Gallo Boycott:

The United Farm works of America (UFW) has recently been the target of criticism in the news media, Liberals grown weary of prolonged struggle have predicted the Union's defeat at the hands of the ruthless and efficient Teamsters. From the right have come claims chat farm workers are prosperous rather than oppressed and that the union hurts those it is supposed to help. These agruments, we believe have been adequately replied to by supporters of the UFW. But most recently attacks against the union have come from another sources: the Gallo Corporation itself. The E&J Gallo Winery the largest wine producer in the United States has mounted an enormous advertising capaign to counteract the boycott of Gallo products launched by its striking workers in 1973. The facts that Gallo presents, without substantiation, distort or ignore a number of important points that we feel should be made clear.

The most immediate issue at stake between the UFW and Gallo is that the UFW is demanding free representation elections for Gallo's workers. The union has advanced a standing offer to Gallo. The strike will end if Gallo allows such a vote among the peak harvest labor force, conducted by an impartial third party. Yet the Gallo corporation refuses. The justification offered by Gallo, that the "employer is vulnerable to lawsuits and boycotts by the losing union," ("Condensed Report of the Gallo-UFW-Teamsters Negotiations," published by Gallo, 1974), seems rather flimsy in view of the fact that Gallo is already being boycotted. A more straightforward explanation was given by more straightforward explanation was given by more straightforward explanation was given by Robert Deatrick, Gallo's industrial relations manager, at the time of the Teamster takeover. "An election just delays things." ("Gallo Chronology," published by the UFW, 1974.) James Smith, the Teamster area supervisor, has said, "The Teamsters are not going to go to any Mickey Mouse elections of any nature." (The modesto Bee, June 18, 1973.)

It is true that both growers and Teamsters have supported California state bills providing for elections. But the bills have been designed to cripple democratic unionization. Each of them has contained one or more of the following restrictions: (1) No strikes at harvest time (which is the only time that a strike can be effective); (2) No boycotts (boycotts are an important weapon for a union just starting to organize); (3) Election times to be chosen by the employers (so that the growers can hold a vote when only full-time workers are present. Full-time workers are usually a minority, and are better paid than seasonal laborers).

The reason for Gallo's opposition to free elections is fairly simple. If elections are held, the UFW will gain recognition as a representative of Gallo's workers and will once more start to make demands that Gallo does not want to meet. The first contract Gallo signed with the UFW in 1967 brought about significant changes; only then did Gallo raise wages above the minimum industrial wage. The UFW contract contained clauses dealing with the enforcement of federal and California state laws requiring toilets and fresh drinking water in the fields, which previously had been ignored. The contract provided for popularly elected ranch committees to enforce clauses relating to health, safety and pesticide use (the disease rate for California farm workers is more than twice the average rate for all industries).

That is why Gallo turned to the Team sters in 1973. There are striking differences between the Teamsters and the UFW in material benefits to workers, in organizational structure, and in outlook. Mike Bozick, a Coachella grape grower, commented that "the main difference [between the UFW and Teamster contracts] is that we [the growers] can run our business the Western conference of Teamsters is to compare the Teamster-Gallo contract with a UFW Almaden Vineyards contract signed in 1973:

JOB ASSIGNMENT: The UFW contract requires the replacement of the labor contractor system with a hiring hall. Under the labor contractor system, the grower requests a set number of workers, and a contractor selects them on an arbitrary basis. Job security is nonexistent (Gallo fires fifteen to twenty workers a day during peak harvesting time). An official Teamster statement says, 'Teamsters condemn all labor contractor, because they are evil corrupt, immoral, inhuman, and barters of souls and human lives." ("Why Does the Teamsters Union Support the Labor Contractor Rather Than the Hiring Hall?" Publication of the Western Conference of Teamsters, 1973). But their contract has a different ring: "The parties understand and agree that subcontracting by the Company is necessary and proper." It makes the employer rather than the union responsible for keeping the records from which seniority is determined. The seniority clause is further weakened by stating that the company may take "ability" into account in laying off and recalling employees.

The UFW instituted the hiring hall, a device used by many unions which allows them to assign jobs on the basis of seniority.

MANAGEMENT RIGHTS: Under the Teamster contract. Gallo has extensive rights to mechanize at will to arbitrarily create new job classifications, to promote and demote workers, and to discharge workers for just cause." The list of just causes is quite long and includes interference with the conduct of the company's business," whatever the might be Almaden is forbidden to install harvesting mechanize as long as the Union can provide personnel must discuss new job classifications with the workers, and has limited disciplinary powers.

WAGES: The UFW scales are higher in all categories, with difference ranging from 10 cents to 40 cents per hour. The UFW also has a standardized procedure for piece rate calculations.

HOURS: The Teamster contract specifically states that no limitation is placed on hours--so that workers can be forced to work seven days a week. The UFW contract insures on day a week as a holiday.

HEALTH AND SAFETY: Almaden has a management-labor health and safety committee, and is required to provide protective clothing and tools, first aid supplies, toilet facilities, and cool drinking water. The contract states that "Workers will not be required to work when to do so would endanger their health and safety." The Teamster contract does not deal with any of these issues.

BENEFITS: Many of the benefits are similar in the two contracts, but UFW contracts are more comprehensive, and the teamster contracts extent only to full-time workers have a credit union. Gallo workers do not. Almaden workers have a medical plan administered by a special staff, which covers 80 per cent of medical cost. Gallo workers also have a medical plan, but it operates through a private insurance company and covers only 50 per cent of costs. The grievance procedure for Gallo workers involves closely spaced deadlines for complaint filling, making it difficult for workers to use the process. The UFW procedure gives the workers more time.

CHILD LABOR: Gallo has never denied that it hires workers between the ages of 12 and 16. The corporation attempts to obscure the issue with the statement that "we do provide jobs for local college or high school students." The UFW forbids child labor in all contracts.

CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT: The UFW structure includes elected ranch committees to insure that the terms of the contract are carried out. And the Teamsters? This September, the strikebreakers employed at Gallo went out on strike to protest Teamster non-enforcement of the contract.

***

The differences between the two unions go deeper than what is written on the paper of the contracts. Fundamental political and organizational characteristics distinguish the UFW from the Teamsters. The UFW is a progressive, democratic union. The election of ranch committees guarantees that the union is controlled by local workers. The broader stricture of the union, determined by a constitutional convention held in 1973, was designed by workers to stay open and responsive to their needs. The UFW exists as part of a movement against racial oppression. The workers, largely Chicano, Filipino, black and Asia, are struggling against the conditions that have kept them in poverty for centuries. The elected governing board of the Union is made up of five Chicanos, two Filipinos, one black and one Jew, in reflection of the racial composition of the membership. Through the union, the unorganized are organizing themselves to challenge the entrenched interests of agribusiness, which has put down all labor movement in the past. The changes introduced by the union are allowing more and more workers to exert control over their working conditions.

The Teamsters Unions is responsive to the needs of the growers, not the farm workers. The Teamsters is run from above through bureaucratic appointments. David Castro, the president of the only existing Teamster local of farm workers (and presently earning $500 per week), was appointed without any election. He argues, "Suppose we had an election and it was stacked and I lost. To be very honest, I have to make sure the local is going to make it" (New York Times, November 11, 1974), Workers say that only the lowest level of the hierarchy has contact with them. As one lettuce cutter working under teamster contract said. "The Teamsters only come to the fields one time a month to sign up people. They never talk to the people or try to help them out" (Fresno Bee, September 18, 1974).

The men who control the Teamsters follow blatantly racist policies. Einar Mohn, president of the Western Conference of Teamsters in 1973, said. "It will be a couple of years before they can start having membership meetings, before we can use the farm workers' ideas in the union...I'm not sure how effective a union can be when it is composed of Mexican-Americans...as jobs become more attractive to whites, then we can build a union that can have a structure and that can negotiate with strength and have membership participation" (Los Angeles Times, April 28, 1973). Recently, the Teamsters shifted the leadership of their single farm workers' local to white people, away from the Mexican-Americans who organized it.

Most of the farm workers who work under Teamster contracts do so out of economic necessity, not free choice. Many, finding the contract unenforced, have refused to pay dues. When Frank Fitzsimmons, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, went to speak in Salinas. Calif... in June 1974. "Teamster" lettuce workers left the fields to picket his conference. When Cesar Chavez went to Salinas five days later, 3500 "Teamster" lettuce workers went to a UFW rally.

The role of the Teamsters in agriculture has consistently been one of complicity with the growers. In particular, the way the Teamsters and Gallo operated in the summer of 1973 was a classic case of the signing of a "sweetheart" contract. A New York Times editorial summarized these events by saying that "taking advantage of the absence of any federal or state laws requiring union elections to determine the wishes of farm laborers. Gallo threw out the Chavez group and signed a four-year agreements with the Teamsters" (New York times. Sept. 18. 1973).

When Gallo announced the beginning of negotiation with the Teamster above 80 per cent of the Gallo workers went out on strike. The response of the corporation was to bring in strike-breakers, and to sign a "sweetheart" contract with the Teamsters after a single bargaining session. In September of 1973, Gallo workers met at UFW headquarters and decided to initiate the boycott of Gallo products.

Recently the United Farm Workers boycott campaign has generated a great deal of controversy. The Gallo distributors and liquor stores supporting Gallo insist that the farm workers struggle is a jurisdictional dispute between two unions and that liquor stores have nothing to do with it. It should be clear that more is at stake than a simple tight between unions. An examination of the political and economic factors involved in the unionization drive should clarity the role of the national boycott campaign in promoting a farm workers victory.

California agriculture is dominated by large monopolistic corporations which historically have had ties to conservative politicians, law enforcement agencies, and the courts E & J Gallo Winery fits right into this group. Although most of the company's production, sales and profit statistics are kept secret by the management, it is known that the company produces about one-third of all wine sold in this country. Gallo's pre-tax profits in 1971 reached $35 to $40 million, according to the Nov. 27 1972, issue of Time. Gallo's economic strength makes it possible for the company to recruit and transport strike breakers, to conduct large0scale public relations campaigns, to bear the costs of temporary production disruption due to strikes and to involve itself in drawn-out court cases. These are all expensive operations which companies with less market control and lower profits could not afford.

Recognition of the United Farm Workers union by Gallo Wineries would run counter to the company's interests and would cut into profits, both in the short run (through union demands for higher wages, pensions and benefits) and in the long run (through union demands for employment security, higher health and safety standards and increased worker control over hiring, firing and speed of work). Therefore, Gallo wineries is just acting in its own self-interest--no amount of pleading can convince them that recognition of the UFW is the "right" thing to do. The only way for the farm workers to win any of their basic rights is to put economic and political pressure on the company.

In response to Gallo's effort to crush the UFW, the union has called for a national boycott of Gallo wine.

The Harvard-Radcliffe Support Committee supports the boycott of Gallo wines for three main reasons. First, we believe that all workers have a right to choose their own union in free election. Second, we feel that all evidence points to the fact that the UFW is the farm workers' choice. Third, we believe that farm workers should be supported in their-struggle against bad working conditions, poor material benefits, and racism. We have gone to stores in the Harvard Square area, asking them to stop selling Gallo wine, and all have agreed except the Harvard provision Co. The boycott can only be effective if the stores cooperate; it is impossible to picket against the wine 24 hours a day. Since it is the sores that profit from the sale of Gallo wine, they must make the decision to stop selling it, and when they refuse, it is our job to reach their customers, so that together, we can put economic pressure on the store. The clearest evidence of the kind of support we have gained from customers for the farm workers' struggle is the fact that Harvard Pro. along with Avenue Liquor Mart, and Pappas, the local Gallo distributor, attempted to get a court injunction against the picketing, which they claim has resulted in a large loss of sales.

Avenue Liquors spent $4000 in pursuing the injunction; Harvard Pro spent about the same. To those who suggest that the poor liquor stores are caught in the middle of a dispute between unions we must ask the question, how poor are the stores that can afford to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to obtain an injunction against picketing? Businessmen have many ways to put economic pressure on us, as consumers, but boycotting stores is the only legal economic weapon consumers have against businesses.