The Docks of Delano

Chavez forces me to join union. This year I make $1400 less than last year. --Giorgio Aglipay, farm worker

AFTER A LONG boycott campaign, Cesar Chavez finally got enough public support to force many growers to sign contracts with his United Farm Workers Union (UFW) in 1970. The growers signed even though Chavez did not have the support of the workers and even though he had misrepresented the facts to gain public support.

Those who joined the boycott must have felt that the farmworkers had won a great victory and that their living standards would improve. But the truth is that supporters of the boycott had forced farm workers into the UFW where Chavez hurt them both personally and financially, ultimately causing the living standards of many farmworkers to decline rather than improve.

The problems began with the UFW contracts themselves. Chavez contracts required growers and workers to use a hiring hall system. Under the plan, growers could not hire workers. Instead they would notify the UFW of how many workers they needed and when. Meanwhile, anyone who wanted to work would go to the hiring hall where the UFW would pass out assignments. This meant that a worker could only get a job through the union, worker could not get a job through the union, establishing a closed shop. The closed shop is illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act, but the act does not cover farm labor. The closed shop hiring hall gave Chavez tremendous power over the workers. He could now simply withhold assignments from anyone who didn't behave. The work was now Chavez's to distribute, and those whom he disliked would be the last to work, if they got to work at all.

Furthermore, the contract made it clear that there was to be no limit to Chavez's discretion in assigning jobs. One of the conditions for working is that a worker must be in good standing with the UFW. The term good standing is not explicitly defined. But as a hint the contract reads, "The union shall be the sole judge of the good standing of its members," and also, nothing in the contract "is intended to limit the grounds for determination of good standing."

Note that this is not the way other unions operate. In other industries the employer hires the employee and if he continues to work he must join the union. (Unless he lives in a state with a right-to-work law. Then he has the choice of whether or not to join.)

But Chavez's contracts left the workers defenseless. If anyone wanted to work he had to be in "good standing" with Cesar Chavez. As one Washington columnist wrote, "These glorious contracts reek of the docks--the docks of Charleston and New Orleans 120 years ago. Like slave traders and plantation owners, Chavez and the growers are buying and selling human beings."

In a secret memorandum of agreement that Chavez signed with growers, he explained how he planned to use this power. "It is agreed between the company and the union that there are certain employees who the union claims have impaired its unionizing activities. Therefore, the company agrees to explain to said employees that if they continue to do so, they will be immediately fired."

The agreement goes on to say that the UFW will be the sole judge of what constitutes impairment of its activities. As it turns out, it meant refusing to take time off work to man the boycott lines or refusing to drive boycott pickets to San Francisco. But most importantly, it also meant speaking against the union to reporters and outsiders. This agreement was devised to intimidate and silence the great majority of farmworkers that Chavez and the growers had forced into the UFW against their will.

The farmworkers themselves will tell of their experiences in the UFW if only people will listen. In one California paper, for example, a worker reported "some people go to the hiring hall and pay through the back door and get sometimes 40 assignments while others wait for days. The people in the hiring hall say they only get $5 a week so they say 'you give me a hand and I'll give you an assignment.' You see, they're blackmailing the people." Another worker reported "certain laborers found they had to wait three or four days for an assignment while some fared better, if they could pay the price."

In a personal interview, one worker said, "We often waited days and days sitting in a UFW hiring hall waiting for an assignment, while the crops were rotting in the fields."

Richard Chavez, Cesar's brother, boasted immediately after signing the contracts that anyone who said a word against the UFW would be fired. Later, three workers who had filed suits against Cesar reported that the hiring hall bosses could no longer find assignments for them.

Other workers reported that the hiring hall officials forced them to pay "back dues" before giving assignments. One worker said he had to pay over $100 in so-called back dues to get an assignment for his wife who hadn't worked in two years.

Many farmworkers also complained that the hiring halls gave no consideration to ranch seniority or traditional working habits. Members of the same family with one car were assigned to different ranches miles apart. Many grape pickers who had worked on the same ranch for years now saw UFW favorites assigned there while they had to wait. Instead of being able to work permanently with a single employer, workers were sent to many different ranches through the year.

One woman who had worked 16 years in the fields described her experiences in the Bakersfield paper, saying, "The hiring hall bosses would tell us, 'we'll give you an assignment when we feel like giving you one. You can get on your knees and beg.'"

In addition to discrimination, favoritism and corruption, the hiring hall system also hurt the workers because of poor administration. Often the UFW sent too many workers to a ranch, other times they could not send enough. sometimes the workers had to wait long hours for an assignment. Or sometimes the workers were sent too late to pick the perishable crops. The very first grower that signed a contract with Chavez in 1966 had to plow his rotted vineyards under because Chavez did not send enough workers on time. The immediate effect of this was less work and pay for the farm workers.

But this poor administration had long-term effects also, forcing some growers in to bankruptcy. Late in 1966, Chavez signed a contract with a second company, the DiGiorgio Corp. The UFW created many problems for the company, but the most important one was that it could not supply enough workers. This was due partly to UFW disorganization and partly to its unpopularity among pickers.

But these problems soon had a major effect on the DiGiorgio ranches, which began suffering losses. Consequently, the company began cutting back on planting, investment and production. By 1968, employment on one of its largest ranches had fallen from 2500 to 400. By 1970, the company had shut down its Sierra Vista ranch in Delano, costing the town 1500 jobs. Later the company shut down other ranches in the San Joaquin Valley.

The bankruptcies and cutbacks due to UFW disorganization were in addition to the effects of the boycott. The boycott itself had forced many growers, especially smaller ones, to shift into another crop or go into bankruptcy.

As a result, Chavez's boycotts and UFW disorganization have been major factors in causing declines in table grape planting. By 1971 growers had cut back planting by 4000 acres in the Coachella Valley and 8000 in the San Joaquin.

This translates into less jobs for farmworkers, and less hours for those who could still find work.

Moreover, many of the UFW's own regulations cut the working time of the farmworkers. For example, the UFW has prevented pickers from working overtime during peak harvest seasons. Teen-age children of the farmworkers had formerly found summer employment in the fields, but the UFW no longer allowed this. The union also ordered periodic slowdowns which lowered the pay of workers mainly dependent of piece rates.

The result of this discrimination, corruption, poor administration and harmful regulation has been a decline in the total yearly earnings of many farmworkers who have had the misfortune of being forced into the UFW. One worker who showed his income tax returns to a reporter had made $7547 in 1969. In 1970, after a year's membership in a union he didn't want to join, he had made $6532 or $1200 less.

His experience was not unique. Giorgio Aglipay, whose statement heads this column, reported that all his co-workers had suffered a loss of income in the UFW. Retail stores in Delano in 1971 reported declines of 25 to 40 per cent in business.

In 1972, members of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, a group of Protestant churches, went to the fields in Delano and interviewed more than 200 farmworkers in the UFW, asking them what they thought about the union.

One farmworker told Dr. Paul Gaston, who had admitted he was pro-union before he undertook the study, "The UFW took away all out rights, we can't work for the farmers where we have worked for years, husbands and wives can't work together, we have no say as to where we go. We can't complain. We are told to keep out mouths shut or we won't get an assignment. We are treated like sheep. We have no power at all, there is no such thing as freedom of speech. There is no election, there is no way for us to say what we like or don't like."

Another farmworker told an interviewer, "Before the UFW we could work 8 hours a day. Since the UFW our hours have been cut back. There are too many people being brought in here from other places. There is really only enough work for local people."

"We get no benefits from the UFW," another worker said. "Instead we get fined for all sorts of things, $25 for being late with dues, $5 for missing UFW meetings, $200 for speaking against the UFW, but we don't get anything back for all that money."

One grape picker explained that some workers lived 70 miles away from the UFW meeting places and had no transportation. Yet they were fined if they missed a meeting. He also said workers have to pay dues even during months when they do not work.

The workers feared this would happen if they let anyone get control over their jobs and that is why they never supported Chavez or his strikes. Their experiences with the hiring hall confirmed their fears and this is the major reason why many workers have joined the Teamsters or, in the words of Time "appear ready to shun both unions."

Chavez's major effect on farmworkers, therefore, has been to cause a loss of jobs and a decline in annual incomes. Along the way Chavez also trampled a few basic rights, like freedom of speech and association.

It is clear that those who have supported the boycott have hurt the very people they are trying to help by forcing farmworkers into this nightmare "union." Those who have been supporting the boycotts ought to re-evaluate their positions and think about what they are really doing to the farmworkers.