting 
to fill "hard-to-place" jobs, there was a labor shortage. 
Their solution to the problem was to recruit outside 
labor from other states. 

Texas 

Mid-March contact with indigenous groups residing in 
the Rio Grande Valley, indicated that only 12"; to 15% of 
the migrants in the area were working at the time 
of the interview. Of these workers, 70% were working 
a 40-hour week, 30°'. a 20-hour week. Approximately 
67,000 persons were unemployed at the time of our 
contact. Leaders of indigenous groups indicated that 
more migrants than ever before would enter the stream 
in the summer of 1970. 



4930 



New York 

The Migrant Research Project grantee reports they are 
expecting a crisis situation in June, 1970 with an over- 
flux of migrants coming up from the south. There will 
be fewer jobs available due to greater mechanization, 
especially in potatoes. They also report an over-recruit- 
ment for the coming summer. 

Other Data Gathered by MRP 

In the course of distributing emergency food and 
medical monies in the home-based states of Florida and 
Texas when migrants were in the area, other informa- 
tion was obtained — information which corroborates our 
view that an employment and hunger crises will develop 
during the summer of 1970. MRP spent funds at the 
rate of $2,000 to $4,000 per day feeding people over a 
seven-day period. During the period when the migrants 
were in the above two homebase areas, the amount of 
money disbursed to individuals ranged from 20 cents to 
$1.00 per day per person. 

Based upon food monies disbursed and information 
gathered in the informal contacts and survey efforts 
described above, it is the Migrant Research Project 
staff's conclusion that mechanisation has had and will 
have a serious impact on the number of jobs available 



in 1970 in both the homebase states and in the stream 
states. In addition, contacts with leaders of indigenous 
groups in both homebase states of Texas and Florida 
indicate that even more migrants than in previous years 
will enter into the migrant stream this year, and that 
fewer jobs will be made available to them. The chaotic 
state of the market for migratory labor becomes self- 
evident. In addition, if poor weather or mechanization 
at the anticipated increased rate further upsets, an 
already chaotic labor market, the problems facing mi- 
grant laborers will be intensified manyfold. In effect, 
they will be forced to rely upon outside assistance to 
maintain their families while residing in the stream 
states. Moreover, in many instances, their meager earn- 
ings will not provide them with sufficient monies to 
return with their families to the homebase state where 
they reside. Even if they have sufficient funds to finance 
the trip home, the money saved will be insufficient to 
maintain the families during the winter months when 
will enter the migrant stream this year, and that 
limited work is available in those homebase states. The 
result anticipated is employment chaos and hunger of a 
dimension previously unknown in both homebase states 
and stream states impacted by migrants who either 
will be underemployed or unemployed during many 
months of this calendar year. 



Chapter 1¥ 
HOUSING: A FRINGE BENEFIT OF EMPLOYMENT 



Migrant housing has long been a problem to migrant 
and employer alike. During the recruitment of migrants 
in Texas, workers are generally assured that the provi- 
sion of clean, decent, and sanitary housing will be pro- 
vided as a fringe benefit of the employment. Some 
migrants reported they were shown pictures of housing 
at the time of recruitment which simply failed to 
materialize when they reached the work site. Operating 
on the debt economy of migrancy and forced to borrow 
against future earnings, seldom are funds available to 
move on to search for other work sites where living 
conditions are better. 




Low-cost housing in both the homebase and stream 
states is simply a myth. The Migrant Research Project 
during 1969 conducted an intense survey of migrant 
housing in the stream state of Michigan. The results 
of this study are available as a seperate publication 
and may be obtained from the Migrant Research Project. 
The study is synopsized in Part IV of this report, and 
is typical of migrant housing found in all areas of the 
country. 

In addition to the Michigan study, MRP conducted a 
field inspection of migrant housing in Florida and spoke 
to migrant workers in Glades County. Migrant workers 




PROVISION OF HEAT 



LAUNDRY ROOM 



4931 



still occupy housing that was constructed by the United 
States Government during the 1930's as temporary units. 
The cabins are small, with poor venilation, and are con- 
structed on stilts, since the soil is of high nitrogen 
content and easily evporates leaving the cabins awry. 
The conditions in these camps which still segregate 
anglos, blacks, and Mexican-Americans are deplorable. 

The Glades Citizen's Association reported that 
Pahokee Housing Authority had complete control as 
to who occupied the housing. As bad as it was, it was 




From— "CHILD OF HOPE" 

Stewart and Sandage 

A. S. Barnes, New York, 1968 



the only housing available. New construction was under- 
way in the area; however, it appeared the new cement 
block structures were being constructed below ground 
level and that spring rains would be a problem. 

The report of the Glades Citizen's indicated that the 
camp, occupied by Mexican /Americans, was determined 
by the Pahokee Housing Authority to be unlivable and 
was therefore condemned. Occupants were notified they 
must vacate the premises. Since no other housing was 
available, many of the Mexican /American occupants 
were forced to enter the migrant stream and move up 
north where labor was already in over-abundance due to 
mechanization in Michigan, and poor weather in other 
areas. After the camp had been vacated by the Mexican/ 
Americans, anglo families were allowed to occupy the 
units. The only explanation offered by the Glades 
Citizen's Association was that the residents of the old 
camps were to be resettled into the new units upon their 
completion! 

Report on Housing Conditions in Migrant Labor 
Camps in Minnesota, 1969 

During the summer of 1969, Migrant Research 
Project, in cooperation with the Migrant Action Program 
of Iowa, conducted a survey of migrant housing in 
Southern Minnesota. The survey was confined to a 
small area, but the MAP agency indicated they believed 
the results were typical of other areas in Minnesota as 
well. The results of this survey are as follows: 

"Housing and sanitation regulations covering condi- 
tions in migrant labor camps have been in effect in 
Minnesota since 1951 and were recently improved in 
1968. The regulations are generally somewhat more 
comprehensive than those set forth by the federal gov- 
ernment which apply to camps where workers are re- 
cruited through the Employment Security Commission. 

Yet, not unlike many other regulatory agencies, the 
environmental sanitation division of the Minnesota 
Health Department has been slow in enforcing the 
provisions of the law. The Department claims that, "As 
in past years, each camp will be inspected by area sanita- 
tion inspectors, employed for approximately 13 weeks 
during the summer, and supervised by a full-time public 
health sanitarian. Camp ratings will depend upon the 
degree of hazard to health and safety. If corrections are 
not made, the camp permit will be revoked." If a permit 
is issued, it should be posted "in a conspicuous place in 
the camp" along with a copy of the housing regulations. 

The staff of MAP conducted a survey of nine migrant 
camps in southern Minnesota to determine if the camps 
did meet the state's regulations. All of the camps were 
occupied at the time of the survey, and not one of the 
nine had a permit posted. Nor had any of the occupants 
seen an inspector during their stay in the camps. 

All of the camps had a large number of violations of 
the housing regulations, many of which directly 
threatened the health and safety of the camp occupants. 
Three wells were suspect since the water was discolored 
and had a strong odor. In each case, the occupants 
boiled it before use. But while boiling may kill dangerous 
bacteria, it only further concentrates nitrates in the 
water; and an overly high concentration of nitrates can 
be extremely dangerous for nursing mothers causing 
Nitrate Cyanosis or Methemo globinemia( blue babies). 
In addition, more than half of the camps inspected fell 
far short of the regulations in the provision of bathing 
facilities and an adequate supply of hot and cold running 
water. (See Table I.) 



4932 



As Table II indicates, the major violations were in 
site standards, toilet facilities, laundry, and washing, 
bathing facilities, and refuse disposal. Apart from the 
water supply, these are the areas which most directly 
concern the health and safety of migrant workers. On 
the average, the nine camps inspected violated 46% of 
the standards outlined in Table I. and not all of the 
regulations were included. Some of the standards were 
excluded either because of insufficient data or the lack 
of necessary technical knowledge as when inspecting 
sewerage treatment facilities. 



The conclusions of this report are in agreement with 
a recent survey conducted by the St. Paul Pioneer Press. 
The newspaper survey found that "very few camps have 
showers, and bathtubs are nearly nonexistent. Most 
toilet facilities consist of outdoor privies, many in viola- 
tion of state health codes. Furthermore, of 109 wells 
checked last summer by one inspector, 106 were in 
violation of the health regulations. Together, these 
conditions indicate the need for far better enforcement 
of the present housing standards in Minnesota. 



3 33 



tutvlf tor irlrwtn;, owlinj, 
cMll be iMpctad repiUrly 9 



5 56 



Out UuMrr tub Tor mry l**nl)F-ri»< 
UrhlUi. B.bUr»^»t. 



ml 



lifting tor jaxd «m am patmn; 






| d | 3 



eats 



4933 



In addition, an article in Minnesota's Health on May 
15, 1969, noted that, "Since the new health department 
regulations conform to the revised United States De- 
partment of Labor housing standards, state health de- 
partment personnel will make inspections for both 
agencies this year to avoid duplication of services." 
Normally, the Labor Department would make inspections 
of camps where the camp operator recruits workers 
through the State Employment Security Commission. 
Several of the camps inspected were occupied by 
workers recruited in this manner. Yet, as the data 
indicates, the camps were in gross violation of both 
Federal and State housing standards. The existence of 
these conditions raises serious questions about the de- 
cision of the Labor Department to delegate inspection 
responsibilities to the Minnesota Department of Health. 

Special Texas Employment Commission Project 

In the summer of 1969, for the first time, the Texas 
Employment Commission in cooperation with the Minne- 
sota Employment Security Commission and other 
agencies initiated the "Experimental and Demonstration 
Interstate Program for South Texas Migrant Workers." 
The program set forth two major objectives. First, it 
was designed to demonstrate whether or not Texas, the 
northern demand states, and the federal government, 
working in cooperation with one another, could pro- 
vide the migrant families with the services needed 
while traveling in the migrant stream. These services 
were to include assistance in job placement, housing, 
health, and welfare services, and basic education. Sec- 
ondly, the project was designed to provide the remedial 
and /or skill training needed to facilitate the transition 
of the migrant farm workers into other types of employ- 
ment for that time when seasonal farm jobs no longer 
exist. The underlying premise of the program was that 
the declining demand for seasonal farm workers would 



eventually leave Texas burdened with a large untrained 
work force for which no jobs exist. 

Twenty-five families were selected as narticipant'; 
in the program who came to Southern Minnesota to 
work. For these families there were few benefits. Work- 
ing conditions and total earnings were extremely low 
this past summer due to weather conditions; and as 
this report demonstrates, much of the housing occupied 
by these families was substandard. Little was done 
to counsel families on job opportunities, healt'i md 
welfare services, or educational services. In sum, the 
project did little to change the basic living and working 
conditions experienced by migrant workers in southern 
Minnesota. 



4934 




Waiting For Food Stamps, Immokalee, Florida 



PART 



4935 



Chapter TT 
ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS TO WELFARE 



The United States of America, in the past decade, 
set out to abolish poverty among its citizenry- As a 
nation, we decreed it against our policy and against our 
own Pest interest to have 13 % of our population ill- 
housed, ill-fed, ill-educated, and in ill-health. 

To achieve our goal, we explored new ideas, examined 
programs of the past, and launched our campaign 
through legislation, education, and litigation to bring 
relief to the vast numbers of people not participating in 
our affluence. 

Legislation such as the Civil Rights Act, the Economic 
Opportunity Act, the Amendments to the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, and the Food Stamp Act, were passed. 

Education programs were launched to have segments 
of the population who possessed "know-how", teach 
those of us who needed such knowledge and skills. 
Citizens were educated to give knowledge and to accept 
training. Government, labor, management, social, and 
civic groups were asked to bring their expertise to the 
problems. Citizens were asked to participate to the 
fullest. 

Court cases were brought to question the validity and 
practice of administrative procedures for enforcing laws 
already in existence. Some of the questions raised were: 
Can a state withhold welfare benefits from a person 
who has not resided in that state for a specific period 
of time? Can a state terminate welfare benefits to a 
person without first holding a hearing to determine 
whether there are mitigating reasons against termina- 
tion? Other questions were and will be asked. 

Special Study of Food Distributed to Migrants in 
18 Counties 

Federal funding agencies with the responsibility of 
carrying out federal programs through regional, state, 
and local agencies are presented with almost insurmount- 
able problems. Congressional intent determined both by 
legislative language and legislative discussion may not 
be clear, and may require court interpretation. 

For example, the purpose of the Food Stamp Act is to 

guarantee that " the nation's abundance of food 

should be utilized cooperatively by the states, the 
Federal government, and local government units to the 
maximum extent practicable to safeguard the health and 
well-being of the nation's population and raise the levels 

of nutrition among low-income households " The 

food stamp program may only be inauguarated "at the 
request of an appropriate state agency" which shall 
"submit for approval a plan of operation specifying the 
manner in which such program will be conducted within 
the State (and) the poltical subdivision within the 
State." 

In the early winter of 1969, the Migrant Research 
Project made a comparative study of food distributed in 
18 counties of ten states which are heavily populated 
by migrants during given times of each year. The pur- 
pose of the survey was to determine to what degree 
migrants share in food programs either during the work 
season or during the winter season. Based on information 



previously gathered, it was obvious that the currently 
administered food programs were not reaching a high 
percentage of the migrant population. 

The selection of states in the study included those 
with the greatest migrant populations, either "home 
based" or migrating into the state to assist in seasonal 
agricultural work. The counties were selected for this 
study based on the size of the migrant population, but 
only included those where a food stamp or food com- 
modity distribution program was in effect during 196S. 

Figures for determining migrant populations in the 
counties selected were as listed in the 1969 Report of 
the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. Monthly 
reports of the United States Department of Agriculture 
Consumer and Marketing Services, Food Assistance 
Programs, were used as the source of information on the 
average number of persons assisted per month over the 
designated period. The purpose of the dual period 
analysis was to compare the level of participation in 
food assistance programs during those periods of time 
when migrant workers impacted the area to other periods 
of the year when there were few or no migrants in 
the county. 

Florida and Texas were used for the home-base states. 
Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, 
Washington, and Wisconsin were used as the "in 
stream" states. 

Of the ten states studied, Texas, Michigan, and Wis- 
consin showed an increase in the average number of per- 
sons assisted in a month when migrants were present. 
In Texas, less than 16% of the migrants in the counties 
studied were served with public food assistance programs 
in the month studied. However, migrants fared better 
in Texas than in any of the other stream states. In 
Michigan, less than 2% of the migrants in any county- 
studied were included in county food programs; in 
Wisconsin less than .001 % were included. In the other 
states, fewer people were fed during the peak season 
than at other times of the year! Therefore, we can make 
the assumption that few or no migrants participated in 
public food programs in these states. 

Follow-up studies were done in each of the studied 
states during the course of the year. The purpose was 
to determine how and why migrants, who are among the 
lowest paid of all United States citizens, were not par- 
ticipating in food programs. 

Our study of selected state plans, and the implementa- 
tion of such plans, show all too clearly that migratory 
agricultural workers were not considered or planned for 
in the development of state plans approved by the 
United States Department of Agriculture. 

This Government agency, through its tremendous re- 
sources, has available to it information on: a) the rate 
of mechanization in agriculture, b) knowledge as to the 
timing of the harvest, c) knowledge as to long-range 
weather predictions, d) knowledge as to projected skills 
needed in agricultural work, e) knowledge as to the 
number of workers needed now and in the future, etc. 
Much of this information through U.S.D.A.'s research 



4936 



funds is made available to growers and growers' associa- 
tions. None of it, seemingly, is made available to assist 
migrant agricultural workers. Were this information 
brought to bear in studying and approving state plans 
for the distribution of food, most of the problems 
migrants face in participating in such programs would 
be eliminated. It is ironic that the migrant agricultural 
worker cannot receive from the Department of Agricul- 
ture sufficient concern to allow him to assist in harvest- 
ing food for the world. 

Lack of Planning by Department of Agriculture 

A serious obstacle to significant migrant participation 
in the federal food programs relates to the data relied 
upon by U.S.D.A. in formulating and evaluating its food 
programs. Based upon discussions between MRP staff 
members and U.S.D.A. officials in charge of administer- 
ing the federal food programs, the following seems 
clear: 

1) U.S.D.A. food officials do not consider nor do 
they rely upon information collected by other 
branches of U.S. DA. where it concerns matters 
directly affecting the hunger and nutritional 
needs of migrants. (An example would be the 
availability of work to the migrants due to 
weather and crop conditions or the increasing 
use of mechanization, even though such informa- 
tion is made available to the migrants' em- 
ployer. ) 

2) policy-making officials do not require tabula- 
tions or studies of migrant participation in 
federal food programs in spite of the availability 
of such information under the record keeping 
and reporting requirements of relevant acts. 

3) the statistical data gathered through the United 
States Bureau of the Census and relied upon 
U.S.D.A. to make policy decisions is inadequate 
because the base of the sample used contains less 
than 50,000 persons, nor does the data set forth 
include a detailed breakdown within the category 
of "Mixed Farm Working Force" of days worked 
and wages earned on farm and non-farm em- 
ployment The 1970 census offers little prospect 
of a clearer profile of the special characteristics 
of migrants as a population group. The decennial 
census, including the 1970 survey presently 
underway, is not structured to differentiate 
between migrants and all other farm workers. 
In fact, it would be impossible to do so since 
Government agencies have failed to agree upon 
a definition of a "migrant agricultural worker." 
U.S. Department of Labor, The U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, the r s. Department of Health. 
Education, and Welfare, and the Office of 
Economic Opportunity have developed independ- 
ent definitions of eligibility for their various 
programs with respect to a "migrant." At times. 
there have been conflicting definitions developed 
for programs within a Department. As a result, 
the "migrant worker" is a "migrant worker" for 
one program, but. at the same time, may not be 
a "migrant worker" for another government pro- 
gram. 



Even assuming that better data collection methods 
were employed by U.S.D.A., there are other institutional- 
ized impediments to an effective evaluation of migrant 
participation in food programs. There is no systematic 
collection of information on an annual basis (e.g., a 
yearly updating of ihe decennial survey) with suitable 



detail to enable planning, execution, and assessment of 
existing programs or the tailoring of programs to meet 
the nutritional, employment, and other needs of migrants. 
In short, there is a need to build into the data collection 
process the utilization of social indicators — a form of 
social accounting — to guarantee that the actual condi- 
tions under which migrants live are recorded and to 
measure the changes in those conditions over a period 
of time. 

Furthermore, since more than one department of the 
federal government is charged with responsibility for 
alleviating the migrants plight, there is a need to create, 
an interdepartmental council to oversee and integrate on 
a coordinated basis an effort to redress some of the 
current and easily anticipated problems that beset the 
migrant — e.g., his health and nutritional needs, dis- 
placement by mechanization and generally uncertain 
employment opportunities, and substandard housing con- 
ditions — to name only a few of the ills capable of 
immediate interdepartmental action. 

Under the existing circumstances, it is submitted 
that the Secretary of Agriculture has a clear legal duty 
to develop programs in 1970 to increase substantially 
migrant access to, and participation in, federal food 
stamp and commodity distribution programs. It is clear 
that the Secretary of Agriculture possesses sufficient 
discretion to take positive steps by regulation or formal 
instruction to abate significantly the hunger and nutri- 
tional crises facing the many migrants in our country 
today under either the food stamp or commodities dis- 
tribution statutes. 

FOOD STAMPS 

Migrants generally arrive to harvest crops well in 
advance of the season and need food to survive. Barriers 
which made it impossible for food stamp participation by 
migrant and seasonal agricultural workers served by 
the Migrant Research Project last year can be catagor- 
ized as follows: 

(1) both home-base counties and stream-state coun- 
ties are not prepared to service people other than 
local residents 

(2) extensive documentation is required of non- 
residents both for certification and for the estab- 
lishment of hardship deductions in income com- 
putation 

(3) requirements vary from county to county 

(4) food-stamp out-reach workers assigned to farm 
areas and migrant camps are practically non- 
existent 

(5) office hours vary from a few hours per week or 
a few days per month to more reasonable hours 

(6) food-stamp sales may be delegated to banks or 
other financial institutions, keeping banking 
hours 

(7) emergency hours during the evening, weekends, 
or holidays are practically unknown 

(8) income verification for a worker who has many 
employers and rarely receives pay stubs is almost 
impossible; an alternative would be the Declara- 
tion Process now being used by several states in 
their assistance programs 

(9) resources, such as work-related resources, e.g., 
a car or truck disqualifies a person from par- 
ticipation in food programs in many areas of the 
nation 

(10) residency may be the cause of ineligibility for 
food stamps since U.S.D.A. guidelines do not 
specifically rule it out 



4937 



(11) there is no formal and effective complaint pro- 
cedure to report failure to comply with a state 
plan 

(12) certification and eligibility standards do not take 
into consideration persons having no income or 
irregular income 

(13) practice of selling food stamps only once a month 
and not allowing for purchase at less than 
the full month at a time, eliminates migrants 
and others with sporadic income 

(14) independent of its effect on the continued par- 
ticipation requirement, of "lump sum purchase" 
requirement works particular hardship on mi- 
grants who have no steady source of income. 

COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION 

Commodity Distribution programs present many of 
the same barriers to migrants who wish to participate 
in this type of food program. Surveys and reports we 
have studied indicate that: 

(1) food distribution points are at inconvenient 
locations; 

(2) there is a consistent failure on the part of U.S.- 
D.A. to allow O.E.O. grantees, indigeneous 
groups or others to administer the programs; 

(3) rigidity in administration of the programs as to 
dates, place, and time of distribution, as well as 
places of certification and recertification, elimi- 
nate migrants from participating in the program ; 

(4) income certification procedures force migrants to 
verify matters not possible ; simplified affidavit 
of certification could be substituted; 

(5) general lack of uniformity in rules and practices 
relating to certification due to absolute respon- 
sibility for making decisions at the local level ; 
simple delay in certification disqualifies a mi- 
grant who has to move on, or may have work 
in the interim. There is often up to 1 month's 
delay between certification and distribution; 

(6) income and liquid assets allowable varies from 
county to county and in some instances, seem- 
ingly, from person to person ; 

(7) too frequently, county agencies make no pro- 
visions for people who cannot communicate in 
English ; 

(8) transportation is a major problem for migrants 
who must travel many miles to a distribution 
center — (one county welfare director suggested 
in an interview with MRP staff that if the mi- 
grant had transportation money to go the 70 
miles round-trip to the center, he had enough 
money not to qualify for funds) ; 

(9) lack of a refrigerator in which to store perish- 
ables, prohibits migrants from participating in 
the program ; 

(11) food available is not consistent with the cultural 
and eating practices of migrants — if the migrant 
worker suggests that some food items will not 
be welcomed, he may be told that he isn't hungry 

and, therefore, doesn't need the food ; 

(12) lack of education programs as to value of and 
preparation of foods available; 

(13) lack of available foods in many counties. 



SCHOOL LUNCH 

School lunch programs in stream states also are pro- 
grammed for resident children and rarely have sufficient 
funds available to provide for migrant children who 
come into the stream states in the spring of the year. 
Frequently, migrant children enter an affluent com- 
munity and enroll in a school which had no need for a 
school lunch program for resident children. Under 
current regulations, budgets for school lunch programs 
must be geared to a fiscal year basis and not to a 
quarterly basis which would allow the school to accom- 
odate the very special and seasonal needs which accom- 
pany the impact of migrants. As a result, migrant 
children do without lunch at school or use emergency 
food money supplied by O.E.O. in order to eat. 

Welfare and Health 

The exclusion of migrants from welfare programs may 
stem most immediately from the indifference of local 
welfare administrators. However, it also flows from 
restrictive legislation and budgeting at the federal and 
state levels. 

Based on income, almost all of the migrants served 
through the Migrant Research Project, are eligible for 
welfare. The major reason they do not receive categorical 
assistance is because the father resides with the family. 
In stream states they are denied assistance — even on an 
emergency basis — because of residency requirements. In 
most counties, if a dire emergency exists, the county will 
provide the cheapest, immediate public transportation 
to the homebase, but will not provide emergency assist- 
ance. This seems to be true even in states where the 
state office will reimburse the county up to 100% of 
emergency costs at the end of the year. 

Health care for migrants is virtually unknown except 
through migrant health clinics. The services from the 
clinics are limited, primarily to immediate and 
minor illnesses and referrals. Limited funds are avail- 
able for hospitalization in some areas. More clinics and 
hospitalization could have been available through this 
program had state health departments considered health 
care of migrants more important than camp inspections. 

Illnesses such as birth defects, drug addiction, 
alcoholism, and mental health problems are fundament- 
ally ignored by health programs. In counties where funds 
are available to provide free health care at state hos- 
pitals, welfare directors save their allocation for per- 
manent residents. 

Budgeting for hospital care, under the Migrant Health 
Act, is based on 60% of hospital operating costs as 
determined by audits performed by federal accountants 
to determine allowable costs under Medicare. Medicare 
audits do not admit charity costs as hospital operating 
costs. Bad debts, however, are admitted as operating 
costs. Under this regulation, if a hospital provides 
charity to patients, up to 207. of its operating costs, 
Medicare payments are set at 80% of cost. The Migrant 
Health Act funds are then limited to 60% of the allow- 
able 80 % , or approximately 48 % of the migrant patient's 
costs. This means that the hospital, in this instance, 
must assume 52% of the cost for each migrant patient. 
If a hospital is to serve migrants under these conditions, 
they must absorb the greater percent of the cost; or 
must refuse charity patients and force bona fide charity 
patients into the position of refusing hospital care or 
acquiring debts impossible for them to pay. 



4938 




PART 



4939 



Chapter ¥E 
NEGOTIATION FOR CHANGE 



Lack of residency either in the homebase or in the 
stream states has complicated easy solutions to the 
common problems that plague migrancy. Low wages, 
lack of decent housing, lack of organization, child labor, 
language deficiencies, etc., are only results of the voca- 
tion the migrant pursues and his lack of coverage under 
the laws governing the laboring forces of the nation. 

Efforts to gain inclusion under these laws have not 
been fruitful. In recent years, many organizations have 
attempted to provide support for coverage of agricultural 
workers under the National Labor Relations Act. With- 
out a political constituency of his own, the migrant 
worker has been unable to negate the powerful lobbying 
forces of the industry which employs him. Not only 
does the migrant lack voting power in his homebase 
areas, he has not had the benefit of being the respon- 
sibility of any particular department of the federal gov- 
ernment. Recognized by the White House Conference on 
Food, Nutrition, and Health as being a special respon- 
sibility of the United States government, this respon- 
sibility has not, as yet, been recognized and dealt with 
in an affirmative manner, by the Congress of the United 
States. Our research has shown that the migrant worker 
and agriculture have a vested interest in the well-being 
heavily weighted the equation in favor of the agriculture 
industry by the creation of the Department of Agricul- 
ture and the many services available to the growers and 
processors. Consideration must be given to extending 
these services to the laboring force of agriculture and 
accepting the responsibility for its well-being. People 
are surely as important as crops. Lack of voting power 
and success in passage of legislation which could alter 
the pattern of existence for migrants by improving the 
living and working conditions, has resulted in other 
means for redress of grievances being sought by mi- 
grant workers and by those concerned with his plight. 

The Migrant Research Project has attacked the prob- 
lem in three ways: through the courts, through testi- 
mony before Congressional Committees, and through 
participation in the structure of the White House Con- 
ference on Food, Nutrition, and Health. 

In addition, a major effort of MRP has been to enter 
into negotiation at the Federal level with various de- 
partments of government, to interpret to them prob- 
lems and difficulties encountered by migrant workers 
in participating in various Federal programs and receiv- 
of each other. It would appear that the country has 
ing benefit from them. As reported in Part II of this 
report, one of the major problems in purchasing food 
stamps was the inability of county welfare offices to 
verify income or the practice of counting the value of 
food purchased by MRP grantees as income used in 
determining eligibility of migrants to participate in the 
program. It should be noted county welfare officials had 
authority, had they wished to use it, to certify hungry 
migrants for food assistance for the first 30 day period 
upon application without waiting for the income to be 
verified. 

Upon request by MRP the food stamp office of the 
United States Department of Agriculture was helpful 



in interpreting the regulations governing O.E.O. funded 
assistance to the state welfare agencies. Additionally 
MRP was able to work with the National School Lunch 
Program to extend this program to cover many more 
migrant children. 

Since change through legislative and administrative 
process is recognizably slow, the Migrant Research 
Project has also served as co-counsel and provided legal 
research in several court cases which if successfully con- 
cluded will cause change to occur in both administrative 
processes and within the peonage of migrancy itself. 
Change Through The Courts 

Acting of-counsel with the Colorado Rural Legal Ser- 
vices, MRP has filed two companion cases in Colorado 
challenging two provisions of the Sugar Act of 1948 
The Act, among other things, controls the wage rates 
of workers in the sugar industry. It applies not only to 
picking rates, but also wage scales for such work as 
weeding and raking. The cases challenge provisions 
setting up boards to settle wage disputes between the 
workers and the growers. These boards, set up under 
authority given to the Secretary of Agriculture, consist' 
of growers in the area of the board's jurisdiction Mi- 
grants are not represented on the boards. The challenge 
is based on the general principle that one party in a 
dispute, or those closely related and with identical in- 
terests, should not also be the judge of that dispute. 

The second case deals with Dayment of wages through 
crew leaders. The Sugar Act requires direct payment 
to the workers by the grower employers unless the 
migrant signs a permission slip that designates other- 
wise. In this case the grower practice is to pay the 
crew chief who is supposed to pay the worker. This suit 
is based on the premise that the crew leader has oppor- 
tunity and alledgedly does retain a portion of the pay 
for his personal use and that the migrant has nothing 
to say about whether or not he gets naid directly. This 
is felt to be a violation of the intent of the law. 
Access to Property Issue 

Another legal issue where MRP has acted as co- 
counsel on behalf of a migrant plaintiff is in Iowa. 
Migrants throughout the nation are often denied the 
right to determine freely who will visit them in their 
migrant camp homes. This case is a freedom of access 
issue and is based on the fourteenth amendment to the 
constiution which allows for the right to peacefully 
assemble and enjoy freedom of speech. The issue is 
expected to first be heard in Federal court during June 
of 1970. A successful ruling could be important for 
migrants everywhere. 

Access to the courts is an important tool for migrants 
in all areas of grievance. Justice is often denied by 
the discriminatory practice of the exemption of agricul- 
tural workers from laws which govern wages, working 
conditions, health, and safety. Favorable court rulings 
will be important in altering the legislation which 
currently insure these exclusions. 



4940 



Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act 

In New Bern, North Carolina, the Migrant Research 
Project was asked by local officials and migrant farm 
workers in the area to extend both emergency food 
service and legal research to a group of seasonal agricul- 
tural workers who, because of very low wages and 
alledged brutality of crew chiefs, began a strike in 
Craven and two adjoining counties against a blueberry 
grower. 

The emergency food assistance was provided by the 
Migrant Service Center Project since the Migrant Re- 
search funds were too limited at that time. This money 
was particularly critical since it had the effect of allow- 
ing both sides a "cooling off" period during which time 
Duke University was able to arrange for investigators to 
determine the fairness and accuracies of the charges. 

The leaders of the strike were arrested and Duke 
University, with assistance of the Migrant Research 
Project, filed action in August of 1969 to obtain for the 
blueberry pickers, minimum wage coverage under the 
Fair Labor Standards Act. In 1967 this Act, for the first 
time, included wage coverage for agricultural workers. 

There are at least two side results of the strike and 
subsequent court case. The first is a season case based 
upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this 
action, it is alledged that the merchants in the area 
refuse to hire blacks in industry, thereby forcing them 
either to remain field workers or migrate from the area. 
This trend to out-migration of males results in the 
agricultural industry relying heavily upon black women 
and children for their low-paid work force. 

The second result of the suit is the improved wages 
and working conditions in the cotton and tobacco crops. 
Avoidance of additional strikes and possibility of addi- 
tional minimum wage suits was, no doubt, the impetus 
for this improvement. 

During the course of project involvement, Migrant 
Research Project contacted the Department of Justice, 
Civil Rights Commission, Migrant Service Center, Wage 
and Hour Division, Department of Labor (Raliegh, North 
Carolina), Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 
church leaders, Duke Legal Aid Clinic, and the lawyer 
for several persons arrested in the incident to insure 
coordination. 

Testimony Before Congressional Committees 

Several times in the past year, the Migrant Research 
Project staff has been requested by Congressional Com- 
mittees to present testimony relative to the finding of 
the project in working with and interviewing migrants on 
a one-to-one basis. 

Testimony before the House Committee on Education 
and Labor, (Perkins Committee) centered mainly on 
demographic information and more importantly the 



administrative barriers to participation in existing fund 
and welfare programs which deter migrant participation. 
Attention was called to the conditions which exist as a 
result of the number and realm of decisions left up to 
the discretion of county officials and case workers. The 
limitation arbitrarily placed on the number of times a 
needy family in poverty can apply for and receive food 
assistance and the impossibility of the certification 
processes here pointed up as failures of governmental 
agencies to impartially administer programs for the 
welfare of all citizens. Additionally, the Migrant Mi- 
grant Research Project staff's testimony presented facts 
on the inadequacy of the food stamp program to provide 
even the minimum basic diet as set forth by the U.S.D.A. 
Without additional income with which to purchase 
additional food, malnutrition and starvation is produced 
by reliance strictly on government food programs for 
subsistence. 

The Migrant Research Project staff's testimony before 
the Perkins Committee also pointed up the inadequacy 
of medical services for migrants and the need for major 
revisions in the Medicaid program to prohibit states 
from imposing residency requirements of any kind for 
participation in the program. In Texas, for example, 
only persons already categorized as "needy" under the 
Social Security program are eligible for Medicaid. Texas 
as does some of the other states has no category for 
"medically needy which c ould also make him eligible for 
Medicaid. Therefore, a family with a mother, father and 
sick children cannot receive medical attention under the 
Medicaid program no matter how great their medical 
need. 

Other Assistance 

Other assistance provided by the Migrant Research 
Project of Congressional Committees centered mainly 
around the preparation of material which has been 
included on pages 31 through 33 of the 1969 Report 
of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare — United 
States Senate made by its Subcommittee on Migratory 
Labor, Report No. 91-83 on February 19, 1969. This 
section headed Nutrition again deals with the acute 
problems of hunger and malnutrition among migrant 
families. The testimony points up the problems ex- 
perienced by migrants in gaining food assistance under 
programs designed and administered for a stable popula- 
tion. Those problems are compounded by the lack of 
non-governmental resources, such as local credit or 
private charity normally provided by communities to 
their residents. Of the 13 million dollars appropriated 
by Congress in fiscal 1968 for supplementary emergency 
food and medical services, to increase participation 
in federal food programs over a 6 month period, only 
$350,000 was set aside for migrant families. In fiscal 
1969, the total appropriation for a 12 month period was 
only 17 million dollars for the entire population. 



21 



4941 




FROM CHILD OF HOPE 



PART W 



4942 



Chapter Z2JI- SPECIAL STUDIES 



WORKER SURVEY SAMPLING 

Basically, the Migrant Research Project was con- 
ceived to gather two types of information, i.e., the 
extent to which migrant workers and their families were 
or were not receiving welfare assistance through estab- 
lished channels; and the reason or reasons special 
emergency MRP assistance was needed to meet their 
food needs. 

To clearly define the problem, it was essential to 
gather more specific information relative to the re- 
cruitment and employment pattern of the workers. To 
gather these facts, it was determined to undertake a 
sampling of workers in a mid-west stream state and a 
far-west state. Iowa /southern Minnesota and Illinois 
were selected in the mid-west since it was possible to 
sample a larger percentage of the total migrant popula- 
tion in the area including Iowa southern Minnesota and 
western Illinois. The state of Washington was selected 
in the far west. New York State was also included in 
the east coast stream and was utilized as a control 
group since no persons in the New York sampling 
were certified to receive MRP assistance. It is interesting 
to note the similarity between the New York State mi- 
grant and the groups receiving MRP assistance. 




The tables included in this report may not, in all 
instances, total to the number of responses indicated 
for the individual state. This is caused by the fact not 
all migrants responded to all questions. The reader 
should be aware that due to irregularity of employment 
and working conditions not all questions were con- 
sidered to be applicable by the migrant at the time of the 
survey. 

In the majority of instances, persons doing work as 
migrant agricultural workers had been in the stream 
only 1 to 5 years or had been migrants for at least 
15 to 25 years. This raises the question of what is 
happening to the young adults. 

This situation may be caused in part by the rapid 
mechanization of the crops in Texas and in part by the 



green card holders coming across the border and dis- 
placing domestic workers. At any rate, people are ap- 
parently being forced into the migrant stream in greater 
numbers. The United States Department of Agriculture 
reported this trend in 1965 with statistics showing an 
increase in migrants from 11% to 15% from 1949 to 
1965*. Apparently this increase is still occurring 4 years 
later despite the effort to enroll migrants in skill train- 
ing programs to ease the transition from agricultural to 
industrial employment. 

The complete breakout for the sampled states is as 
follows: 





Hssds 


of Households 








1-5 




5-10 
wars 


10-15 

TSSXS 




15-25 

TSSJ-S 


Illinois 

2* Interviews 37* 




21* 


13* 




29* 


99 lntsrrlswi *?* 




20* 


IK 




20* 


Minn* lot* 

M intsrslsw. 34* 




it* 


1»* 




38* 


Washington 

222 intsrrisws 19* 




7* 


6* 




6H 


•O.S.B.A. Bolllt 


in #12) 






5< 





34 intsrrla.ro 



The abovs figures 



following niiibtr of paopla and < 



Illinois 




585 pooplo 






1.724 paopla 


Southern Win 


naaota 


9*8 poopla 


Washington 




2,521 poopla 



Nsw York 1,000 psopls 26 cross 

In view of the more stringent housing standards re- 
quired by the U.S. Department of Labor for the recruit- 
ment of workers through the Employment Security Com- 
mission, and in an effort to determine the practices gov- 
erning the employment of migrants which affected their 
ability to plan for and effectively provide at least 
minimum daily requirements for their families, the MRP 
Worker Survey Sampling surfaced other general infor- 
mation related to the problem. 

These generally fell into two categories: information 
relative to recruitment practices and information relative 
to wages. Responses are indicated in the charts below. 
It should be noted the number of migrants surveyed who 
were recruited through the Employment Security Com- 
mission was so small that it is included under the head- 
ing "other" in the chart. 



l?< 



as 



From the above chart, it is easy to note the majority 
of migrants are recruited in the homebase areas through 
friends and personal contacts. The arrangements are 
casual and very few workers actually are employed under 
a bona fide contractual arrangement. Only in Iowa, 



4943 



where 13 of the migrants interviewed had signed what 
they believed to be a contract, did the majority of 
workers responding to the question indicate they had 
received a copy of the document. MRP was unable to 
verify its authenticity as a contract. 

Since the majority of migrants indicated they had 
been recruited to join a crew through a friend, the MRP 
interview included a question to determine the widening 
effect of such recruitment and if those workers being 
recruited by friends were asked to recruit additional 
workers either within their own families or among their 
acquaintances. Although the number of responses was 
small, it does indicate the enormity of the problem the 
homebase states face in enforcement of legislation gov- 
erning recruitment. 



Nuaber of Recruited Woi-teare Asked to Recruit Additional Workera 




Minnesota 



The number of children doing agricultural field work 
is generally accepted as being large. However, the 
matter of actual recruitment of such children is a 
question. 

There can be no denying the complexity of the prob- 
lem of adequate enforcement of the limited amount of 
child labor legislation which could protect migrant chil- 
dren. Part of the solution lies in the recruitment process. 
The MRP survey of migrants asked if children were 
being recruited either over 14 years of age or under 14 
years of age. Responses were as follows out of 416 
returns: 



Number Recruited Ages Asked Proof Required 



Leas than 1** - Over 14 Ye 



157 189 



A loan against future earnings is most often the only 
"ticket" a migrant has to his seasonal employment. To 
get to his work site, he must borrow from the employer. 
The MRP survey in the target states, however, in- 
dicated this practice may be undergoing a change. In 
Iowa, for instance, out of 99 responses, 79% indicated 
they had not borrowed from the upstream employer to 
get to the work site. Of the 21 who had borrowed trans- 
portation funds, only 13 indicated they had signed a 
promisary note for repayment of the loan. In Minnesota, 
557. of those interviewed indicated they had not been 
forced to borrow travel money. However, of the 
Minnesota migrants responding, 61 % or 23 heads-of- 



households borrowing from the employer indicated they 
had signed promissory notes. In Washington, it was 
practically evenly divided between those who found 
it necessary to borrow money and those who did not do 
so. Only 49°* or 37 heads-of-household negotiated a 
travel loan; of these 72 % had not signed a note. The 
situation was similar among the New York group where 
63% or 22 responding did not borrow money for travel. 
When loans were made 80 % indicated they had not 
signed a promissory note. In Illinois, no migrants inter- 
viewed indicated they had borrowed funds for travel. 
However there were only 18 responses to the question. 

MRP is unable to draw any conclusion as to this trend 
and what alternatives there may be developing for re- 
sources. Certainly MRP was not able to determine that 
greater numbers of migrants were finding winter em- 
ployment in the homebase areas; indeed the reverse was 
true. However, this could be a partial indicator of the 
impact being made by stipended adult education training 
programs. It may also be the result of a change in mode 
of transportation and size of crews. This would seem 
to be substantiated in part by information received from 
the Chicago Regional Office of the U.S. Department of 
Labor who indicated job orders received are being placed 
for larger, but fewer crews for 1970. Those traveling 
may be traveling by truck vs. family automobile. 

It is commonly believed there are certain guaranteed 
prequisites enjoyed by migrant workers such as free 
housing, utilities, interest-free loans, etc. In order to 
determine the way promises and guarantees were being 
made against those benefits actually received, migrants 
were asked to list recruitment promises. These have 
been tabulated as follows in the target states: 



4944 



Recruitment Incentives Received as Promised 
(Percentage of those Responding) 



Illinois 

Iowa 

So. Minnesota 

Washington 

New York 



Yes 

100* 
81* 
71* 
97* 
12* 



19* 

29* 

3* 

88* 



Normally, working people in this nation enjoy regular 
pay periods. In order to determine the pay intervals 
available to migrant workers which can provide funds to 
enable families to participate in food programs, the MRP 
survey defined the time sequence of pay periods in the 
target state areas. 

The question determined not only the intervals between 
pay periods, if regular pay periods were established, 
but also whether or not pay records were kept and if 
so, by whom. Results were as follows: 



■aSJ P«y»»nt Practical 



Migrant Earnings Credited and Paid 

One Family 

Member Individual 



Illinois 

Iowa 

So* Minnesota 

Washington 

New York 

totals 



75 

20 

112 

_15 



18 



There can be no doubt that migrant workers are not 
receiving credit for their individual earnings in the 
target areas surveyed. Without doubt, the failure of 
employers to maintain and provide adequate records of 
earnings to individual migrant workers decreases the 
number of needy migrants able to be certified for food 
programs for which they may be eligible. 

It is also important to persons applying for food assist- 
ance to not only show proof of income, but also to be 
able to provide proof of various deductions from gross 
pay which may be counted as hardship deductions in 
applying for food assistance. In all instances in the 
target areas, migrants reported deductions were made 
from their gross pay. The majority of workers surveyed 
felt the deductions made were fair as they understood 
the conditions of their employment. 



Hindi 



se 


52 1 1 




83 7 1 




S9 62 4 


L0 


29 25 71 



Out of 400 responses, the table indicates that when 
the migrant was aware of written records being kept 
regarding the amount of his earnings, these records were 
kept by the grower and subject to the grower's control. 
Less than 50 1 of the workers had records of their earn- 
ings which explains part of the difficulty in applying 
for welfare and food assistance even when they were 
eligible for such assistance. MRP was not able to deter- 
mine if the records maintained also indicated hours 
worked in order to determine the hourly rate actually 
earned in relation to the minimum wage hour even in 
those instances when it was applicable. 

The practice of family earnings being credited to the 
head-of-the-household causes major difficulties for work- 
ers in accruing social security credits for old age assist- 
ance. It does enable the grower to maintain a simplified 
bookkeeping system and requires less reporting on his 
part to the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security 
Administration, and appropriate state and local agencies. 
It conceivably could also cause families to be disqualified 
from participation in food programs in those instances 
where minor sons and daughters were married and could 
be certified as a family unit if separate cooking facilities 
or schedules could be maintained. 

To determine the incidence of paying wages to one 
member of the family rather than to each individual em- 
ployee as is generally required of industrial employers, 
migrants were asked to respond on the practice: 



The final question asked in the special worker survey 
sampling was designed to determine what was the effect 
of underemployment or days lost on the earnings of 
migrants. As expected, all workers reported days not 
worked. Indeed, this was the major reason reported for 
the need of special MRP food assistance as indicated in 
the accompanying chart: 



Raaaona 


Tor 


R-qu-ntljw 


HRP 






■ U.01 


a lown/frlnn. 


Waablarton 


Vortc Rot Raady 


U 


77 






Vithout Fund* 


1 


87 






Ho Job 




U2 








1 


33 








V 


46 






Va«*a told Back 




63 














6 


Dabt to Gromr 










Vaathar 












1 


21 






Car Rapalr 




a 








1 


17 






Bonua End of Soaaon 










Oiaablod 










Bonua Danlad 










Wa«aa 




















Om Cm Uad.r 










Othar 











25 



4945 



The number of migrants reporting irregular em- 
ployment and periods of unemployment during the peak 
work season was 948 workers. This irregularity of em- 
ployment and underemployment during the peak earning 
season limits the amount available to workers for the 
purchase of food. In addition, workers were often kept 
from participation in the food stamp program by two 
practices employed by growers and processing companies 
to enable them to guarantee credit to local trades people 
and to defer capital expenditures of growers until the 
end of the season when crops are harvested and sold. 
These practices are the establishment of credit or charge 
accounts with local grocrs or the issuing of private food 
coupons, the value of which is deducted from gross pay 
and redeemed from local merchants by the growers. (See 
section on food coupons.) 

This practice disallows the bonus purchasing power of 
Federal Food Stamps. 



HMdi-of-Howhold 
Dm of t>mrolOT»nt« 
mineli 150 

Io»» 260 

S. MilBMSOt* 1C4 

WMhlngton ZL5 

B*w Torir.'' 230 

•ton D«r» 

The worker survey form surfaced many of the con- 
tributing causes of migrant poverty. Because all tabu- 
lations were done manually by staff, it was necessary 
to cut off further tabulations on September 30, 1969. 
Therefore, not all samplings are included in this report. 
However, indications are that final tabulations will not 
deviate greatly from the reported percentages. 



4946 



Chapter ZHIE 
SPECIAL WISCONSIN PROJECT 



The conclusions reached by the U.S. Senate Subcom- 
mittee on Migratory Labor in reports published in 1969, 
made it apparent that further research and more 
accurate documentation would be necessary before solu- 
tions to the problems brought out during the committee 
hearings could be found. 

The Migrant Research Project of the Manpower Evalu- 
ation and Development Institute and the Division of 
Family Services, Department of Health and Social Ser- 
vices, State of Wisconsin undertook to provide the docu- 
mentation necessary. The demonstration study was 
initiated in the summer of 1969. The purpose of the 
study was to provide a more specific indication as to the 
extent and cause of the problems of hunger and malnu- 
trition among the migrant families working in the stream 
and to determine, if, under optimum conditions, migrants 
could receive necessary assistance through existing pro- 
grams as presently structured. 

The Migrant Research Project provided funds for 
emergency food services, when needed. The study in- 
volved 6 counties in the central portion of Wisconsin, 
where the highest cencentration of migrants would be 
for the summer months. The total sample included 381 
families, consisting of some 2200 individuals. 

Final conclusions based on the data presented have 
not as yet been formulated. A special report written 
jointly by the Migrant Research Project and the Division 
of Family Services, Wisconsin State Department of 
Health and Social Services will be published within the 
near future. Copies will be available from either agency. 

It can be stated at this time however, that due to the 
joint project the increase in migrants served in one 
county alone by the food program increased 300%. The 
increase in the other counties studied also showed equally 
astounding increases. It is hoped this report will pro- 
vide at least a part of the information needed to modify 
the existing programs or to design new ones to meet the 
specific needs of the migratory worker, compatible to 
the goals for service presented in the Senate Subcommit- 
tee report. 

As brought out in the Subcommittee report, one of the 
problems migrants frequently faced is hunger and mal- 
nutrition. Unstable characteristics of the farming in- 
dustry combined with encroaching mechanization dic- 
tates the financial insecurity of the migrant group. 

The project was conducted in Adams, Columbia, Green 
Lake, Portage, Marquette, and Waushara counties. These 
counties were jointly selected by the State of Wisconsin 
and the Migrant Research Project because of the con- 
centration of migrants in the area as well as the im- 
plementation of three different types of food programs. 
Counties with food stamp programs were Adams, Mar- 
quette and Columbia. Commodity Distribution counties 
were Waushara and Portage, while Green Lake county 
had neither program at that time, but since the project 
had ended, has implemented the Commodity Distribution 
program. Additionally, the project utilized 6 other 
counties as a control group. They were the food stamp 
counties of Door and Milwaukee and the Commodity 
Distribution counties of Oconto, Kenosha, Waupaca and 
Dane. 

The migrant families who participated in the study 



applied for emergency food services during the months 
of June, July, or August. The average size of the family 
(See Figure 1) was six persons. The average stated 
income was between $2,000 and $2,400. (See Figure 4). 
The average stated monthly income for the preceding 
month was between $300 and $400 per family. This rela- 
tively high figure can be accounted for by the fact that 
the migrants in the Wisconsin project areas accrue 
approximately 49 % of the total annual income during the 
three summer months of his greatest employment. The 
balance of the annual income is accrued over the remain- 
ing nine month period from both farm and non-farm 
sources. 



Project Pamillei 


j Annual 


Incoi 


ne - 


Paallv Sit. 


1 of 


>» or More 








t 


of fanlllos 




j_ 


$999 or lese 








2U 




l.i. » 


<1,000 - $1,991 








71 




39. OK 


$2,000 - 13,999 








83 




*5. 6* 


$J*,000 - or »ore # * 








lta 




7.7* 


Not given total 








93 








•♦Top Income $6,000 

It is quite evident, even from our preliminary calcula- 
tions, that any consideration of a migrant's monthly 
income out of the content of annual income is likely to be 
grossly misleading. For this reason, the current food 
stamp program and other resources of public assistance, 
which have eligibility requirements based on monthly 
income levels, are often not available to the migrant. In 
Wisconsin, for example, the allowable monthly income 
for a family of six is $350. Since the average stated 
income for the previous month, according to initial cal- 
culations, is between $300 and $400, it is conceivable 
that some of the families could have been ruled ineligible 
for services because of income requirements even though 
their annual income was far below the index of poverty. 

The figures on amount of expenses and financial com- 
mitments incurred by the migrant families in the study 
are not yet available. It would appear, however, that 
one of the primary reasons for needing emergency 
assistance during the summer months is because most 
of the income is applied to debts incurred during 
the previous year, or as a cost of traveling to the 
worksite and cost of maintaining the work crew in- 
stream. Although it was apparent that the weather 
conditions were a major contributor to the problems 
in Wisconsin last summer, there were undoubtedly other 
variables which are emerging from the data, which were 
also important casual factors. 

An analysis of the data in one county where 313 
families received commodity foods for a two-week period 
from July 16, to August 1, 1969 revealed the following 
information : 



4947 



Average Size Family 

Number reporting debts 
on houses t cars, hospi- 
tal etc. 

Number with funds in 
bank 



Number receiving wel- 
fare in Texas 



6.1 members 



111 - 85« 



- $200.00 

- $300.00 

- $1,000.00 



One of the target areas of the pilot study was informa- 
tion on the number of migrants participating in welfare 
programs and other existing services availab le, as well 
as the emergency food services. 

The most frequently received service by those mi- 
grants included in the sampling, was surplus food com- 
modities. (See Fig. 5). Not quite 50% of the migrant 
families surveyed were receiving, or had received, sur- 
plus commodities from the counties. The next most fre- 
quently utilized service was the HEW Health Program in 
which almost 207. of the families indicated they had 
participated. It is important to note that other services 
purportedly available to needy people, such as welfare, 
Medicaid, School Lunch, Medicare, and Head Start did 
not have a large migrant participation. 

It should be emphasized again that the figures in- 
cluded are based on the preliminary tabulations and not 
intended to be construed as being statistically final at 
this point. However, information tabulated thus far, 
seems to coroborate the findings of the Senate Subcom- 









* 






_EU 



mittee report. It would appear that, as suggested in the 
Subcommittee report, there is a pressing need for modi- 
fication of some of the existing programs, or to create 
new programs which would be designed to fit the needs 
of the migrant population. In the Wisconsin project, it 
was clearly demonstrated that it is illconceived to at- 
tempt to incorporate into present structures designed 
to meet the needs of a resident population, citizens of a 
mobile nature. This is true of all the major public in- 
stitutions. It is especially true in welfare agencies. It 
was also made apparent that further studies in more 
specific areas are called for to provide efficient admin- 
istration of any programs initiated. 

Based upon the 1969 Wisconsin summer food project 
and the difficulties encountered in its implementation, 
it is the recommendation of the Wisconsin State Depart- 
ment of Health and Social Services, Division of Family 
Services and the Migrant Research Project that the 
United States Congress enact legislation to ensure equal 
benefits of welfare assistance to all its citizens. It is 
further the recommendation that this be accomplished by 
the enactment of uniform standards of eligibility and 
benefits for all Federally assisted programs in all states. 

Tabulations 

The statistical data for the survey is presented in bar 
graph form, based on percentages. All percentages in the 
graphs have been rounded to the nearest whole percent, 
and for this reason slight errors due to rounding may be 
noted. Figures included in the tables are those figures 
actually derived from the survey data. Formula used 
computing the median for the income figures is as fol- 

( N - ) 

lows: (1 + 2 FB i. ) All graphs were hand drawn and 

( fp ) 

were not intended to be construed as anything other 
than graphic representation from an estimated scale. 




4948 



Ko. of Fwlllo 



300-399 
40O499 
500-599 



>todie»r« 

Hadlcild 

Head Starl 



it of Annual Zncoi 
0-J.99 
500-999 
10OO-U99 
1500-1999 




Ago Croups by FuUioi 



but ton- [monthly incowt ) 



lU p- : n T &-El n [ 




- Hi - _E>? BT1 i t.--! (T^ 



F 



4949 



•10055" 
90 
>0 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 




26% 



25% 



JUL 



LOO, 



_£Z!L« 



EL 



rzn nrg., 






---.-.. ~—; Figure 6 n 

Percentage of Migrants Receiving Emergency 
■Food Services in Each County 



100% 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

i.O 




'::.. : : r ::; : ~ Figure 7 •-- : 

Percentage of Migrants in Age Groups 



13% 



20 * 



15* 



12* 



13 






12 



JC!lL_.tt*: 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 28 



4950 



During the spring of 1969, MRP conducted a brief one- 
week survey in six counties of south Texas to determine 
why migrants in the area were not participating to a 
fuller extent in the surplus commodity program. 

Reports of hunger were widespread and requests were 
repeatedly being made for emergency MRP funds to 
feed migrants in the valley. 

The survey was conducted by migrant workers over 
a five-day period. No follow-up effort was made nor was 
there any attempt to interview welfare workers to check 
the records maintained by welfare officials. 

However, the results indicated only one migrant family 
out of 49, who responded in the door-to-door random 
sampling were received food assistance. Reasons for 
denial of eligibility listed by those surveyed were as 
follows : 

Didn't know reason for denial 18 % 

Income too high 16% 

Cut-off from further certification 14 % 

Lacked proof of income 12% 

Attitude of officials — too many questions 12% 
Told to seek work 6% 

Reason not clear 6* 

Owned auto or truck 4 % 

Lack of citizenshipM 4% 

Told not sufficient food available 2% 

No child in family — no commodities 2% 

Did not apply 2% 

Received 2 % 

(Represents 49 samplings, 150 answers) 
A breakdown of the eight families denied food because 
of excess income reveals the unrealistic criteria being 
used to implement food programs. 

One head-of-household with 10 family members re- 
ported he was denied certification on the basis of his 
$1,000 annual income. He had no income for the month 
he applied. A family of 7 persons with $3,000 income 
was told the county had no more money for food. 

A tearful mother of 8 children living on the $180 
monthly pension of her husband killed while serving in 
the Army was also told her pension disqualified her on 
the basis of income even though this amount allowed 
only $.66 + per person per day for total living ex- 
penses; not sufficient to meet U.S. DA. requirements of 
$.75 per day for a basic diet. 

The amount of daily per person income available for 
total living expenses for those denied assistance on 
the basis of too high an income would be as follows* 



SOUTH TEXAS SURVEY 
Chapter JK. 



If one were to carry this a step further and figure the 
amount available for daily food costs as 20 percent of 
available income, it is clear the enormity of the problem 
faced by malnourished and hungry migrant workers. The 
average migrant in the above table would have available 
only 10« per day to meet his food needs. No economy 
plan yet developed will meet this criteria. 

* Rounded figures 



LYNN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 
COMMITTEE, INC., PROJECT 

Late winter and early spring weather in Texas has 
been made more accute the usual need for food supple- 
ment of the migrant workers wintering in the state 
before the spring trek north. The Migrant Research 
Project does not have available statistics too indicate the 
actual numbers of hungry migrants in Texas. The Office 
of Economic Opportunity made available emergency 
food and medical services funds to local Community 
Action Agencies and to the Title III-B Migrant Division 
grantees in addition to those funds administered by the 
Migrant Research Project. 

It is interesting to note how closely the data obtained 
from one of the other OEO emergency food grantees 
and analyzed by the Migrant Research Project correlates 
with MRP statistics. The Lynn County Project raw data 
and demographic information of 149 families receiving 
food assistance from that agency. Represented are 98 
migrant families and 58 seasonal farm families. Their 
annual earnings for the 12 month period of time prior 
to March, 1970 based on self-declaration looked like 
this: 



F1IOLI 1UMMM - U —a 



19Z 

1*5 



par Paraon par Day 
Total Llylnit Expanaaa 



it 



(14) Not o requirement 



Their declaration of earnings for the previous 30 day 
period prior to their application for assistance, however, 
more accurately reflected the extreme hardship felt by 
the migrant families, most of whom were forced to live 
on the little they had earned during an extremely poor 
harvest season in the north during the summer of 1969. 



4951 



OMBJiaag oms norm pnioo prior to apflkatioi rat assctam 

»300 12JO-4300 «1S0-»2SC HOO-»liO POO -o- 



Of the 149 family units representing 794 individuals 
reflected in the above tables, onlv 7 families indicated 
they were receiving food assistance other than com- 
modities, and only 23 family units were participating 
even irregularly in the commodity distribution program' 
This means that only 20"'. of the hungry migrants who 
should have been eligible to receive commodities, actually 
were able to receive any food assistance other than t'la't 
available to them through the emergency food program 
of OEO. Other assistance programs made an equally 
poor record. 



The size of the family and the ages of the family 
members must be considered in determining the amount 
of food necessary to maintain the family at a proper 
nutritional level. From the above table, it is easy to 
note that only 5 families had an income greater than 
$300 prior to the month when a request for assistance 
was made. Of these 5 families, 2 had 11 members in 
their household, 2 had 10 members each in their house- 
hold, and the other had 6 members. 

An analysis of the 17 families who declared they had 
no earnings or income during the 30 day period prior to 
application for assistance revealed 1 with 10 family 
members, 3 families with 9 members, 3 with 7 members. 
All but 5 of these 17 families indicated they had applied 
to public welfare for assistance, but had been rejected 
for a variety of reasons. One family with 5 members 
were told they could not receive assistance because the 
size of the family was too small to qualify for the 
program! Another family with 7 members, headed by a 
20 year old unmarried son had been without food for 
5 days. Still the boy was told by the welfare officials 
that he should work to support his family. Some of the 
families who had not applied for assistance from public 
welfare indicated they had not done so because the 
welfare officials spoke only English and they understood 
only Spanish. Others did not have the necessary trans- 
portation available to pick up the commodities. A num- 
ber of the no income and low-income families reported 
they had been refused assistance by the public welfare 
officials because they were MIGRANTS ! 

A look at the annual income of the 17 families who 
listed no income for the 30 days prior to application for 
emergency food varies from $500 for a family of 7 
persons to $3,800 for a family of 5 persons. One family 
of 9 persons, with 3 persons over the age of 16 years, 
had an annual income of $1,000; while the other two 
families who listed 9 members each, (with only 3 mem- 
bers 16 years of age or older) listed an annual income of 
$2,500. 

Family size for the 149 migrant or seasonal farm 
worker families who received emergency food assistance 
from the Lynn County Community Development Com- 
mittee was as shown in the following table. 







UMTS BY NUMBER IN FAMILY 






2-* 




I* and orar 


3 


37 


« »7 16 

AGES OP FAMILY MEMBERS 





r*"-a 


0-5 


6-15 16-21 22-** »5- 


.6* 65 . 



PERCEN TAGE OP MIGRANT FAMILIES SURVEYED PARTICIPATING IN PROGRAMS 
Food School Social Haad- 

Aaa't CoBMQdltT Lunch walfara Sacurltv Start 



Even though the School Lunch program made the best 
showing, many of the students indicated they were 
receiving a reduced price lunch, or that they were 
allowed to receive school lunch on credit, but that when 
a family member was able to find work, they must repay 
for lunches received. Still other families who applied for 
free school lunches were turned down because the school 
system had exceeded their set quota of students who 
could participate in the school lunch program. 

A difficulty experienced by many of the elderly 
migrants was lack of citizenship. On woman of 66 years 
of age was being supported by her 20 year old grand- 
daughter who had an annual salary of $ 1,500 and listed 
only 70 income during the 30 day period prior to apply- 
ing for emergency food assistance. She was denied old 
age assistance because of her lack of citizenship even 
though she had been a resident of the United States for 
60 years! 

All in all the reasons for denial for public assistance 
were many and varied. One family was certified for 
participation in the comodity distribution program and 
received foodstuffs twice, however, the eligibility was 
cancelled when the weather turned "nice" They were 
told that as long as the weather was "nice" they could 
not receive 'help". 

One of the most heartbreaking reasons given for 
denying assistance, was to a family of 9 persons, headed 
by a 40 year old male with 6 children. His wife's sister 
lived with the family unit. Welfare officials purportedly 
told the family that in order to receive assistance, they 
would have to ask the sister to leave their home since 
this added to their expenses. Assistance would not be 
granted any other way ! 

Year Round Assistance 

Because the Migrant Research Project is a national 
project, it was possible to trace some travel and earning 
patterns of several of the families who required emer- 
gency food assistance both while in a stream state and 
while in the homebase state during the winter. 

Typical of these was the family headed by 40 year old 

W V who worked the asparagus 

fields in Southern Minnesota in 1967. 

This 10 member household wintered in Plainview, 
Texas and were recruited through the Texas Employ- 
ment Security Commission on April 21, 1969. The official 
U.S. Department of Labor form No. 369 (see copy) lists 



4952 



6 workers in the family ; none under the age of 16 years. 

The family enrolled their young children in a Day 
Care, Headstart, and Little I Center operated by an 
MRP grantee. 

The father listed his annual income for the previous 
year at $1,000 at the time they began picking asparagus. 
Because every hand counts for both migrant and company 
when the "peak season" began, everyone in the family 
with the exception of the 2-year-old and the 7-year-old 
worked. It is interesting to note the ages of the family 
members as listed on the family history sheet of the 
school center. In actuality, two of the "workers" were 
under the age of 16 years and not "over 16" as 
certified by the U.S. Department of Labor (see photo). 
The family also listed 7 members as being workers with 

the school center. Mr. V in responding to the 

MRP worker survey, stated that his children were re- 
cruited by the Employment Security representative, that 
he was not asked their ages, and that they were promised 
the same rate of pay as the adults in the family. The 
school records showed that only the 4 youngest children 
enrolled at the center; the 12 and 15 year olds did not 
enroll. 

A further inspection of school records show all too well 
the effects of the life style patterns of migrant children. 

P , age 11, was tested by school officials and 

found to be in the 3rd grade. His parents stated he had 
attended school only 4 months the past year. In seven 
weeks he improved one whole grade in his Bote! Reading 
Test. 



J , age 8, placement test indicated this child 

operated on a first grade level and did not yet know 
her alphabet. Socially withdrawn, at school she played 
mainly with her sister. Difficulty with the English 
language. 

M , age 7, school records indicated this child 

was rather withdrawn. Wrote her teacher, "Much of the 
time she just sits, too tired to do much of anything . . . 
I discovered with 6 brothers, she has to get up very 
early to help around the house. This could be the main 
reason for her 'laziness.' I try to see the she rests every- 
day and she usually falls right to sleep." 

L , age 2, understood very little English. 

Adjustment to other children difficult at enrollment, 
soon he played well with others. By the end of the term, 
he became aware of sizes, shapes and colors. 

At the time of recruitment, Mr. V signed a 

promisory note and was given a cash advance of $300. 
The family was promised rent-free housing, free medical 
attention, and company issued coupon books which 
were redeemable for food. Deductions were taken from 
his weekly check, however, he rarely undrstood what 
these deductions were to cover. 

On July 4, 1969, the family left the asparagus fields. It 
is believed they returned directly to Texas. However, 

on April 13, 1970, the V family again sought 

and received food assistance from the MRP grantee. 

At this time they stated Mr. V was unable to 

find work and his earnings for the previous 12 month 
period was $1,300! 



AGMCUtTimi r.C - -^.i SCHEDULE 



"&. w< JZ&S 



?£r 


<:-?hir. 


Vltt- 


3£ j;;:; 


P.O. iziuivn It I .SB f. £" 


,V,f? 


r.c..:. /:*>£* A. 








□,.«. 




</£#- *":? -■?.£« 


D •■ >~ £3^- «• 




-JZ 


j" <-• 




Z3*g 


~£- 


_i£ 


m / 


rW- 9tlZ> <••.». ptr.hyAr'm.T-*. . MM 









— iri 


p^ 


■-- 


SSS^'iSi 






-.. ..,. 


"*' 


gr 


*" '■."■*""*.. '_"" | 


— ; 












'-■?; 










'~ 




— 


SB 


MS 


S 


» 


;.: 


z 


„.,.. 


'£• 


•s 


..,.' 


~T. 


E 






5. 


/-/ 


<!-JI 


Ihsioasr caop& 








-"-•" 

".';;.( 




























1 


rfO£ 


i-<:- 


Qsuotenfio Seaniiia Co. 

Ci'jztcnn:-. niinn. 
.T;;'7-<'-5/ -7.-70" 


V 


Hon 


:V/C 


M 


fy**<qas 


II 


6 


5" 


1 





5 


o 


S 





2 


O 


O 


ff: 


';-<■' 


J>Z1 


Dkkand 



































































































































































4953 



. & 



C^?<u6/n 



MIUKANT ACTION PROGRAM 
Area Center- 

Count y g ^ 

£2L r-^.-y </-?fe A> - 



^/'3/6? 



Location of Camp <- aa&mt*tUte££. 

1/ 



-Date A,„v»ri X^^fr ^ ^? 



Home »■«■ fsCxt-ri^rs-fJ'^*/*—! /o^st^, Date Left k.~. »Ql*/y 4f £ ' f 

Seasonal Migrant /A Out - Migrant 

Religion C^t^C^^C' Number of years in area L. 



Social Security Number *r £-<f-~S^2 ~ ?-& -< ■? Citizenship ly •> • 



Individuals i 


n Family 


Sen 


Birth 1 
Date j Age 


Educational 
Level 


English 
Fluency 


Worker or 
Non-worker 


2/ 


S/ 


\}9 


• ** 


A/<? 


US 


y 


&■ ?<7 


S^> 


// 


L,^- 


$- 




s*f. 


\>7 


? 


l/<r~s 


Ut/ 


*&/ 


^L 


**f- 


\u 


9 


S„ 


uv 


<y 


*t 


/ <~ 


9 


/< 


US 


/7 


St 


\/J 


# 


// 


l A s* 


J* 


/I? 


*fi>//*™\ // 


> 


// 


^/ 


f 


F 


Jr,/«//?f/& 


/sP* 


r> 


ASi*/ 


/*& 


£■ 


J/n/mi 9 


/& 


it 


A/tsi/ 




SS 


"faint 


1 


— — 




A//*/ 







































































-A*. 



j^ Skk - ^ i^A^SP 



Family Income LS£& 

Poverty Line fV"^ 

Amount Under ^^^"^ 

We Hare 

Referral received 

Referral sent 





■ 


F 


under 1 






\ through, 4 


/ 












-Z 


& 




i 




16 Throueh 19 


3^ 




20 and 21 




22 through 44 


s\s 


45 through 64 




6 5 and older 





Total Workers ,.2^ 



Total Non -workers— It- 



Months in area 

Jan Feb Mar 

ftptA^May >i J»n >ff 

JuL 

Oct Nov- 



-_ 



^L 



33 



4954 



Chapter X- SPECIAL HOUSING SURVEY 



The conditions which migrant workers encounter as 
they move from state to state has been described as a 
serious crime. Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr., in the 
forward, entitled "Crime in the Fields," of the 1969 
Report by the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Laborl, 
cites Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary in defining 
what constitutes a crime - "a gross violation of human 
law; any aggravated offense against morality." The 1969 
Report, while considering the entire spectrum of "crimes 
in the field" afflicting migrant workers and their fami- 
lies, focused upon one of the most acute problems facing 
the migrant worker: the home in which he lives while in 
the stream. 




The seriousness of the crime may be measured by the 
number of people which are affected, i.e., the number of 
victims. In 1968, approximately 279,000 people were 
migrant farm workers2. Most of these workers travel in 
family groups so that the total number of people traveling 
in the migrant labor stream maybe as high as one million. 
If the poor conditions of camps are as widespread as 
studies tend to indicate, then nearly all of the migrants 
are afflicted. 

In discussing the problem with government officials, 
both federal and state, it became very apparent that 
despite the numerous surveys and reports, very little was 
inside migrant labor camps. Although there was a general 
belief that the camps were bad, how bad was not actually 
known. The Migrant Research Project believed that it 
was necessary to gather and present data which would 
reflect the condition of the camps as accurately as possi- 
ble. 

During the summer of 1969, the Migrant Research Pro- 
ject, with the cooperation of the United Migrants for 
Opportunity. Inc. (UMOI) conducted an intensive survey 
of migrant housing in the State of Michigan. Michigan 
was chosen because of the large numbers of migrant 
workers who enter the state each year in search of agri- 
cultural employment. It is estimated that between 50,000 
to 100,000 migrant laborers annually come to Michigan 
from other states, primarily Texas, in search of employ- 
ment. Approximately 3,100 camps, located throughout the 



state, provide housing for these workers. 

The purpose of the study conducted by the Migrant 
Research Project was to identify and document those 
aspects of migrant housing which could be corrected by 
enforcement of existing laws and regulations. It was 
believed that a major reason why the problems of migrant 
workers have not been met is in large part, due to the 
lack of specific information and statistics. Thus, a 
methodology of research was devised which would satisfy 
the objectives of the study. 

Methodology 

A simplified inspection sheet was designed which 
would enable staff members of UMOI, an OEO Title III-B 
project, to observe and record the conditions which they 
found to exist in migrant labor camps in Michigan. Since 
the OMOI has offices located in various parts of the 
state, this enabled a more balanced geographical distri- 
bution in the survey sample. 

The questions on the inspection sheet were also de- 
signed to provide information revealing the existence of 
violations of the Michigan Housing Regulations promul- 
gated and enforced by the Michigan Department of Public 
Health as well as the Federal Regulations set by the 
U.S. Department of Labor. Since most of the states have 
enacted regulations similar to those of the USDL, the 
inspection sheet was used in other states as well. 

A table of random numbers was not used in the selec- 
tion of the camps which were inspected because at the 
time the survey was commenced, a total list of camps 
was not available. A second reason was the time and 
cost factor in preparing such a list. Futhermore, the 
camps are spread throughout the state and are often diffi- 
cult to find. When found, it is often impossible to get 
permission from the operator to enter the camps. For 
these reasons, the inspections were made on the basis of 
information and knowledge of camp locations known to 
the UMOI from their extensive contacts with migrant 
workers throughout the state. No attempt was made to 
single out the worst camps. The results of the survey 
appear to be quite reliable. Since the questionnaires 
were also used as the basis for inquiry to the Michigan 
Department of Public Health and the Michigan Employ- 
ment Security Commission, it is possible that more than 
the proportionate number of "bad camps" are included. 
To compensate for that possibility, when analyzing the 
questionnaires for violations of federal and state regula- 
tions, all doubts were resolved in favor of the non-viola- 
tion. 

By the end of the summer, 148 camps had been in- 
spected, approximately six percent of the licensed camps 
in Michigan. These survey camps were located among 23 
counties on the lower Michigan peninsula where the bulk 
of Michigan's migrant population are employed. The oc- 
supant size of the camps ranged anywhere from six to 
261 and the total number of migrants living in all of the 
survey camps totaled in excess of 5,000 persons. 



4955 



The data collected from the camps which comprised 
the survey group provided a firm foundation for analysis 
of housing conditions in Michigan's migrant labor camps. 
Before turning to a discussion of the findings, it is 
initially important to understand the regulations set by 
the Michigan Department of Public Health as well as the 
federal regulations set by the USDA. 

State and Federal Housing Regulations Governing Migrant 
Labor Camps 

In an attempt to protect the health and safety of mi- 
grants recruited through state employment agencies, the 
federal government established guidelines for minimum 
standards of habitability of migrant labor camps (Title 
20 CFR Sec. 620). These regulations apply whenever an 
employer seeks the assistance of the state employment 
agency (in this case, the Michigan Employment Security 
Commission) in the interstate recruitment of workers in 
agriculture, foods, and related industry. These regula- 
tions, therefore, apply with particular force to migrant 
workers. 

According to the procedures set forth in the Federal 
regulations, a grower (employer) who solicits the Michi- 
gan Employment Security Commission in recruiting farm 
workers from outside the state must state that the labor 
camp which he operates conforms to the minimum housing 
standards set by the USDA. No inspection or other proof 
is required, although an inspection of the camp is re- 
quired thirty days prior to the arrival of the workers. If 
it is found that the housing conditions do not meet the 
federal requirements, the employer will be denied further 
recruitment assistance and the present work order will 
be canceled. 

The Bureau of Employment Security is given the duty 
of enforcing the federal regulations and the power to 
deny its recruitment facilities to persons who fail to 
comply with them. Unfortunately, the administrative 
structure of the Bureau of Employment Security ensures 
confusion as to the enforcement of the regulations. The 
state agencies affiliated with the U.S. Employment Serv- 
ice are charged with administering the federal regulations 
governing compliance by the camp operators. However, 
the state agencies often have an inadequate number of 
inspection personnel; and must, therefore, rely on the 
camp owner's statement when they grant certification for 
the camp and process the clearance order for the workers. 
Often the Bureau of Employment Security relies on the 
State Health Department to make inspections. Further- 
more, in some instances, it is known that state employ- 
ment agencies have failed to deny recruitment facilities 
to persons who do not comply with the regulations. 

The effect of cancelling the work order is often a futile 
gesture since the workers are already arriving into the 
camp or are en route. Consequently, the enforcement 
scheme poses no immediate obstacle to the operator; he 
is already guaranteed having workers to harvest the cur- 
rent season's crop and, at the same time, is not under 
any compulsion to make the necessary corrections to 
bring the camp into compliance with the minimum stand- 
ards. Furthermore, by the time the revocation procedure 
is completed, the season may already be completed and 
the workers are on their way again; off to a new camp. 

Field observation would indicate that the enforcement 
procedures available to the Bureau of Employment Se- 
curity, either denial of recruitment facilities and cancel- 
lation of work orders, is not an effective means for 
gaining compliance. The fact is that many workers who 
arrive into the camps were not recruited through the State 



employment agency; and, therefore, the federal regula- 
tions do not apply. For these workers, their only recourse 
is to the Michigan laws and the regulations promulgated 
by the State Department of Public Health. 

The provisions governing minimum housing standards 
on migrant labor camps in Michigan are covered by Public 
Act 289 of 1965 and by the regulations promulgated under 
that act by the Department of Public Health. Public Act 
289 created the Agricultural Labor Camp Unit (ULCU) 
within the Divisien of Engineering in the Department of 
Engineering in the Department of Public Health which 
was given jurisdiction to issue licenses to any agricul- 
tural labor camp occupied by five or more migratory work- 
ers. The Commissioner of the ALCU will issue a license 
to camp operators only, if after investigation and inspec- 
tion, he finds that the camp conforms to the minimum 
housing standards which are set forth in the regulations. 

As it was pointed out earlier, federal regulations es- 
tablished by the United States Department of Labor set 
minimum standards. States are prevented from enacting 
regulations allowing less stringent regulations than those 
set by USDL only in those cases where workers are re- 
cruited for employment through the Employment Security 
Commission. Otherwise, states are not required to set 
any higher standards. Michigan departs very little from 
the federal regulations and has adopted federal standards 
almost verbatum. The inspection sheet utilized in this 
study restated the Michigan regulations in the interroga- 
tory and thus permitted an analysis of violations under 
both Federal and State law. 

The regulations themselves establish minimum stand- 
ards of construction, health, sanitation, sewage, water 
supply, plumbing, garbage and rubbish disposal. The 
agency enforcing the Michigan housing regulations is the 
ALCU. The problems this agency encounters in enforc- 
ing the regulations roughly parallels those which are 
faced by the Bureau of Employment Security in enforcing 
the federal guidelines. One of the major problems they 
face is lack of personnel. The ALCU staff consists of a 
program director, six full-time regional sanitarians, and 
six seasonal camp inspectors. This small staff is unable 
to effectively police the 3.100 labor camps for code vio- 
lations. 

Although there are provisions in the Act for suspension 
or revocation of a license, the time in which it fakes to 
litigate these proceedings renders them totally ineffective 
vehicles for enforcement. If violations are reported to 
the Commissioner of the ALCU, he must set a hearing 
and give notice to the camp operator at least 10 days 
prior to the date of the hearing, before any action can be 
taken. If, at the hearing, it is found that the complaint 
is valid, the aggrieved camp operator may appeal that 
decision to the courts and thereby gain a further delay 
in correcting the violations. As pointed out earlier in 
this report, by the time the process reaches the final 
stage, the migrant workers will have probably harvested 
the crop and departed for a new camp. 

This vicious circle of ineffective enforcement is also 
enhanced by provisions in the Act which allow for a pro- 
visional license when the agricultural labor camp does 
not comply with all the provisions of the regulations. A 
temporary license may be issued for up to 3 months. A 
second waiver may be allowed; however, not more than 
two consecutive temporary licenses may be issued. The 
camp operator who receives a waiver must formally agree 
to a definite improvement program to correct the deficien- 
cies that exist. Usually by the time he is required to 
make the improvements, the workers have left the camp. 



4956 



Who is left to complain that the operator did not make 
the agreed upon changes? After the workers are gone, 
the problem in enforcing both the federal and state regu- 
lations pertaining to minimum housing standards for mi- 
grant camps in Michigan set the stage for possible code 
violations. Attention of this report is now focused upon 
the camps inspected to determine whether this was, in 
fact, true. 

Preliminary Observations on Housing Conditions in Mich- 
igan Migrant Labor camps 

An initial observation of the camps in Michigan con- 
cerned the failure on the part of the camp operators to 
properly display their licenses. Licenses must be dis- 
played in a "conspicuous place" within the camp area. 
Nevertheless, of the 148 camps surveyed more than half 
did not have licenses properly posted. In addition, of 
those camps where the license was seen, nearly a fourth 
exceeded the maximum legal occupancy permitted under 
the license. 

The fact that many camp operators were not complying 
with the simple requirement of showing their licenses is 
indicative of the widespread violations which were found 
to exist in the camps. More than half of the families 
could expect to find themselves in camps with debris 
about the grounds and with bad drainage — often standing 
water, which, in the warm summer months, rapidly causes 
an increase in the mosquito population. The camps were 
generally supplied with an inadequate number of garbage 
cans. Fifty-three (53%) percent of the camps in Michigan 
were reported to have garbage cans not tightly covered. 
The buildings, which in nearly three-fourths (75%) of the 
camps surveyed are of the cabin type, were judged struc- 
turally unsound or unsanitary. In nearly half (50%) of the 
camps, the units had rough floors, uncleanable walls, 
leaky roofs, leaky walls, wet floors, broken screens, 
faulty doors and missing screens. Each of these defects 
standing alone, create unsanitary conditions, when con- 
sidered in conjunction with one another they aggravate 
the problem enormously. 

Although, admittedly, it takes a high degree of techni- 
cal skill to determine whether or not water is safe to 
drink, occupants of 15% of the camps surveyed felt that 
the water supply was unsafe; judgment was based on the 
color and/or smell, excessive sediment, and the fact that 
a large number of camp occupants had become ill after 
drinking the water. In one-fifth of the camps, the wells 
were located within 75 feet of the privy, a source of 
possible contamination. In three-fourths of the camps, 
the occupants must carry their own water. In only 18% 
of the camps was water piped directly into the living 
units. 

Over 75% of the camps surveyed had inadequately 
lighted toilet facilities; one-fifth did not have a wall plug 
in each room; and one did not have electricity in each of 
its living units. More than one-half of all camps failed 
to provide adequate yard and pathway lighting. 

As the statistics readily indicated, toilets remain one 
of the greatest hazards in migrant labor camps. More 
than 90 percent of the toilets in all camps are of the 
privy type. Privies were classified as unclean and were 
located too close to where food is prepared or served in 
39% of the surveyed camps. Well over half of all the 
privies were poorly ventilated and less than one-fourth 
were fly-tight or had toilet paper and holders furnished. 

In an environment that constantly exposes the workers 
to dust, dirt, mud and pesticides, less than a third of the 
camps surveyed provided adequate laundry facilities. 



Nearly one-third of the camps had bathing facilities which 
were judged unclean and unsanitary. Another third of the 
camps were without any bathing facilities whatsoever. 
About one-half provided adequate space for hanging and 
storing clothes. 

Nearly 40% of the camps lacked any kind of heating 
system. The regulations require that camps occupied 
before May 31 or after September 1 be provided with heat- 
ing equipment capable of maintaining a temperature of at 
least 68 degrees. The temperatures in Michigan during 
the summer months often are well below this. The heat- 
ing systems which were provided generally consisted of 
the cooking stoves and other systems which utilized dan- 
gerous or volatile fuels, contributing to the fire hazards 
already in existence. The Michigan regulations stipu- 
lates that there be at least two means of escape in one- 
story dwellings. Only 57% of the camps met this require- 
ment. In addition, less than half were provided with fire 
extinguishing equipment, which often was only a bucket 
or hose. 

Perhaps one of the most common violations documented, 
although one of the most difficult to police, is that of 
overcrowding. More than half of the parents with chil- 
dren over six years old traveling with them are not pro- 
vided sufficient privacy in the housing furnished them. 
Migrant workers coming to Michigan generally travel with 
their families. Recreation facilities are important for the 
safety of the children, who often are left by themselves 
in the camp while the rest of the family is in the fields. 
Such facilities were absent in 37% of the camps surveyed. 

One other basic finding merits attention. In those 
camps housing workers recruited through the assistance 
of the Michigan Employment Security Commission, viola- 
tions were found to be fewer than in those camps subject 
only to the Michigan regulations. Fourteen camps in the 
survey indicated that the workers were recruited through 
the federal system. The average violations for this group 
registered 13.8 per camp as compared to 15.3 per camp 
for the overall survey group. This indicates that when 
the camps come under the jurisdiction of the USDL regu- 
lations, conditions are somewhat better. 



4957 



DIARY 

CHAPTER XI - DAIRY OF A SUGAR BEET WORKER 

Following is an account of a young college student 
who entered the migrant stream through the recruitment 
process in Texas and worked in the sugar beet fields in 
a mid-west state. The account is true and accurate. 

The reader must consider that the writer is a 21 year 
old male in his third year at Antioch College. Bright and 
well-educated, the young man elected to enter the 
"stream" to gain first-hand documentation of the reality 
of migrancy- facts vs. fiction - and to determine if legal 
or other rational remedies might exist for the migrants. 

He traveled in a crew of 40 hands, plus children and 
non-workers. Most were friends or relatives of the crew 
chief. Travel was a private auto plus a large 1967 truck 
with a bed of about 30' x 8'. The front half was loaded 
with personal belongings, the back section lined with 
benches which seated 15 to 20 persons. Their ages 
ranged from 6 months to about 65 years. The trip took 
about 44 hours. There was only one rest-stop of approxi- 
mately an hour; even though the law required vehicles 
transporting migrants stop from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. 

It is interesting to note that despite the intellectual 
capacity, knowledge of resources, and the certainty that 
he could leave the crew whenever the situation became 
unendurable, that the young man became captive of the 
same fears of reprisals, and was immobilized by the con- 
fusions and complexities of their situation to the extent 
that he, no more than the migrants, could take positive 
action to alleviate their plight. 

Additionally, weekly reports discussed other grievances 
encountered by the workers as indicated in the following 
letter written on June 24: 

"We were not told exactly how many rows to an acre — 
we were not told how to account for the difference in row 
length when figuring acreage — we were not told the 
grassy section would be paid differently (and still don't 
know how much) — we were not instructed to work differ- 
ent sections differently, but do know that more or less 
work was required to clean up different sections. The 
shorter rows we were required to do for nothing." 

From notes written while and after it happened, I'm 
going to try and reconstruct the last problems we had 
with the in B , M_ 

Background: 

Our crew was supposed to work for at 

$1.80 an hour doing weeding and spot-thinning behind the 
new thinner. There was an unseasonable amount of rain 
during our first three weeks there, and we were thus pre- 
vented from working a good deal of the time. Those days 
that the weather did permit us to work were spent doing 

hoeing for other growers because told us that 

his fields still weren't ready or that he hadn't been able 
to run his new thinner through them yet. Initially, there 
was a good deal of confusion about wages and how much 
work there was to be done. (The crew chief had informed 
the workers they would be paid $25 an acre with 10 rows 
to the acre.) 

On the 27th day of June we began work in a 200 + acre 
field. We were to work under piece-rate payment system 
at the "going rate" (or legal minimum) of $15.50 per acre 
for the first thinning-weeding operation. We were told 



Chapter XL 
OF A SUGAR BEET WORKER 



that the new thinner wouldn't work in that field due to 
the corn stalks and other protruding elements in the field. 
They had planned on using the machine there, and by the 
time we started the field, the beets were already a little 
bigger than the normal size, thus making the work a little 
more difficult, a little slower. I was told by a worker and 
a few others that I should do good work so that the sec- 
ond weeding would be fairly light, fast work. 

The owners spent $25,000 or so to buy their equipment; 
thinner, weeder. etc. Through their own arrangements, 
or through the company, they also worked the rig in the 
fields of various other growers in the area. One of these 
growers had promised his crew of migrants that he would 
give them 200 acres of beets to work and that he would 
be using the machinery in other acreages. The crew knew 
and agreed to this before coming north and had made all 
plans in accord with it and the grower has kept his 
promise. 

Sentiment is not so much against the machine or the 
process of mechanization; it is directed against the in- 
considerate manner in which the transaction is made; the 
degradation which the migrants are subjected to by the 
grower. The obvious fact that you are being used to 
someone else's advantage is a characteristic of the mi- 
grant life. But when this fact is not even dimmed nor 
made less obvious by medium fair salaries, professed 
grower concern, etc., it is impossible to view the situa- 
tion without some bitterness. 

During the period of time we spent working that field, 
we lost almost eight days due to rain and wet ground. 
The grower's policy is not to let his beets be worked 
when the ground is the least bit wet; other growers in the 
area leave the decision up to the workers. All the rain 
added considerably to the size of the beets making the 
job just a little harder, though certainly not exceptionally 
so. 

During the first hoeing, most of the workers pushed 
themselves as much as they could endure, though still 
trying to do very clean work -including scraping the bare 
spots in the rows so that weeds won't appear there later. 
Doing work this way requires considerable more time and 
effort and is performed in this manner almost exclusively 
for the purpose of facilitating the second weeding. 

"La limpia" or the second weeding is held to be the 
work which yields more favorable to the migrant. This is 
the operation which makes his time and sweat in the first 
hoeing worthwhile. 

During our first hoeing in this field, several of us 
wanted to make sure that we were going to do the second 
hoeing there also. M remembered explicity ask- 
ing A , the crew leader, three times. Each time 

he was answered with a "tiene que darnosla" - he has 
to give it to us. His affirmative answer assuaged the 
doubts, and work continued. 

Over a week passed after the completion of the field 
without the second weeding being mentioned. We were 
supposed to leave in four or five days, and several peo- 
ple were concerned about winding up, taking care of all 
our remaining obligations, etc. One of these remaining 
was the second weeding, which we estimated would take 
two to three days to finish. 



4958 



On Friday, June 18, six of us solos were woming in 
that field cleaning up the small section where the ma- 
chine was tested out and failed to perform well. We were 
all working pretty close together, discussing our various 

fields. I asked M if the grower was still going 

to give us the second weeding there. A 's answer 

to that question was discussed and some doubt over its 
meaningfulness was expressed. A short time later. 
E , the brains and force of the two grower broth- 
ers, stopped by to see if we had found the rows alright 
and to bring us some water. He told us to take six rows 
at a time to finish off the section in one "whack". Be- 
fore he left. I was asked to ask him about the second 
weeding. When faced with the question, he began to hem 
and haw in his accustomed manner for facing an unpleas- 
ant situation. He hedged for awhile, but finally said 
"no", and that he didn't intend for a second weeding in 
that field, especially at that time. With that, he mounted 
his tractor and drove off; his back being stared at bale- 
fully. There soon erupted a conversation which literally 
smouldered with the righteous anger which each of us 
felt. We discussed how things had been going in the 
state, how we had worked very hard in this field, and 
how this was the only field remaining in which the crew 
could earn some money. The possibility of bringing up 

the issue with A , the crew chief, cropped up and 

was quickly, sardonically discarded. Then he and his 
manner of arranging things (or rather not arranging any- 
thing) received the brunt of the hostility and criticism 
for a few minutes. The discontent, anger, and dissatis- 
faction that we felt was certainly not allayed any by the 
work we were doing. Each of the six rows that each 
person was working was very heavy with weeds, making 
for slow, hard work — no difference in what we would 
earn because we were working by the hour, but there still 
was dissatisfaction with the grower telling us to take the 
six at once instead of the normal two rows when there 
are many weeds. 

We continued working, still discussing the issue. Al- 
though dissatisfaction, resentment, and anger were being 
voiced, there was little thought as to what action could 
be taken, now the situation might be resolved. 

We returned to the camp about six p.m. and indirectly 

heard that E had complained to A , the 

crew chief, that we had been slacking off that afternoon. 
This greatly increased the workers' hard feelings toward 
him because it struck at a basic fabric — the worker's 
pride in his labor. This is extremely strong among the 
Mexican-American migrants. In the evening we gathered 

together (the five singles plus R V (for- 

tyish, married) and rehashed the whole issue. Special 
emphasis was placed on how the situation developed - 
largely due to the incapable handling of the contracting 

by A — i.e., he received neither a written nor a 

verbal promise from the grower that he would give us the 
second weeding. He just assumed, implicitly, that the 
normal procedure would be followed and answered our 
later questions on that basis. 

During the conversation, feelings became stronger, 
better expressed, more self-righteous, and — still - with 
no concrete alternatives considered. 

The following day, Saturday, June 19, the entire crew 
went to work a field in a nearby town. There the solos 
lagged considerably behind the rest of the crew who were 
working fast; their laughter and songs could not be a- 
voided. But neither a smile, nor laugh, nor idle gossip- 
ing could be heard among those few behind — just the 
sharp sounds of cursing and arguing, and the pregnant 
silences between them. At one point we discussed the 



rate of speed at which people were working (led by 

A ). The solos were determined to work slowly, 

take an excessive amount of time to do a given amount 
of work. One worker said it like this - "Damn the grower 
— let him come and find us, his best workers, behind 
everybody else. Then he'll have grounds for a com- 
plaint." 

At one point, several of the girls who were ahead of 
the rest left their rows to help the laggards. This was 
resented by those behind, and when the two groups met 
the girls were told that "we don't need any help; we 
could be out front if we wanted to. Go back to your rows 
and work real hard for our lousy boss." They attempted 
to recognize the good intentions of the girls, but this 
along with a thousand other things was lost in the tremen- 
dous communication gap. Division, resentment, anger, 
misunderstanding were the order of the day, among the 
workers themselves. 

Shortly after the encounter with the "helpers," those 
behind picked up a little speed and drew closer to the 
main body of workers. The solos ourselves began to 

separate also — e.g., M , feeling much more angry 

and resentful than J M , consequently 

worked slower. This division or estrangement or separa- 
tion of workers was felt strongly by a few who were liter- 
ally wracked with anguish at the situation. The problem 
was not analyzed or subjected to or seen within any 
logical framework. It was not seen as a problem to be 
resolved resulting in one, two, and three, but rather was 
just plain and simply felt. And it hurt. 

As the morning wore on, interchanges among the solos, 
as well as between them and the others, grew very in- 
frequent. When they occurred they were usually tense, 
bitter, non-understanding. Feelings were becoming more 
internalized (possibly felt more strongly'') -but they were 
still very visible in the faces, faces occasionally lifted 
to look down long rows of weed-lined beets, faces which 
in the same moment reflected something entirely different. 

In the early afternoon, H , brother of E , 

and one of the growers, arrived and announced that he 
was walking around checking over the rows, far behind 
us — work we'd completed in the morning. At that time, 
I was working with two or three solos and a couple of 
girls somewhat behind the others. Upon his arrival, the 
girls sped up and urged us to do the same — which, of 
course, given the situation, produced a slowdown in our 
pace. The girls out of earshot, the grower was subjected 
to a good round of hostile cursing. We discussed whether 
or not we should take our complaints to him and it was 

decided that it would be better to talk with E , 

who had made the complaint against us and, also, had 

told us about the second weeding deal. E , rather 

than H . "wears the pants" or "is the brains" of 

the two. 

When H passed by us at a relatively safe dis- 
tance of ten yards, I asked him if E would be 

home in the evening. He said yes, and wanted to know 
why we asked. The solos said to tell him that we wanted 
to discuss a few things with him. Apparently H_ 



thought that he was being evaded and persisted in his 

questions. We then told him about E 's complaint 

and our feelings about it. H hemmed and hawed 

a bit, and explained away the complaint as not very im- 
portant, probably arising out of a slight misunderstanding 
or bad judgement on his brother's part. He agreed that 

we should discuss the problem with E if we still 

wanted to. H then began to wax eloquent on their 

labor-management philosophy which amounted to this: 
When any worker employed by the Brothers was dissatis- 
fied with any aspect of this total working situation, or 



4959 



felt that there were problems to be resolved, then he 
should immediately go to one or both of the brothers to 
talk things over rather than letting the problem build up 

and causing more dissatisfaction or resentment. H 

said this was their policy with all employees: tractor 
drivers, mechanics, or field labor. Running out of steam. 

H 's lecture fizzled out and apparently had no 

effect on the hard reality faced by the workers. H 

seemed to have been cheered a little bit by his eloquence, 
and asked if there was anything else we'd like to bring 
up. The fellows said "yes." I asked, "why aren't you 
going to give us the second hoeing on our piece-rate 
field?" No sooner were the words out of my mouth than 

a very uncomfortable look appeared on H 's face, 

and he began to walk away, saying that "hum-hum, we 
have to talk that over; why don't you pass by the house 
in the evening'" He said he'd see us later, and walked 
away too rapidly. A man marked by uncertainty — by 
fear. 

Thirty or forty yards down the field, H stopped 

to talk with J P The derision and con- 
tempt for H gave voice to a few shouts to the 

effect that he shouldn't talk with women about men's 
business. He quickly moved on, got in his truck and 
drove off. Anger, frustration, derision, contempt rose to 
surface among solos. There was slight communication 

with a few of the others, just briefly relating what H 

had to say, and sarcastically describing how he ran off 
scratching his head when confronted with the big problem. 

We finished the rows we were in and a section of short 
rows, then started back on some long rows at the side of 
a grove. There we were out of sight of the short section 
just completed. M H was somewhat be- 
hind the others and stopped to look around. When he did 

so he caught sight of H 'a truck on the far side 

of the short section. He traced his steps back a little 

and saw H talking with the crew chief. He knew 

well enough what the discussion would be centered on 
and was furious. He called me back and we stood, re- 
moved, watching them for a minute. Then M 

yelled across the field to the crew chief that H 

had told us that we would work now and discuss later — 
if so, then what the hell were they doing. On hearing the 

shout, both of their heads jerked up. H glanced 

over at us and almost immediately began walking to his 

pick-up. M felt that we should go over and crack 

both their heads a good chop with our hoes. 

M and I picked up our rows and continued work- 
ing, talking, angrily discussing that which had just tran- 
spired. After we stopped talking, M fell quite a 

bit behind. One of the girls with whom he had been 

spending some time, finished her row and helped M 

with his. When they met. there was a short exchange be- 
tween them which seemed to hurt them both in which 

M told her that he'd prefer that she not help him. 

That day's weedy rows didn't have the determining voice 
in whether a person lagged far behind - rather the deter- 
mining factor was mental anguish and the degree to which 
it was felt. 

About one and one-half to two hours later, M 

asked if I wanted to leave, that he was going back to the 
camp. Listening to the tone of his voice and looking at 
his face, I judged that it would be no escape from what 
he was feeling and would prefer to continue working than 
sitting around in that state of mind. I just answered no 
with a shake of the head and we all continued working 
until we all finished for the day, about 6:00 p.m. - very 
little talking. 

In the evening we discussed the situation in the trailer. 

Present were the five solos, R V — and 

three or four other boys. Feelings and discussion were 



strong, forceful. General feeling of the guys that evening 
- disgust, helplessness, separation, despair, and some 
anger. I knew that we had to confront the grower some- 
time and asked M later in the evening if he wanted 

to go and received the expected answer — "If you want, 
let's go." Better to wait, it seemed to me . 

Sunday. July 20th. dawned fairly clearly and the mental 
horizons began to clear somewhat also. The crew wasn't 
going to work Sunday. There was less despair, but spir- 
its were still pretty low. After washing and waxing the 
car, there was nothing to do. In the early afternoon we 

borrowed some money from R V so that 

we could go "out." We drove to the lakes and spent the 
afternoon watching the swimmers and skiers there, 
the grower, was there and approached us as 



we walked by. He began talking about the weather, chat- 
ting, clearing his throat a lot. He was met with a few 
very hollow answers and soon turned to return to his 
charcoal broiler. Walking away, there was a good round 
of cussing and sarcasm directed towards his generous 
"non-offer" that we join him to have a bite to eat. We 
saw his boat trailer and 1969 Buick as we left, and half 
joked that if he gave us a ride in his motor-boat, we'd 
forget about the second hoe problem. I mentioned that 
he ought to be back around dark and that we might go 
talk with him — met with very strong, "si, vamonos!" 
Sunday evening about 9:00 or 9:30, we drove over to 
E 's house - we being M and J 



H- 



M 



. and the crew chief, A_ 



T (almost forced to accompany us) and myself. 

I explained to the guys before we went that I should 
mainly translate because if I acted as actual spokesman, 
the whole issue would be dismissed by the grower as 
only the problem of a student, a "beard," a rabble- 
rouser, rather than as a problem felt by the actual workers. 

E answered our knock and greeted us, saying 

that he was watching the T.V. coverage of the astronauts 
who were, at that moment, bouncing around on the Moon, 
shining brightly above our heads. He begrudgingly tore 
himself away from the set and came outside to talk with 
us. I briefly explained that we'd come to discuss some 
problems at his brother's invitation, saying that we were 

told by H that the brothers wanted to discuss all 

problems with their workers. 

To this, E replied by nervously clearing his 

throat several times, and asked, "Where's A , 

(crew chief) 1 Didn't he come'" A raised his 

head a little, and replied that he was present, which 
information was met by an embarrassed laugh-snort from 
the grower who hadn't noticed. He was worried that his 
"yes man." our crew chief, wasn't there to agree with 
everything he said. 

I translated as the guys, principally M , brought 

up the complaint E had made about our work, and 

their feelings about it. It was immediately evident that 

E was going to back off on this issue. He was 

surprised that we had taken it that way, and claimed that 
it was only a suggestion that maybe we were slacking 
off a little bit. He was quick to agree that the workers 
shouldn't have to kill themselves, but added that he was 
afraid that the fastest workers had slowed down to the 
pace of the slowest. He named me and asked if I might 
be slowing down the others. This was met by a definite 

"no" by M and the others without realizing the 

implications which I explained earlier. J M 

said that "if he doesn't want to pay us for those hours, 

tell him to forget it." E weasled a bit more, 

cleared his throat some, and said that we were all good 
workers, that he didn't mean to offend anyone. What 
sincerity!!! It was priceless, in that it didn't cost him 
one red cent! 

During a pregnant silence following this drawn-out 



4960 



During a pregnant silence following this drawn-out 

interchange, E glanced longingly at his closed screen 

door, swatted a few mosquitoes, and made a few tenta- 
tive "termination of conversation" gestures. 

We resumed by asking again if he was going to let 
us do the second hoe in the contract field. We explained 
that the first hoe had been done under the assumption 

that we'd be given the second. Also, M added that 

he'd asked the crew chief about that at least three dif- 
ferent times and that each time he was told "tiene que" 
— he has to. We wouldn't have taken so much time clean- 
ing bare spots in the rows, etc., if he weren't going to 

do the follow-up. E disagreed with this, saying that 

if that had happened then M wouldn't be working 

for him very long, E felt that work is done' for the 

employer according to his (employer's) specifications, 
and that if an agreement cannot be reached then the 
worker should go elsewhere. This attitude may be correct 
and just, superficially — a very definite implication was 
that the dissatisfied worker would move on and be quick- 
ly replaced by another worker who would agree to con- 
ditions and quite often never complain about them. Of 
course, this is one of the most basic socio-economic 
problems of the unorganized migrant farm force. There 
always seems to be someone a little hungrier, a little 
less concerned about getting a fair deal, a person willing 
to sell his sweat and his backache for a few cents less. 

Another point should be raised: The grower referred 
to an "agreement" being reached. In this case, it's fairly 
obvious that there was no "agreement" or even under- 
standing or communication as to what was required, as 
to what was expected. Apart from this situation — is the 
"agreement" to be between the worker and the grower 
or through the crew leader? Usually it is through the 
crew leader who is interested, naturally, in looking out 
for himself. He might be wise, just, fair, etc., and try to 
obtain a good "deal" for his people; even trying, he 
might be really ignorant of what twentieth century 
Americans receive for their work and accept much less. 
Often times he might be good-intentioned and merely in- 
competent as far as negotiating working contracts, thus 
not obtaining what he could for his crew. And there are 
many crew chiefs, of course, who just don't recognize 
that getting a good deal for their workers is in their 
favor (and many times it's not!) or crew chiefs who 
know that the majority of their workers would rather 
make a bad deal than fight to improve, so why should 
they bother. 

E argued that the field was very clean and that 

this was a result of this good field management and a 
result of a good job by the workers in the first hoeing. 
He told us that he did not want a second weeding done 
at all — piece rate nor by hours — because the field was 
just too clean. He informed us that if we wanted to stay 
until mid-August, he could let us have the second hoe 
by piece rate. At the time, of course, he knew full well 
that we were already committed to leave to pick pickles 
in Michigan at the end of July. This argument of "clean 
field — no second hoe" is not a rare misfortune for sugar 
beet workers. Many workers consider the w ages for 
thinning and those for weeding together: $15.50 plus 
$10.00. Usually the second hoeing is done over the entire 
acreage in the last three or four days whereas the first 
hoe would take five or six weeks. Prohibiting the worker 
from the second hoeing would cut off 40% of his earn- 
ings, but normally less than 10"/. of the total working 
time would be the equivalent (rather not equivalent, but 
corresponding) reduction. 



E (grower) next told us that we earned very good 

money on the first hoeing and that as far he he could 
see we had no claim to a second-hoe piece rate on 
grounds of "balancing" the wages of the first job. He 
said, as a generality, that we were making $30.00 or 
two-acres per day. This was false and was negated by 
the workers. Only two days of the approximately four- 
teen days in this field did several of the younger men 
do the claimed two acres per day. When they did, it was 
a very long and very killing day for them too. But, as 
I say, these few men on these few days were the excep- 
tion, not the rule and would not have been able to do 
even half of that work if one of the growers had been 
prowling around looking for weeds and counting the 
number of plants per hoe-length. 

E then followed by saying frankly that he never 

promised us the second weeding and that we never asked. 
Never asked HIM is right; but his agent, the crew 
leader, was asked several times! Apparently, he wasn't 
too comfortable with this statement and quickly, vainly 
reached for another support for his position. He called 
the present season a "whole new ball game" because 
of his new electronic eye beet thinner. By doing this he 
attempted to disprove the worker's claim of "tradition- 
ally" doing the second weeding by piece rate on the 
same acreage where the first operation was performed 
by piece rate. He cited his letter to the crew leader who 
wasn't able to come to beets this year, but sent his family 
and crew under his young brother-in-law which stated 
that the brothers had bought the thinner and planned 
for the labor to work in conjunction with the machine at 
an hourly rate of pay. Fine. It does appear to be a new 
ball game, thus invalidating the "traditional". But for 
the fact that the field under question could not be worked 
by the new machine, thus throwing it back to the same, 
customary, dual hand operation! 

Also, apparently to break the workers' "traditional" 
claim, he recalled an example of three years past when 
the second weeding was done by hours in one field al- 
though it was a piece-rate thinning operation. He didn't 
go into the details very explicitly. From the workers 
who were there, I learned that it was an extremely 
dirty, weedy field at the time of the second hoe because 
an excessive amount of rain had fallen over a several 
week period after the thinning operation had been com- 
pleted. Under these conditions the second operation 
would have required at least as much work, if not more, 
than the first hoeing. For this reason, the crew chief 
arranged for the crew to work by the hour. This case 
is the only exception that E brought up. 

With this, an already positioned impasse was reached. 
There was a strong feeling of tension hanging like a 
thick fog all around the small group standing there in 

the dark. E made some nervous throat noises, 

nervously swatted at mosquitoes and finally broke the 
silence. He then made a few friendly gestures, hoped 
there were no hard feelings and proffered his hand to 

M , who had done a good part of the speaking. M 

stood with his arms crossed, looking grimly to one side, 
clearly displeased, disgusted with the shabby offer of 
"friendship" which the grower was presenting to him. 

The painted smile faded quickly from E face, but 

the hand did not drop. M glanced at it, and grasped 

it looking down at the ground. 

I looked up at the moon, half- hidden behind some 
fleecy clouds and thought about the two men walking 
on the moon at that moment. And I thought about what 



4961 



had just transpired between men on a sugarbeet farm, 
and I wanted not to believe the incongruousness of the 
two. But I had to, as do you, because it was, and is, 
our American reality. 
Epilogue 

On reaching our labor camp several minutes later, 
there was a short rehash of what had gone on between 

ourselves and the growers. Disgust of E and his 

half-lies was evidenced with a resigned feeling of having 
"lost". 

At one point in the discussion the two youngest mem- 
bers of tie group (fourteen and sixteen years old) 
showed their complete ignorance, and lack of under- 
standing of the problem. One spoke up saying that we 
"shouldn't expect something for nothing" and the other 
agreed with him. This was no surprise for the rest, 
coming from these two, and they were vehemetly told 
they didn't know what they were talking about and that 
it'd be wise for them to keep their mouths shut. Sad 
evidence of the fact that among the very workers them- 
selves there are a few with no conscience, no sense of 
justice and injustice who jeer and scorn those who do 
realize, and even though weakly, try to correct the bad 
situations. 

Monday, the following day, the entire crew returned 
to the field nearby where we had worked Saturday. We 
finished up in the afternoon around 5:30 p.m. 

Tuesday morning we glimpsed E at the camp who 

talked briefly with J , came over to the cabin where 

the five singles live and told us that we, and a recently 
arrived family, were to go hoe soy beans at a nearby 

farm. The farmer had asked E to send some labor 

over to help out when he could. J told us the pay 

rate and how to get there and we said okay. As she 
walked away, I called to her to ask where the rest of 
the people were going to work. She kept walking. 

Several minutes later we drove in M car, accom- 
panied by the family's pick-up, to the bean field. I told 
the other guys that we could talk with the man in the 

employment office about our problem with E and 

the large field and that he might be able to help out. 

J , M and I got back into the car to do that and 

also, to check the number of rows M and his 

brothers had done in the first section of the large field 
because there was a discrepancy between his number 

and that which J had recorded. We drove to the 

large field and quickly found out where the rest of the 

crew went to work ! Two days after E told us there 

would not be a second weeding by piece-rate nor by 
hours, he sent the crew down to work the same field 

by hours. And we also knew exactly why E specified 

that the five solos go work a couple miles away in an- 
other farmer's soybeans. He knew very well that we'd 
never enter that field to work by the hour because it 
was a crooked deal against the people. We weren't 
told where the other people would be working because 
he feared that we might convince them not to do it 
either. So we were cleverly placed in the dark, thus 
nicely preventing any action which might have been 
taken on our part. 

We quickly resolved the discrepancy on M total 

and were watched closely by the rest of the crew as we 
counted off and established the position of his section. 
There was some bitter shouting back and forth over 
the work they were doing and why it shouldn't be done. 
Several answered: "We're being paid the same as yester- 
day where you worked!" The majority, though, seemed 
to be working with heads somewhat shamefully lowered. 



Feeling our anguish, anger, and separation bear down 
on us. we quickly drove off. We headed for the town 
several miles away, to talk with the employment official 
Some of the problems concerned with this are: 

(1) neither J nor M speaks more than a 

few words of English and would never have been 
able to explain the problem without a translator. 

(2) their feeling was that since the other people 
would continue to work and not complain, our 
effort and voice would not count. 

(3) inexperience in dealing with official or govern- 
ment agencies and the resulting fear and un- 
certainty on their part. 

(4) never having been helped by the "Law" or the 
government before, and knowing it only through, 
and as, traffic laws, police, and taxes, they would 
not have thought of seeking help and doubted 
they would be helped anyway. 

(5) a culturally-based pride in self-dependence and a 
similar semi-taboo against seeking "outside" help 
for what are considered to be personal problems 
is another deterrent to what would be considered 
by most other American citizens to be a normal 
recourse if faced with such a problem. 

In addition to the above listed problems is the simple 
but vital one of where to go to find the person or 
agency. In town I did not know where the employment 
office was located and we just looked for a sign. When 

M saw a sign saying "Employment Office" on a 

plant building he turned in there. He, for lack of 
knowledge, thought any employment office could help 
us or would listen to the problem. I inquired of a lady in- 
side where we could find the State Office, and she di- 
rected us to a small hotel in town. There we found an 
elderly lady behind the desk sorting mail. Upon inquiry 
she replied that she was the local clerk of the State 
Office. I explained briefly that we wished to speak with 
someone about a labor problem on a nearby farm where- 
upon she took out her Employment Office folder to try 
and find when the field representative was scheduled 
to visit the area. Not finding that, I asked the location 
and phone number of the main office in that area. This 
was located about thirty-five miles away. I talked with 

M and J to see if they were willing to drive 

over. M and I dropped J off at the soybean 

field and drove to the office to talk with the director, 

a Mr. T . He listened quite amiably as we briefly 

described the situation. He told us that he could not do 
anything to help us and suggested that I call im- 
mediately the American Crystal Sugar Company field 

man in our area. Mr. T gave me the man's name and 

phone number and offered his phone so that I get in 
touch right away. The field man, was not home so I 
outlined the situation for his wife who promised that 
her husband would stop by at seven that evening. 

M felt discouraged at this point, even more so 

than earlier, but still held more hope than I that the 
field man would correct the problem or at least talk 
with the grower about resolving the dispute. We talked 
some about the field man's job, his duties, etc., and 
considered the fact that the brothers grow quite a large 
amount of sugar beets and are better "farm managers" 
— with resultant better beet crops — than any of the 
other growers we worked for briefly in that area. For 
these reasons, I felt pessimistic about our chances of 
actually achieving a resolution of this unfair stand on 
the part of the grower. 



4962 



In the evening we were told that the fieldman had 

arrived while M and I were in town, had left, and 

then came back around twenty minutes later, after we'd 
arrived. The field man and I, surrounded by five to 
six of the workers, had a long conversation about the 
problem. From the beginning it was made clear that the 
fieldman either could not or would not take the initiative 
to attempt to correct the situation. The American Crystal 
Sugar field man impressed me as being intelligent and 
sincere and a very good analyst of beet-related migrant 
problems. He explained the rationale for many migrant 
problems and for our own in particular. Due to his 
allegiance to his employer, American Crystal Sugar 
Company, it seems he was unable to use his rational 
explanations and analyses as a basis for a moral, ethical 
judgment. Rationally, man's exploitation of weaker men 
may be explained into eternity with every point having 
its counterpoint. But morally this exploitation can and 
must be condemned and corrected without fail if we are 
to live our American ideals of truth, liberty, and 
justice. 



Approximately three days later we received our checks 
from the grower brothers for work we had done. Open 
anger and hostility were not evidenced in our brief con- 
tact with him as we signed papers and figured the 
accounts. The solos only felt pity, digust, and resent- 
ment towards him for what he had done, for what he 
had caused us to go through. Although the grower 
usually tries to make sure at the end of the season that 
his best workers will return the next year, he had enough 
sense not to mention it to us. He would've been laughed 
at and jeered. 

J informed me about a month later that her father 

had received a letter from the brothers thanking him 
very much for sending his family and crew to their beets. 
It said that the work done, as always, was excellent and 
that the season had gone very well, with no problems 
at all. 



J 

creible ! 



and I smiled sadly at each other. Esto es in- 



PART T 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



LEGAL ADVISORY BOARD 



Gary Bellows, Esq. 

Western Law Center 

UCLA 

Los Angeles, California 

Edgar Cahn, Esq. 
Citizens Advocacy Program 

Johnathan B. Chase, Esq. 
University of Colorado Law School 
Boulder, Colorado 

Edward Sparer, Esq. 

Tale University Law School 

New Haven, Conn. 

Joseph Segor, Esq. 

So. Florida Migrant Legal Service Program 

395 Northwest First Street 

Miami, Florida 

Pete Tijerina, Esq. 

302 International Building 

San Antonio, Texas 

Mr. Stanley Zinsnerman, Esq. 

N.Y.U. School of Law 42 

Washington Square South 

New York, New York 10003 



PARA-PROFESSIONALS 
(Colorado Itinerate Tutors) 
Edward Klump 
Porf irio Garza 
Lupe Rivera 
Reynaldo De La Cruz 
Rene Rivera 



4963 



Much of the information serving as the base of this report was obtained 

through the cooperation of the Migrant Research Project's grantees. Their 

participation is gratefully acknowledged. 

LIST OF GRANTEES 



Mr. Joel Cooper 

Bootheel Agricultural Service, Inc. 

Cooperative 

Post Office Box 233 

Hayti, Missouri 

Mr. Porfirio Garza 
Citizens in Action Club 
Post Office Box 397 
Asherton, Texas 78827 

Mr. Reynaldo De La Cruz 
Colonias Del Valle 
Post Office Boot 907 
San Juan, Texas 78589 

Mr. Ralph Rivera 
Colorado Migrant Council 
665 Grant Street 
Boulder, Colorado 

Mr. Albert Lee 

Comnunity Civic Workers of Ismokalee, Inc. 

Post Office Box 195 

Iamolalee, Florida 

Mr. McKinley Martin, Project Director 

Delta Opportunities Corporation 

Post Office Box 478 

Sligo Road 

Greenville, Mississippi 

Mr. Tomas Villanueva 
Farm Workers Co-op 
Post Office Box 655 
Topenish, Washington 98948 

Mr. Elijah Boone 
Glade Citizens Association 
132 Southwest Avenue B 
Belle Glade, Florida 

Mr. Frank Cobb 

Grand County Comnunity Action Council 

Post Office Box 1136 

Ephrata, Washington 98823 

Mr. Lauro Garcia 
Guadelupe Organization, Inc. 
8810 South 56th Street 
Guadalupe, Arizona 



Mr. Alex Me re u re 

Hone Education Livelihood Program 

131 Adams North Bast 
Albuquerque, Hew Mexico 

Mr. Cayetano Santiago, Director 
Illinois Migrant Council 
1307 South Wabash Street 
Chicago, Illinois 

Mr. L. H. Anderson 
Lowndes County Christian Movement 
Post Office Box 205 
Haynesville, Alabama 3604*0 

Mrs. Shirley Sandage 
Migrant Action Program 
Post Office Box 778 
Mason City, Iowa 

Mr. Clayton S. Mills 

Migrant Health Project 

Guadalupe House 

Elm Acre 

Endeavor, Wisconsin 53939 

Mr. Walter Brudnowski 
Migrant Health Project 
Box 310 
Wautoma, Wisconsin 54982 

Mr. Robert Clark, Director 
Mileston Co-op 
Post Office Boot 184 
Lexington, Mississippi 

Mr. James Boylson 

Monterey County Anti-Poverty 

Coordinating Council, Inc. 
153 West Oabilon S reet 
Salinas, California 93901 

Mr. Rudolpho Juarez 

Organized Migrants in Community Action 

132 Southwest Avenue B 
Belle Glade, Florida 

Mr. Paul F. Wilson 
Polk County Christian Migrant 
Ministry Association 
1600 West Lake Parker Drive 
lakeland, Florida 33801 



4964 



List of Grantees (cont'd) 



Mrs. Alice Santana 

Project Prep 

P. 0. Banc 12 

Watsonville, California 95016 

Mr. Jorge T. Acevado 

Santa Clara County Economic 

Opportunity Coumission 
40 North Fourth Street 
San Jose, California 95112 

Mr. John Brown 

Southeast Alabama Self -Help Association 

Post Office Box 871 

Tuskegee, Alabama 36088 

Mr. Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. 
Southeast Louisiana Self -Help 
Housing, Inc. 
Post Office Drawer F 
Reserve, Louisiana 7008/* 

Mr. Gene Robles 

Tri-Cities Latin American Association 

624 North Adams 

Pasco, Washington 

Mr. Jesus Salas 

United Migrant Opportunity Service 
809 West Greenfield Avenue 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204 

Mr. Tom Jones 

Utah Migrant Council 

c/o Center for Study of Social Policy 

University of Utah 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Mr. James Schrift 

United Migrants for Opportunity, Inc. 

113 South Lansing Street 

Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48588 

Mr. Sam Martinez, Director 
Valley Council for Community Action 
Post Office Box 1665 
Yakima, Washington 98901 

Mr. Julian Herrara 
United Farm Workers 
8603 South Hixie 
Erie, Michigan 



Mr. Avelardie Debordo 
Itinerant Workers 
665 Grant Street 
Boulder, Colorado 

Mr. James Mason 
Migrants in Action 
Fort Lupton, Colorado 

Miss Mary Lanzinger, Director 
Catholic Better Community Development 
Commission, Inc. 
1601 Jefferson Avenue 
Toledo, Ohio 43624 

Mr. Albert Coleman, Executive Director 
Northeast Indiana Migrant Council, Inc. 
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46804 

Mr. Gary B. Leishman, Administrative Director 

No. Utah Community Action Program 

179 Main 

Logan, Utah 84321 



4965 



The project reported herein was performed pursuant 
to a grant from the Office of Economic Opportunity, 
Washington, D.C. The opinions expressed herein are 
those of the author* and should not be construed 
as representing the opinions or policy of any agency 
of the United States Government. 

(Photos from "Child of Hope" by Shirley M. Sandac,e, 
and Joe Moore Stewart have been made available 
for publishing in this report through the courtesy of 
A. S. Barnes Publishing Company, Cranbury, New 
Jersey.) 



•Migrant Research Project 



36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B 



4966 



Sam Schulman, "The Future of Migrants," East Coast Migrant Health Con ference, 
(Orlando, Florida), 19$8. 



THE FUTURE OF MIGRANTS 



It might be well to state at the outset that the future of 
the seasonal agricultural migrant and his dependents is no 
future at all. That is, within the next few years the migrant 
population, as we now know it, will be substantially changed in 
both function and status, and that almost all of the present 
protagonists in this annual mobile tragedy will disappear from 
the agricultural scene. Those in the helping professions who 
are dedicated, however minimally, to meeting some of the many 
needs of agricultural migrants will turn to other tasks and may, 
indeed, meet again some of the same people they now serve in 
other roles or other guises. The human needs of these laborers 
attached to agriculture and their dependents will, in large 
measure, still be evident and the helping professionals may 
still be in the unenviable position of still trying to meet 
them. 

It would certainly be nice if — through the manipulation of 
information to which I alone were privy — I could predict that 
some marvelous new industries were to spring suddenly upon the 
national horizon that would demand the spec,ial skills possessed 
by our migrant population, and that these new industries were 
to sap the ranks of migrant labor by offering its members 
decent wages and a way of life far superior to that which they 
presently possess, and that future contacts between the helping 
professionals and these ex-migrants (which I have mentioned 
previously) were to be at bridge parties, country club socials, 
or just visiting in tidy suburban homes. No, this is not what 
I mean at all. "What I speak of is a striking change that will 
diminish greatly the numbers of migrant workers. Their "special 
skills" will not be in great demand for, in truth, they do not 
have any "special skills", and, if helping professionls meet 
them again, they shall be met as ex-migrants living out their 
lives as dregs in the shameful corners of deprivation of our 
country which are termed urban "ghettos." 



Sam Schulman, Ph.D. , Visiting Professor of Sociology, University 
of Florida 

A special vote of thanks is here given to Dr. T. Lynn Smith, of 
The University of Florida, mentor and colleague, who critically 
reviewed an earlier version of this paper. 



4967 



I shall attempt to explain and elaborate this rather dire 
prediction during the time allotted to me. 

Any attempt at prediction involves making some guesses 
about what will happen in the future given a variation in one 
or more, or a complex of, factors which pertain to a situation. 
Even the most elaborate and sophisticated computerized simula- 
tion models must ultimately be based upon the assumed projection 
of factor variations. These variations, in turn, are not 
projected haphazardly or capriciously — they are based upon the 
knowledge of past and present experiences and trends. When, 
thus, I presume to guess about what shall happen tomorrow I do 
so on the basis of what has happened thus far, what is happening 
now, and the logical extension of these events into the future. • 

Further, if all of the pertinent information were at 
our fingertips and could be easily quantified, the predictions I 
would make could be transferred into fairly exact numerical 
equivalents. I should be able to tell you, within expected 
statistical limits, not only what will happen but when and how 
many people will be involved. This is not our case, however. 
Much of the information is not readily accessible, it is not 
easily quantifiable, and that which is quantifiable or quantified 
is often fragmentary if not downright erroneous. (We do not have 
accurate information on just how many migrants-plus-dependents 
there are in the several streams. "Reliable" estimates vary from 
one to three million!) The predictions I make today are, thus, 
qualitative rather than quantitative, general rather than specific. 
(I think that anyone who is aware of the factors would be able to 
tell us what shall happen. These factors which allow for predic- 
tion are -neither hidden nor complex.) I am sure that, when all 
truly reliable data are assembled, these predictions will be 
validated. 

People are not born to the status of seasonal migratory 
agricultural laborers in our society although, it is true, cir- 
cumstances often make this status an unavoidable alternative for 
many Americans. Like any other "voluntary" situation there are 
factors which attract and retain recruits and other factors which 
repel potential recruits or prompt their rejection once incorpo- 
rated. (In the literature on migration and mobility as social 
phenomena these are often referred to as "pull" and "push 
factors . ) 

If we were in laboratory or classroom we could place the 
factors pertinent to migratory labor in two parallel columns 
so that we could gain a macroscopic view of the total situation. 
In the case before us, however, we would see under the 
"attraction-retention" column very few entries, while over on the 
"repulsion-rejection" side our column would be extremely crowded. 
Let us face the fact that agricultural seasonal labor has little 



4968 



to recommend it. As Truman Moore, writing in the Atlantic Monthly , 
said: "The migrants who follow the harvest are the only people 
in America who are desperate enough for this work to take it." 1 
Other than the presumed handful of "footloose and happy fellows" 
who "get their kicks by following the crops" — who are more 
mythological, I would think, than real, and who are gross ration- 
alizations in the minds of the guilt-ridden or romantic — there 
are very few others who relish the idea of migrant labor. It is 
far from an attractive way of life. It is, in most cases, an 
only or last alternative which can promise nothing more than a 
low wage for the rudest form of manual labor. It is "making a 
living" or "scraping by" and little more than that. It might be 
said, in fact, that — as seen by the migrant — anything else 
that would give a living wage would be preferable to the 
uncertainties and iniquities of migrant farm work. Last week 
I had the opportunity of chatting with several Mexican-Americans 
previously in the East Coast stream, now in a retraining program 
in Florida (directed by my brother, Mr. George Schulman) . 
Their new "careers" would make them equivalents of apprentice 
meat-cutters or food-handlers. Said one of these, "This thing 
we are now doing. This learning a way to feed my family and 
stay put. This is like a gift from God." 

On the other hand, our crowded "repulsion-rejection" column 
lists .almost innumerable factors which do not attract migrant 
labor or which impel workers to leave the streams. There are so 
many that it simplifies matters to lump them into composites 
or clusters: socio-cultural factors, psychological factors, and 
economic factors. These three clusters, as well as all of the 
factors encompassed by them, are intimately inter- related, 
although distinct from one another. They combine to form a 
total negative profile of agricultural migrancy. 

The socio-cultural factors are the familiar composite 
face of rural poverty. Its specific dimensions we know well. 
There are constant lacks of all things which are necessary to 
feel accepted, and to be accepted, as respected citizens of a 
society. There is too little income, education, intellectual 
stimulation, proper food and nutrition, political participation, 
wholesome recreation, effective sanitation. Housing is rudi- 
mentary, if not primitive, and is, by any measure, inadequate. 
There are too few well-integrated families, and there are too 
many babies. As my wife — who is an instructor in public health 
nursing — puts it: "It is a life of one sorrow after another." 
To this face of rural poverty we add a mobility factor. Not 
only is this poverty, but it is fluid, transportable, and 
transported. It is the lowest echelon of rural poverty, for 
it is rootless: it "belongs" nowhere. 

Consider the psychological cluster of factors. These 
rural mobile poor are alienated from the mainstream of American 
life physically and psychologically. They are only passing 



4969 



witnesses of what goes on in the villages, towns, and cities 
along their routes. Strangers on the road, they are even 
strangers in their own home areas where seldom do they qualify, 
legally or socially, as permanent residents. The communities 
to which they come can be said to tolerate them temporarily but 
they are not accepted. Note how they are welcomed as peak har- 
vest approaches, but note, too, how unwelcome they are once the 
crop is in. "Ignorant Negroes" or "Ignorant Mexicans" are useful 
for some weeks, or even months, during the year, but who wants 
such permanent ignorant additions to a community? Often, 
while on "the season," crew leaders manipulate the ignorance of 
their workers for their own convenience and profit, and not a 
few growers are guilty of abiding such abuse, perhaps even pro- 
fitting from it themselves. Alienation, toleration, rejection, 
repression, and exploitation cannot but be accounted as factors 
which make the way of the agricultural migrant unattractive. 

Low wages have already been mentioned as a repelling 
factor, but they bear mention again within' the specifically 
economic sphere. The cheapness of their labor enhances the 
utility of migrants for growers. Needless. to say, if all other 
factors were kept constant, but better wages were available to 
migrant workers in other parts of the economrc sector, the ranks 
of the seasonal agricultural labor force would be dramatically 
depleted, and probably overnight. (Or, on the other hand, if 
the mobility factor were mitigated and low wages were to remain 
constant, there would also be an exodus from this segment of the 
labor force. In "settling-out" areas I have visited in the 
North, many ex-migrants are faring no better economically than 
they did while in the stream but, at least, they are establishing 
some roots.) 

Let me now come to another economic factor — a special 
factor which calls for elaboration — which has already made some 
negative impact on migrancy and which will make an even greater 
impact within the next few years: technological displacement. 

The American farm operator is typically not prone to 
extravagance, undue experimentation for the love of trying new 
things, radicalism in change, or indulgences in frills for the 
sake of making neighbors envious. Rural life tends toward the 
conservative and, although the gap between farmer and urbanite 
has narrowed considerably in recent years, the former's conserva- 
tism remains a social and political reality. Moreover, he is 
fast becoming an agricultural businessman, and his economically 
productive activities may be accurately referred to as "agri- 
business." As a businessman he is likewise not prone to 
extravagances which, directly or indirectly, do not add to his 
margin of profit. It is a known fact that marginal agricultural 
producers have gradually been forced out of agribusiness and 
that, each year, fewer- operators control larger enterprises. 



4970 



(In addition, more direct association between farm operators and 
city-based entrepreneurs, uniting large-scale agriculture with 
large-scale commerce and industry, is a growing trend. The 
farming policies affecting thousands of acres of cropland around 
Immokalee, Florida, as an example, are made by a board of 
directors in New York. This board not only governs the production 
of tons of perishable agricultural products, but is also involved 
in industrial pursuits, one of these the inundation of the 
American scene with a popular brand of carbonated beverage.) 
The successful farm operator is one who is competitive in agri- 
business. He also tends to be a specialist, dedicating the 
greater part of his large acreages to single enterprises: beans, 
beets, cherries, strawberries, corn, wheat, beef, what have you. 
Or, he may have large sums of money and wide acreages devoted 
to "tried and true" combined specialties such as corn and hogs, 
or rice and beef. The farm operator does not hold his enterprise 
together by wishing and gambling, but by hard work, sharp 
management, and large capital outlay. 

Let us look at this farm operator, now, in summary. He is 
conservative, an agribusinessman, more than likely a specialist. 
He is neither visionary nor a dreamer; he is the essence of 
practicality. With such a group as principal players in American 
agriculture, how impressive and surprising are predictions of 
"radical" change from hard-headed agribusinessmen about what their 
immediate future portends. 

In November, 1966, the Farm Journal , the most important 
of magazines reflecting the views of the modern independent 
American farmer, ran a series of short articles on "Farming in 
1976," a decade from the date of publication. The authors were 
not government officials or university professors but people 
who lived and worked on farms. At times it was obvious that 
the authors were writing out of their own experience, at other 
times they echoed the points-of-view of larger groups with 
similar experiences. • 

4 
Ervin Neyhouse, an Indiana grower, wrote: 

"The bulk of fruits and vegetables even for the fresh 
market, will be planted and harvested by "robots" — 
sophisticated machines requiring skilled operators. 
Apples, which have long defied mechanical harvesting, 
will probably succumb to the machine by 1976. 

Plant varieties will be developed which are more 
adaptable to machine picking. Some varieties will 
be changed to ripen at the same time; sometimes 
only the size or shape of the plant will be altered. 

By 1976 you might be able to spray a tree to keep it 
at a desired height, or spray to get ripe fruit at 
the same time. You'll see more trellising and 
training of plants to make harvesting easier." 



4971 



Gu's Evans, a Mississippi farmer, stated: 

"Vegetable growers agree that if a crop isn't mechanized, 
we won't grow it. Vegetable harvesting will be largely 
mechanized. 

Fruits will also be harvested by machines by 1976. Some 
fresh-market fruit may be hand-picked, but from a moving 
platform. Trees will be close-spaced and shaped to 
provide the maximum surface for fruit growth and a 
uniform face to the mechanical or human picker." 

Evans reported another farmer saying, "We've got to grow 
fewer crops so we can grow more of each one and afford the machinery 
it takes." A busy farm homemaker, Mrs. Mary Bumgardner of Ohio, 
collating the opinions of 120 other farmers' wives, noted that 
farming enterprises had to get "bigger. " 

Getting bigger means more automation to most women — 
with less hired help on the farm. So they see 
themselves pushing buttons and handling clean, 
air-conditioned, and smooth-riding farm machines. 
Many believe that family members (husband and wife, if the 
children are away) will do the farming with big one-trip- 
over machines. One farm woman foresees .three 8-hour shifts 
a day in certain peak seasons with family members taking 
turns on this type of machine. Others think machinery 
companies might be planting and harvesting crops for 
farmers . 

Some farm women see thei" husbands primarily as 
managers (in perma-pressed work clothes) with part-time 
help from trained agriculturists, analysts, and cus- 
tom workers. "Farmers will have professional status 
in another decade." 

In the opinion of farm people themselves, the successful 
(the average?) agribusinessman of the not-too-distant future will 
Incorporate within his life pattern ever greater aspects of the 
idvances brought about by technological development. The most 
Important of these technological advances is a complex, the focal 
entity of which is mechanized harvesting. The implications of 
:hese growers' attitude concerning their own future for migratory 
agricultural labor we shall examine in a moment. How far, we 
nay ask, has mechanical harvesting already progressed? 

In the United States today all grains for the commercial 
narket are completely harvested by machine. Only remnants of the 
farming population — usually small-scale operators and usually in 
rough country — still depend upon manual field help to harvest 
:otton. Bean pickers, pickle pickers, potato harvesters are 
Decoming commonplace. Sugar beets which, twenty years ago, were 
ilmost entirely harvested by hand are now almost exclusively 
larvested by machine. Almost all the "sturdy" crops are now 
within the area of competence of the machine. 



4972 



More impressive, however, is the progress being made with 
devices for harvesting the easily injured perishable crops. 
Dr. Clarence F. Kelly, Head of the Agricultural Experiment Station 
of the University of California at Davis, reported the following 
in August, 196 



W 



"Within the past five years a... dramatic advance has 
taken place in... the picking of tomatoes. In Cali- 
fornia, where 125,000 acres were devoted to tomato 
growing, the growers used to have to recruit 40,000 
workers at the season's peak to harvest the crop 
by hand. Two investigators at the California 
Agricultural Experiment Station at Davis — an 
agricultural engineer and a plant biologist — undertook 
to develop a system for mechanizing tomato picking. 
They attacked the problem on two fronts. Gordie C. 
Hanna, the biologist, would breed a tomato plant 
designed for machine handling. The plant would bear 
tomatoes that were of uniform size and all ripened 
at the same time, that could easily be detached 
from the vine but would not drop off prematurely, 
that had a skin tough enough to withstand mechanical 
handling, that would store well and that would be 
pleasing to the consumer in flavor and Other quali- 
ties. Coby Lorenzen, Jr., the agricultural engineer, 
meanwhile would work on the design of a machine that 
would harvest this tomato rapidly, efficiently and 
at reasonable cost. 

After 10 years of study, experiments and development 
the two men achieved their objective in 196 2. The 
plant was ready and so was the machine: a harvester 
that cut off the plant at ground level, lifted it, 
shook off the tomatoes and deposited them in a bin in 
which they were hauled off to the processing plant... 
The tomato "combine" won remarkably rapid acceptance. 
Within three years this machine was harvesting 24% of 
the California tomato crop; last year 800 of the 
machines were available and picked almost 80% of the 
crop; this fall, with at least four major manufacturers 
now producing machines, a large percentage of the 
tomatoes grown in the U. S. for processing will be 
harvested by machine. 

A rapid trip through the Agricultural Index of the past 
four or five years shows us that even the most difficult crops 
to harvest are being "programmed" for machine harvesting. There 
is not one major crop in the United States that has not extracted 
an investment of time, energy, and large amounts of money, all 
devoted to discovering or refining mechanical harvesting devices 
specific to it. The technical problems of mechanized harvesting 



4973 



diminish before the onslaught of the applied scientist. Machines 
can now be designed for economy, delicacy of handling, size 
grading, even for color sensitivity. Kelly notes that researchers 
have logged the fact that a prune-tree vibrator (to shake the ripe 
fruit onto a padded catching frame) does better in shaking down a 
tree at 400 cycles per minute and two-inch amplitude, than at 
1,100 c.p.m. and a one-inch amplitude. The fact logged, the 
machine will be designed and built accordingly. 

The farmers' predictions for 1976 are fast becoming realities. 
Producers of farm machinery, governmental and educational agencies, 
and farm operators themselves have teamed together to create 
agricultural technical "miracles" in rapid succession. This is 
hardly the case of scientific innovation for the sake of the sheer 
joy of discovery — far from it. The demand is great for these 
advances because they follow hard upon the trend towards a 
businesslike agriculture, and because they have proven to be 
eminently economically feasible. Not too many generations ago, 
thousands upon thousands of migrant agricultural workers reaped 
wheat by hand through the great wheat belt stretching north from 
Texas into western Canada. Today the image of hand harvesting 
of wheat is associated in our minds with people . in those parts 
of the world that are "underdeveloped". Hand^reaping is no 
longer a factor in American wheat production, for the economic 
appropriateness of the machine is so obvious to all. Let us look 
at some other crops, only now on the verge of this mechanical 
revolution. 

The Blackwelder Pickle Harvester is a once-over machine that 
is designed to harvest pickle, that vary from 7/16 to 2 3/8 
inches in diameter and does a better job of picking the smaller 
fruit than manual pickers. It reduces the harvesting labor 
force by 90%. 6 Kelly reports a snap-bean harvester with even 
greater economic potential. This machine will decrease the cost 
of harvesting snap-beans by 75% as against manual labor on a 
moderate-sized farm (200 acres) , and by 89% on a large-sized 
farm (500 acres) . The machine itself is paid for in five years. 
Further, the snap-bean harvester does ninety times more work 
per hour than a manual picker. In effect, at an optimal rate 
of production, this machine does the work of ninety people. ' 
A snap-bean area of large farms which today employs 5,000 seasonal 
workers at peak harvest could reduce this number to about 165 
men working fifty-five machines in three-man crews. The need 
for almost 5,000 "stoop" laborers disappears. And what of the 
other crop-types that still require hand picking? What will 
happen to migrant laborers who pick cherries in the Traverse 
City area of Michigan when an economically feasible cherry- 
picker is perfected, or in Orange County, Florida, when a truly 
adequate citrus harvester hits the groves? Even now there is 
an experimental citrus harvester that- can clear a tree in two 
to three minutes. The advent of the citrus harvester, now on 
the verge of commercial production, led the St. Petersburg 
Times on March 11, 1968, to predict the displacement of 12,000 g 
seasonal laborers in central Florida within the next five years. 



4974 



A more-than-likely conservative estimate, given the present 
trend of technological advance in mechanization, is that 90% 
of the seasonal agricultural labor force in the United States will 
be sluffed off in the next decade. Even if the trend is retarded, 
there is bound to be a wholesale displacement of these least- 
regarded farm workers during this period. The United States 
Government reports a gradual dimunition of all farm employment 
over the years as well as a continuing reduction in the number 
of seasonal workers: 9 and this before the major impact of 
the mechanical harvesting of perishable crops has taken place. 
When it does take place, the migrant streams — as we have known 
them — will have changed in composition and function or will no 
longer exist. 

In constructing an economic impetus model for mechanization 
we must perforce face another reality. Impelling the grower 
towards mechanization are any inputs which increase his cost 
of production. The present moves towards labor unionization of 
migrant workers which may result in better wages is, indeed, such 
a prod. Legislation designed to force growers to provide 
better housing facilities for their seasonal workers, to guarantee 
them the protection of the law, to improve their social well- 
being if any of these mean that the grower* will have to dig 

deeper into his pocket, the greater his demand for mechanical 
replacements of no longer docile, tractable., unprotected, and 
ignorant workers. 

The technological displacement of vast number of people in 
the migrant streams does not end our story. There is more to 
predict. What will happen to these one-to- three million rural 
people who live and move in poverty? An oversimplified answer 
is that this particular form of mobility wiil cease while the 
poverty continues. Under present national conditions, is there 
any other logical alternative? 

i 

The rural hinterland that has spawned the migrant cannot 
reabsorb him. As the eminent rural sociologist, Dr. T. Lynn 
Smith, has carefully documented, 10 and as those familiar with 
the American rural sector know from experience, our decreasing 
rural population represents, above all, an exodus of marginal 
and sub-marginal competitors from agriculture. There really is 
little use in agriculture — as in any other business — for those 
who cannot produce competitively. In the Deep South we have 
an excellent illustration of this. The small cotton operator 
who could not compete with large-scale growers was squeezed out 
of his farm. He joined the ranks of the sharecroppers and 
wagehands who were still of use in a quasiservile capacity in 
the cotton fields. In the past two decades, the sharecropper 
himself has been squeezed out by the mechanical cotton picker. 
Some former "croppers" have taken to itinerant farm work and 
are members of the East Coast stream: most, however, have gone 



4975 



to areas of greater hope and some opportunity, the southern cities 
and, in ever • increasing numbers, to northern and western cities. 
When the migrant streams diminish even the wandering farmhand 
will be squeezed out of the hinterland. There is no place for 
him in the rural areas that have already rejected him once or 
twice further up the tenure ladder. 

With mechanization certainly a small number of workers 
will be retained in rural areas. Someone has to operate and 
maintain the machines of agribusiness but, we must bear in mind 
that these functions require a high level of skill. The migrant 
worker will rarely qualify on this account: he is unskilled or, 
at best, a low-order semi-skilled laborer. What we shall 
probably see, as noted previously by Mrs. Bumgardner in the 
Farm Journal , is family operation of family-owned equipment. 
Or, perhaps, we shall see a new breed of soft-crop contract 
machine crews similar to those who harvest the bulk of America's 
wheat on the western plains: well-paid, skilled, many of these 
owners of the machinery they use. It may be that manufacturers 
themselves will sell the services of skilled operators along 
with the rental- of machines which they produce. We may, indeed, 
have a new kind of migrant harvesting perishable crops — a mobile 
technician—but he will bear little resemblance to the stoop- 
labor migrant whose troubled future now concerns us. 

The unschooled and unskilled migrant, unabsorbable in 
mechanized agriculture, is equally unabsorbable in the little 
villages and towns which service the open country: he has 
nothing to offer them. They, too, are losing population which 
they cannot effectively emplc . The only places which may not 
wish to, but can, and must, make room for future incursions of 
the squeezed-out segments of American rural life are the cities. 
In particular it shall be the slums of our cities, already 
congested and constant targets for the hinterland's excess poor, 
which shall absorb the cast-offs from the migrant streams. The 
"Mexican towns" in places like San Antonio", Los Angeles, Toledo, 
and Detroit, and the beehive black "ghettos" throughout the 
nation, shall continue to bear the brunt of the influxes of the 
rural poor. Slum existence is the future for our migrants and 
their children. 

This is a dismal picture. How very much I should like 
to be proven wrong. It seems inevitable that this sad predic- 
tion shall be a sadder reality in the next few years. Certainly — 
assuming that such a prediction may be accepted as a guide-for- 
action—attempts can be made to avert even further deprivation 
for three million already-deprived people. Great amounts of 
effort and expenditures are called for in our present "war 
against poverty" which, in large measure, have not been forth- 
coming: this is the most understaffed, underfinanced, and under- 
equipped war our country has ever waged. The future plight of 
the migrants and their families is just one more rag-tail battle 



4976 



t to be fought. Who shall fret about the re-education and 
Location of people who are, at least/ minimally gainfully em- 
Dyed when right now in the core areas of almost every American 
by the shame of slum life is still evident, poverty still 
rives, and our present war goes on un-won! 



4977 



Footnotes 



1 Truman Moore, "Slaves We Rent — The Shame of American Farming," 
The Atlantic Monthly , May, 1965, as reprinted in Herman P. 
Miller, ed., Poverty American Style (Belmont, California: 
Wadsworth Publishing. Company, Inc. , 1967), p. 137. 

2 Cf . James H. Copp, "The Future of Rural Sociology in an 
Industrialized Society," p. 344, and Olaf F. Larson and Everett 
M. Rogers, "Rural Society in Transition," pp. 42-53, in James H. 
Copp , ed . , Our Changing Rural Society; Perspectives and Trends 
(Ames , Iowa! Iowa State University Press, 1964). 

3 Personal communication from the South Florida Migrant Legal 
Services, Immokalee, Florida. 

4 All citations from the Farm Journal are from the series of short 
articles on "Farming in 1976," pp. 40-46 of the November, 1966, 

" issue of that magazine. 

Clarence F. Kelly, "Mechanical Harvesting," Scientific American , 
217:57-58, August, 1967. 

6 "How Many Pickles Will This Pickle Harvester Pick?" Agricultural 
Engineering , 48:452, August, 1967. 



Kelly, op.cit . , p. 59. 

"The Orange Revolution" (Editorial) St. Petersburg Times 
March 11, 1968. 



9 From Table 2: Labor Force Statistics on Farm and Nonfarm Labor, 
p. 784, in Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor , 
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 90th Congress , 1st 
Session (Washington: U.S.G.P.O., 1968). 

10 T. Lynn Smith, The Sociology of Rural Life (New York: Harper 
and Brothers, 1953), pp. 174-175, 177-179. 



4978 



Senator Mondale. We now stand adjourned until your next hearing. 
(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to recon- 
vene at the call of the Chair.) 

O 



AMHERST COLLEGE LIBRARY 
DATE DUE