Before the UFW: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
As agricultural capital became increasingly concentrated and large agricultural enterprises dominated certain agricultural regions, particularly California and other areas of the Southwest, the commonality of interests shared by farmers and hired farm employees became replaced by capital-labor relations; they became driven by motives to increase profit. Generally, "they have been beneficiaries of an abundant supply of labor that has exerted downward pressure on wages and inhibited worker protests and organization" (Mooney xxii). In order to achieve their goals and fuel their motives, "agribusiness" has used various strategies (xxii). These include: "attempting to influence immigration laws and their enforcement to preserve their access to low-wage labor; replacing a labor force that was increasingly organized with one that initially was more controllable; hiring undocumented workers in preference to domestics or new immigrants to replace those that were beginning to express discontent; playing one ethnic or immigrant group off against another; introducing machine harvesters to preemt worker organizing efforts; using political alliances to undercut farm labor laws; and, in general, vehemently resisting farm worker collective bargaining" (xxii). | As agricultural capital became increasingly concentrated and large agricultural enterprises dominated certain agricultural regions, particularly California and other areas of the Southwest, the commonality of interests shared by farmers and hired farm employees became replaced by capital-labor relations; they became driven by motives to increase profit. Generally, "they have been beneficiaries of an abundant supply of labor that has exerted downward pressure on wages and inhibited worker protests and organization" (Mooney xxii). In order to achieve their goals and fuel their motives, "agribusiness" has used various strategies (xxii). These include: "attempting to influence immigration laws and their enforcement to preserve their access to low-wage labor; replacing a labor force that was increasingly organized with one that initially was more controllable; hiring undocumented workers in preference to domestics or new immigrants to replace those that were beginning to express discontent; playing one ethnic or immigrant group off against another; introducing machine harvesters to preemt worker organizing efforts; using political alliances to undercut farm labor laws; and, in general, vehemently resisting farm worker collective bargaining" (xxii). | ||
The dissastisfactions experienced by agricultural workers that resulted in their widespeard support for unionization efforts were in part due to their poverty-level wages, lack of any meaningful job security and stability, and poor working conditions. However, their feelings were also aroused by their relative deprivation when comparing their circumstances to the improved standaards of living experienced by many urban workers, especially those in unionized industries (Mooney | The dissastisfactions experienced by agricultural workers that resulted in their widespeard support for unionization efforts were in part due to their poverty-level wages, lack of any meaningful job security and stability, and poor working conditions. However, their feelings were also aroused by their relative deprivation when comparing their circumstances to the improved standaards of living experienced by many urban workers, especially those in unionized industries (Mooney 151). | ||
The major difference between the 1930s and the 1960s to early 1970s is the general national economic climate (Mooney | The major difference between the 1930s and the 1960s to early 1970s is the general national economic climate (Mooney 150). The depression era was, of course, a time of economic hardship and marginality for many throughout the nation. In agriculture, both those who participated in insurgency and those who did not generally shared similarly desperate financial circumstances. By comparison, the 1960s and early 1970s were a period of national economic expansion and increased expectations by citizens. This was reflected in the better circumstances prevailing generally for domestic farm workers. While many were considerably below the poverty line, few in California were on the edge of destitution, and options outside of agricultural work were available for many. However, the gap between the circumstances of farm workers and those of urban workers became larger. Most segments of the agrictulrual labor force had lost ground during the preceding twenty-five years when compared with urban, blue-collar workers. Much of this can be explained by the outcomes of unionization movements during the 1930s: their successes in most industries and their failure in agriculture (Mooney 151). | ||
===The Bracero Programs (Public Law 78 in 1951)=== | ===The Bracero Programs (Public Law 78 in 1951)=== | ||
(Mooney | (Mooney 151-2) | ||
[[Image:Bracero11199.gif|thumb|Description]] | [[Image:Bracero11199.gif|thumb|Description]] | ||
Revision as of 01:45, 11 May 2006
The agriculture industry in the United States has been dominated by large growers. These large growers have dominated over their workers that maintain and harvest the crops as well. They are seasonal workers and are paid pennies, traveling from crop to crop, working when they are needed. Though most farm workers have been immigrants from such places as China, Japan, India, the Philippines and Mexico, the majority of seasonal farm workers in America are now Mexican and Mexican American [[1]].
As agricultural capital became increasingly concentrated and large agricultural enterprises dominated certain agricultural regions, particularly California and other areas of the Southwest, the commonality of interests shared by farmers and hired farm employees became replaced by capital-labor relations; they became driven by motives to increase profit. Generally, "they have been beneficiaries of an abundant supply of labor that has exerted downward pressure on wages and inhibited worker protests and organization" (Mooney xxii). In order to achieve their goals and fuel their motives, "agribusiness" has used various strategies (xxii). These include: "attempting to influence immigration laws and their enforcement to preserve their access to low-wage labor; replacing a labor force that was increasingly organized with one that initially was more controllable; hiring undocumented workers in preference to domestics or new immigrants to replace those that were beginning to express discontent; playing one ethnic or immigrant group off against another; introducing machine harvesters to preemt worker organizing efforts; using political alliances to undercut farm labor laws; and, in general, vehemently resisting farm worker collective bargaining" (xxii).
The dissastisfactions experienced by agricultural workers that resulted in their widespeard support for unionization efforts were in part due to their poverty-level wages, lack of any meaningful job security and stability, and poor working conditions. However, their feelings were also aroused by their relative deprivation when comparing their circumstances to the improved standaards of living experienced by many urban workers, especially those in unionized industries (Mooney 151).
The major difference between the 1930s and the 1960s to early 1970s is the general national economic climate (Mooney 150). The depression era was, of course, a time of economic hardship and marginality for many throughout the nation. In agriculture, both those who participated in insurgency and those who did not generally shared similarly desperate financial circumstances. By comparison, the 1960s and early 1970s were a period of national economic expansion and increased expectations by citizens. This was reflected in the better circumstances prevailing generally for domestic farm workers. While many were considerably below the poverty line, few in California were on the edge of destitution, and options outside of agricultural work were available for many. However, the gap between the circumstances of farm workers and those of urban workers became larger. Most segments of the agrictulrual labor force had lost ground during the preceding twenty-five years when compared with urban, blue-collar workers. Much of this can be explained by the outcomes of unionization movements during the 1930s: their successes in most industries and their failure in agriculture (Mooney 151).
The Bracero Programs (Public Law 78 in 1951)
(Mooney 151-2)
The Bracero Program was a "guest workers" arrangement between the United States and Mexican governments. It began in 1942 as a response to potential and actual shortages of harvest workers during World War II. In this program, Mexican nationals were recruited for agricultral work for the duration of a season and returned to Mexico on the completion of a harvest. Contracts were created, wages and length of service were stipulated before they arrived in the United States. Leaving the job before the their contract time made bracero workers subject to deportation. Because of this, Lee G. Williams, a U.S. Department of Labor official who supervised bracero employment, referred to the programs as "legalized slavery." The Bracero programs were only intended to last the duration of the war, but because of their popularity among growers, the agribusiness received numerous extensions of the agreement beyond it december 1945 expiration date. The use of braceras increase from 67,500 in 1950 to 445,000 in 1956, and Texas and California accounted for 50 to 80 percent contracted during any single year.
According to Public Law 78 in 1950, no bracero imported from Mexico could replace a domestic worker. However, this was rarely enforced [[2]]. The widespread employment of braceroas has an adverse effect on domestic farm workers who were finding it difficult to obtain agricultural work. One impact was downward pressure on agricultural wages, particularly in regions an din crops where rbaceros were msot extensively used. In 1948, when were fewer braceros, farm labor wages in California were 65 percent of national manufacturing wages. By 1959, at the height of bracero importation, this declined to 47 percent. Domestic workers' wages were so low that they had to look for work elsewhere. Braceroas were also hired in preference to domestic workers. In order to survive, domestic workers had to migrate to find work and to survive.
In time, Cesaar Chavez gathered supporters among farm workers and other unions. Together, they put enough pressure on the government, and the Bracero Program was ended in 1964 [[3]].
