Before the UFW: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
[[Image:Aa_chavez_growup_1_m.jpg|thumb|Description]] [[Image:017.jpg|thumb|Description]] [[Image:027.gif|thumb|Description]] | |||
[[United Farm Workers of America (UFW)|Back to UFW]] | [[United Farm Workers of America (UFW)|Back to UFW]] | ||
Revision as of 02:03, 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 (Bracero Program); 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 widespread 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 standards 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 agricultural 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.
