Migrant Farm Workers.

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 344 717

RC 018 609

AUTHOR

Slesinger, Doris P.; Pfeffer, Max J.

TITLE

Migrant Farm Workers.

PUB DATE 92

NOTE

21p.; Small, occasionally broken type may affect

legibility.

PUB TYPE

Information Analyses (070)

EDRS PRICE

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS

Agricultural Laborers; *Economic Factors; Employer

Employee Relationship; *Farm Labor; Federal

Legislation; Migrant Education; Migrant Employment;

Migrant Health Services; *Migrant Problems; *Migrant

Workers; *Political Influences; Political PoweL;

*Poverty; Work Environment

ABSTRACT

This paper documents migrant farm workers as being

among the most persistently underprivileged groups in American

society. Migrant farm workers typically receive low wages from

irregular employment and live in poverty with access to only

substandard housing and inadequate health care. The lack of economic

improvement stems from a number of sociopolitical factors, including

the political powerlessness of farm workers, the political influence

of agricultural employers, and the marginal status of farm workers in

United States agriculture development. Only a limited number of local

and regional studies of migrant workers are available. Migrant

workers are predominantly male with a median age of 32. Their racial

composition is about 46 percent White, 15 percent Hispanic, and 39

percent Black and other races. Depending on the nature of the work,

families may work toge'ther as a group or the adults may travel

leaving families behind. Migrants in 1988 had an annual median income

of $7,330, with an average of 5.2 persons dependent upon this income,

placing them under the poverty level. Inadequate health care and

migration are detrimental to the education of this population. The

number of workers needed in agriculture has been decithing and will

probably continue to decline due to continued mechanization in

agriculture production. However, an increase in farming of

labor-intensive crops would increase the demand for farm workers for

short periods of time. Other issues addressed include the impact of

erratic immigration policies and minimum wage legislation. Few needs

of the politically and economically powerless migrant workers will be

met until it is recognized that farm workers have the same rights as

employees in other industries. (LP)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.

***********************************************************************

UAL DEPARTMENT

OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational

Research and

Improvemeru

EDUCATIONAL

RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

This document

has been

reproduced as

received from th I

persoo OF

organization

originating it

C Minor changes

have been made

to improve

reproduction quality

Points ol view or

opinions staled in

this docu.

ment dO nOt

necessarily represent

official

OERI position or

policy

-PERMISSION

REPRODUCE

THIS

MATERIAL

HAS BEEN

GRANTED

jams_aic_49..e

Migtaid 1min workers are among the most underprivileged groups in our society.

Typically, they receive low wages rim' irreguhir employment and live in poverty

with access only to substandard housing and inadequate health care. Pedmps

wind is most disturbing about migrant-finm-worker poverty is its persistence

Over time. Farm labor has never commanded much more than a subsistence

wage. and migrant farm wink, where individuals and families follow the planting

and harvesting of crops, has usually been compensated at the lowest

of wages

available fOr hired farm workers.

;Migrant farm workers have been an important part

of the agricultural econinny

in. the United Stales for more than a century, and during that time many of the

conditions of their lives have not unproved. As noted by a Washington State

Linployment Security Deputment report (1990), seasonal and migrant fain

workers can be viewed as a "contingency" work kmee, since they are needed

in large numbers for temporary work at certain times of the year. These workers

have special needs, since they typically lmve little security and fewer benefits

than do permanent workers. This state of affairs is in stark contrast to the advances

made by workers in other scctors of the economy during the twentieth century.

Official agencies diner in their definitions of "migrant." The U.S. Department

of Agricultint (USDA) definition

u migrant farm worker is "someone who

temporarily crosses state or county boundaries and stays overnight to do hired

farm work" (Oliveira and Cox 1988, p. 8). Other federal agencies use slightly

different definitions. The U.S. Depiciment of Education divides migrant families

into two categories: "euiTently migrant," meaning that a member of the family

was empkiyed in agriculture and stayed overnight away from home within the

past two years; arid "finmerly migrant," meaning that the family member was

engaged in migrant agricultural work within the past six .years. Sonic federai

agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Labor, regard work in meat processing

or in canneries as not "agricultmon thus migrant wink forces working in these

BEST C011iVLE

.a.

From:

Cynthia M. Duncan, ed., Rural Poverty in America.

Westport, CT:

Auburn House, 1992.

Chapter 7

Migrant Farm Workers

Doris 1'. Slesimer and Max J. IffiVer

TO THE

EDUCATIONAL

RESOURCES

INFORMATION

CENTER

(ERIC)"

136

Map 7.1

Mlgriuit Farm Worker Streams in the

United Slates

Plit11`1,1i AND POOR 111.ACliti

=1 West

Central

East

Source: Map provided by Nurional Migram

Resource Program, loc.. 1987, Aus lin, 1 croB

inthistries ate nol considered migrant agricultural

Winkel's; even slwepsheams

who travel on contract are not considered "migrant"

workers. On the other

hand, the U.S. Public Health Service considers all

workers and [amity members

who lit any definition of "migrant" by aay one or

another of Ore federal programs

as eligible for the health

services specifically provided for migrant arid seasonal

farm workers (Slesinger and Cautley

1988). 1kfr our purposes, USDA's fairly

general and inclusive definition is the most

useful.

As Map 7. I indicates, there arc three

primary streams of migrant workers in

the United Slates: the western, central,

mid eastern. In the West migrants travel

north from northern Mexico, southern

Texas, and southern Col jb)! nia ii

the

West Coast. Northern Mexico and southern

Texas are also the sendnig areas ror

the migrants who travel in the Midwest.

Both these streams are nmde up prilnarily

of people of Mexican heritage.

'Ilse third or eastern stream is ethnically mine

varied. Blacks living in rural

Florida often !ingrate northward up the coast,

working in Georgia, the Carolinas, New

Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York

Stale. However, the East Coast

also attracts Puerto PiCalls, I Wilms.

Mexicans,

and Southeast Asians, some of

whom spend the winter in nmjor cities.

Sonic

migrants in each stream are citizens

of the United States; others are recently

arrived immigrants under refugee status;

still others are under contracts with

foreign governments for specific harvest

(e.g., apples or sugar beets); mid other s

are illegal workers,

who never have obtained work permits.

It also should be

noted that over 40 percent of the

migrants are likely to work within the state

1r !IMAM PARM Womms

137

which they teside, especially in lhe Mines

Calorani, Iilorida. mid Texas

(Marlin 1988. p. 54).

Little is yet known about the effects ol' the new "amnesty" Inunigration

Reform Had Conl11/1 Ael lir 1986 MI the (pundit), of agricultural win '.ers in the

United Slates. Viis law permitted workers to apply for citizenship who could

prove that they had been employed in agricultural work in the United Slaws for

the past six years, but who did not have legal work permits. Prclirninary evidence

indicates that subshanial numbers of migrant' workers who have filed for citi-

zenship have not yel left agricultural work for urlum-bosed empfoymea How-

ever, there was some concern that providing legal citizenship would deplete the

agricultural work force. Apparently this has not yet haprened. Approximately

1,300.000 to 2,000,000 farm workers are estimated to hbvc applied for citizen-

ship. To date, no figures are availahle as to the number that have been approved

(Mines 1990).

Migrant agricultural workers are employed in tasks that require hand labor

from early spring to just berm Christmas. lit early spring they arc typically

employed in nurseries and seedling companies. They then may be employed to

prepare the ground for planting. Often they do hand weeding and hoeing; for

example. they "walk the beans" (weed the soybean rows) in Nebraska, hand

weed the mint farms in Wisconsin, or plant strawberries in Calikunia. Next are

the ear ly harvests of peas, followed by the dethsselling of corn and the back-

breaking work of culling cabbage and picking cucumbers, tomatoes, and straw-

berries. They me knind in packing sheds in or near the fields, stuffing plastic

lmgs with cauots, celery, onions, and other vegelubles. Alter the harvest is

completed in most states, they can he lound spraying and shaping Christmas

trees to make thesis green and perfect pyramids.

Some migrmits work in slaughterhouses and meat-packing phials, while others

work m camicries, canning fruits and vegetables. These arc not field workers

and so may or may not be counted as migrant farm workers. However, ahnost

afl of these worke:.s also usuany receive the minimum wage and rarely receive

any Ii inge heuelits. Today the USDA estimates that out of a work force of about

2.5 million hired farm workers, approxinuitely 250,000 (or MC ill MI) lit the

()hyena and Cox definition as described earlier (Marlin 1988, p. 52).

HISTORIC

U.S. agr iculture has used migratory labor since before the turn of the ceffiury,

and racial and ethic ininorities have been and continue to be the sources of

workers for migrant work. lu California Chinese of the 1880s were followed by

Japanese in the early 1900s and then by Filipinos in the 1920s. Immigrants from

Europe provided hand labor throughout the United States in the 1920s. They

included immigrants who came directly to farms from Europe, as well as im-

migrants wl so settled in major cities such as New York. Chicago. and Philadelphia

and then supplemented their incomes by picking up seasonal farm work as

138

POOR PEOPLE ANI) POOR PLAITS

needed. During World War II prisoners of war were put to

wink planting w

harvesting to make up for shortages of migrant

workers. For example. in

early 1940s Wisconsin counted over 3,500

prisoners of war who winked

farms (Sorden, Long, and Salick 1948). Since

the late 1940s Mexicans have

streemed across the Rio Grande Valley border in search

of agrieuhural wink.

In addition, many Mexican Americans living in Texas

also become migi awry

workers every spring, returning to Texas after the

harvest season-4u the lall.

People of Mexican heritage have become the mainstay of

lcmg-distance migratory

workers in the West and Midwest. However, Blacks from

Mork la. Limisimm,

and other Southern states raid Puerto !jeans and other

Caribbean Islanders have

also been involved in migratory agricultural work since

before Would War II.

They, however, usually work the crops up and down

the East Coast.

When domestic labor shortages occurred, such us during

and utter Would War

II, or in limes of high urban employment, when rural

residents Hocked to cities,

the United States attempted to find agricultural workers

thrOugh contracts wini

other countries. Formal agreements with Caribbean

mantles such as I laiti. the

Dominican Republic, and Barbados, as well as with Mexico,

especially through

the wellknown Bracero program (1942 to 1964),

produced flows of workels.

Today most migrant workers are Ilispanics and Blacks.

Them are also small

populations of Central and Latin American immigrauts

and persons lions the

Philippines, as well as the newest group of iimnigrams,

the Southeast Ashur;

11mong, Thai, and Laotians.

THE EXCLUSION OF FARM WORKERS FROM

SOCIAL LEGISLATION

Parin workers have not benelined from the valions pieces of the

social leg-

islation that were beginning to be enacted in the 1930s

by slate and ledeial

governments. Many of these laws were established to

improve the lives of hired

employees. For example, unemployment insurance coverage

esiablished as part

of the Social Security Act in 1935 excluded farm workers. It was not

until 19,6

that most farm workers were granted such benefits.

Likewise, farm win kers were

excluded from the minimum-wage guarantees granted industrial

workers under

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Not until

1966 was minimum-wage

protection granted to sonic farm workers. Workers

compensation hiws are in-

tended to provide individuals with basic protection

from injuries Metaled at

work. There is no federal workers compensation, however;

such coverage is

established by individual states. As Table 7.1 shows, few stales

oiler farm

workers such compensation to the same extent that they cover

other workers.

The lack of such coverage is all the more critical given

the irregular enforcement

of Occupational Safety and Health Administration

reguhaions withiu the Will

sector. The ability of farm workers to

address employment-related grievailees

more directly via collective

bargaining with employers is hamstrung by their

exclusion from the provisions of the National Labor

Relations Act tlial established

IVIIGRANT PARAI WORKERS

Table 7.1

Type of Workei's' Compensation Coverage for Agricultural Workers by Slate,

1986

Agricultural

Workers Covered

the Same as All

Other Workers

Limitations on

Coverage for

Agricultural

Workers

139

Voluntary Coverage

Available for

Workers*

Al1701111

Catifinnia

Colorado

Connecticut

Distuict of Columbia

Hawaii

1.01liaialin

Massachusetts

Montana

New IlampsIdre

New Jersey

Ohio

Omegon

Alaska

Delaware

Mouth

11 Owls

Iowa

Maine

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

New Yolk

North Cam lina

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Alabama

Arkansas

(Jeorgia

ldaho

Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Mississippi

Nebraska

Nevada

New Mexico

North Dakota

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Soimr. R)nyan 1989.

slinirloycis way volinilect III panicipale in the timpani, Inn me not ittinited by law in do so.

the right of workers to unionize and bargain collectively. Snell protective leg-

islation has been granted farm workers in just two states, Hawaii in 1945 and

California in 1975 ((Joldfarb 1981;

Runyan 1989).

Moreover, existing farm legislation offers no direct relief of farm worker

puveity. The farm programs in effect today provide farmers with some relief

from low incomes, These programs, first established by New Deal legislation,

were designed to mitigate the effects of commodity surpluses and low farm

commodity prices on farmers' incomes, but they contain no provisions for the

direct support of farm workers' earnings. Parallel programs enacted under the

New Deal that were inteoded to serve hired farm workers more directly have

not endured (Daniel 1981; Majka and Majka 1982; Pfeiter and Gilbert 1989).

The New Deal recovery programs of the 1930s established the precedent of

explicitly excluding farm workers from social legigation (Morris 1945; Goldfarb

140

Point

ANI) P111111 VI/111:S

1981). Although a number of pnrams

adminisrered by Ihe Fa1111 Security

Administration, the Resell lemem Administration,

and other New Deal agencies

directly benclitred farm workers, these prcgrams

received limited landing and

were eventually discontinued.

Most appropriations admiaistered by the Depart-

meld of Agriculture under the New Deal recovery programs

went lo commercial

farmers, distributed via the Agricultural Adjustment

Program, II le Farm Credit

Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, and the

l'ederal Surplus Coin.

modifies Corporathm. Tim basic farm programs enacted

in lire 1930s remaio in

effect today and include no provi3ions for the

alleviation of poverly anamgst

farm workers. The architects of the New Deal

did not explicitly include farm

workers in major farm legislation on (he premise that the farm programs

would

increase aggregate farm income, and farm workers

would benelit Wilk:city as

farmers raised wages. It was assumed that fanners

would raise wages because

of their close personal interest in the et:mimic well-being of

their workers (1)arriel

1981; Goldfarb 1981; Majka and Majka 1982). This

iltitinlvtiou embialied in

thc farm programs has never been effectively challenged,

despite evidence span-

ning more than fifty years that the benefits received

by homers are typically not

trims hued WO Unproved employment

conditions for makers (Daniel 1981; Pfef-

fer and Gilbert 1989).

Although farm workers in general have historically

been excluded how plo-

lective legislation as described here, migrant farm

workers l'are worst of all.

Their work at any one farm is typically fur a short

period of ihne, and they must

travel from place to place in search of employment.

Thus migrant Wm woikeis

earn less than farm workers

employed year-round in one place; even seasonal

furni workers living in the locality in which they are

employed fare better than

the migrants. The seasonal farm workers are able to draw on a

network of friends

and kin to improve their standard of living.

Furthermore, they have the benefit

of stable access to educational and health-care

facilities (Thomas 1985; Jenkins

1985). Not until 1983, when the U.S. Congress

passed the Migrant and Seasonal

Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSAWPA), were some

of the special needs

of migrant farm workrs recogniud. This is the

first and only legislation geared

specilically to the protection of migrant farm workers.

This legislation was

enacted to protect migrant and seasonal farm workers

in terms of pay and working

conditions. However, for the most part these protections are

guaranteed only to

those workers employed by farm-labor contractors, not

to those employed directly

by the farm owner or operator. Agricultural employers

who contract employees

only for their own operations arc exempt from many

of MSPA's provisions

(Runyan 1989).

Migrant workers are continually vulnerable, even

under the protection of

established laws. For example, as recently as 1988,

in Wisconsin and in several

other slates, employers tried to have migrant

workers classified as "independent

contractors" instead of hire., farm workers. This

would allow employers to

"contract" with the workers and thus pay neither

Social Security, winkers

compensation, nor unemplo

cnt compensation. In other words,

employds

141

wanted to evade the requirements of the l'ederal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Migrant workers in Wiscousin obtained assistance from the state's Legal Action.

A lawsuit tiled by the U.S. Deparnnent of Labor, assisted by Legal Action of

resuhed in the grower's case beiog thrown out in the Seveoth U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals. The court found that migrant workers were clearly

employees of growers and thns were entitled to protectiou under the Fair Labor

Stood:ads Act.

Another example concerned Mexican workers hired by a Wisconsin tobacco

limner in 1989. The fanner housed twenty-two people ill Olie iloUse trailer, which

was without electricity, bottled gas, or immuring water. The situatiomu was

revealed

when other migrant workers reported the situation to Legal Action. However,

under Wisconsin statutes al the time, tobacco was not a crop whose workers

were protected under the slate's 1977 Migrant Labor Law. Tobacco was not

among those products classified as is food or food product, sod, or nursery

work,

the wily types of products included 1mm the low. Thus the farmer's inlIUM1111 and

unsairitary behavior could not be prosecuted under the slate's migrant labor law.

For tunately, this situalirm was covered by the Wend Fair Labor Standards Act

and the Agricultural Workers' Protection Act, and the farmer was prosecuted.

The next year, a bill was passed in the state legislature to add tobacco io the

crops dwered by the Migrant Labor Law. The latter law regulates work contracts

and compeosalioo as well as housing standards aml sarfilary conditioos.

FARM WORKERS AND AURAIUAN DEVELOPMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES

Despite their poverty, migrant farm workers have been excluded from many

of the benefits and protections granted to other wage workers. The view of farm

workers in American agrarian ideology established an important basis fur leaving

them out of much farm and labor legislation. Farm work was never held in

high esteem in U.S. society. Accoftling to the agrarian ideal established early

ill OUr history, the work status of the hired farm worker was expected to be

temporary. According to this ideal, working for another farmer was considered

only as a step toward becoming an independent f-,,nn operator. Farm employment

was seen as a means fin individuals to amass the capital and skills necessary to

begin to farm omi their own. Farm work was thought of us an apprenticeship

whereby me could develop the myriad of skills required to successfully operate

a farm. Over time it was expected that hired employees would function with a

degree of autonomy similar to that of the farm owner (Schwartz 1945; Daniel

1981; Kloppenburg and Geisler 1985). Depictions of the agrarian ideal typically

stressed the homogenizing effect of farm work on the relationships between

farmers and their hired employees. Because the worker would soon achieve the

same status as his employer, it was assumed that there was little basis for conflicts

of interest. Furthermore, because they labored in close personal contact with

one arrother on a daily basis, strong social bonds would presumably be

established

142

Pool( Phone. Atm Potht Pnaces

between the farmer and the worker. I fired

workers intent on becoming inde-

pendent farmers in the locality, it was believed,

would also establish social ties

via participation in community institutions

like churches and schools. Some

discussions

the agrarian ideal acknowledged that not all

workers would be hi

a position to become

independent farm operators, and that farmers would some-

times have to employ individuals on a more temporary

basis duriag exceplimmlly

busy times like the crop harvest, However, the general consensus was

that such

workers would not be treated as a class apart, because

they were pad or an

integrated rural community (Coulter 1912; Schwartz

1945; Daniel 19811.

While the extent to which agricultural development in the

United States ever

actually approximated the agrarian ideal is

debatable,' it is clear that the Intel ems

and possibilities of the rural populace in sealing the agricultural

ladder from lam

worker to Wei= at faro] operator were limited. This

fact was borne out in

the steady stream ol migrants out of rural areas

in the latter.hall of the nineteenth

century. le this process ihe position of

hired labor in U.S. 'agricaltme became

increasingly marginal, uwamse ruiners relied increasingly on

machinery as they

attempted to expand

and overcome persistent shortages of labor.

Consequently, many (aims, especially in the Midwest

and the Great Plains, were

operated with virtually no labor beyond that provided

by the farm lamily (Fried-,

maim 1978; Pfeffer 1983a), In

those cases where seasonal or migrant labor was

required for the cultivation and harvesting of

labor-intensive crops like loins,

vegetables, and tobacco, the hired farm work force was

virtually invisible within

the sea of family-labor farms,

IDEALIZATION OF 'WE FAMIL' PAM

Although important exceptions to the family-farm minlel have

existed in 'nuts

of the South and the West, the bulk of all farms in the

Uuited States have been,

and continue to be, family operations. This form

of organization was hailed as

the best approximation of the agrarian ideal developei!

H the course ol U.S.

history, The marginal importance of farm workers mi

family farms meant !hat

the characterization embodied in the agrarian

ideal of Imrmonious employer-

employee relations remained unchallenged. This

whoa became an holmium!

legitimating factor for the eitchision of farm worker's

from social legislation

enacted in the 1930s.

As noted earlier, farm workers' exclusion

from a variety of New Deal labor

legislation was based on the assumptioa that theme was ao

conflict of inlet est

between farm workers and their employers. This point

becomes most clear when

one considers the exclusion

of farm workers from coverage under the National

Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This legislation

"provided a legal and institutional

framework for industrial conflict, and an environment

couducive to the gm omit

of a

...

labor movement that could confront employers

directly" (Daniel 1981,

p. 173). When pressed to

provide a justilicathm for the exclusion of harm woikeis

from coverage under the NLRS, New Deal

spokesmen "ague(' that the inleiests

MIKAN]. FARM WORKERS

Table 7.2

Farms by Amami

Wages Paid, United States, 1987

Annual

Wages Paid ($)

143

Percentage of All Farms

None

60.8

1-999 18.3

1,0;10-4,999

9.3

5,000-9,999

3.5

10,000-24,999

4.5

25,000-49,999

1.9

50,000-79,999 .8

80,000-99,999

100,000 +

Total

100.0

Number of farms

2,087,734

Sower: 1987 Ccosos of Agricolooe.

of hum woi kers

. . ,

would be protected under the Ago kollural Adjustment Acts

which winild pm ovide not only gieater aggregate income for the agricultural

sector, but also a lair sharing of that new wealth at every level of the farming

economy" (Daniel 1981. p. 174).

The basic assumption at the limo was that farm workers were in no need of

special Noteetion because of the special character of labor relations in agricolture,

that is, the close personal relations between farmers and their employees (Morris

1945; (oldfarb 1981 ). While ens assunqnion inlay have ken valid for the many

fanins that employed very little hired labor, those employing kirge numbers of

makers more closely approximated the industrial model of labor organization

than the agradan ideal. Indeed, an enduring characteristic of agricultural em-

ployment is its concentration on a relatively small number of large farms na-

tionwide. In 1987 al-out 1.5 percent of all farms had sales of $500,000 or more

and accounted for almost 55 percent of all expenditures hir farm labor (Schwattz

1945; U.S. BlIreall of the Census 1989a).

ACRICULTURAL EMPLOYERS AND THE

AGRARMN IDEAL

While family fauns have dominated the rural landscape in terms of sheer

manliets.

I rim ins emidoying nage monhers of makers can also be found. 'fable

7.2 shows that mimic than dacc-fifths ol all farms in the United Stales (60.8

1 1

144

POOR

ANI) PLACES

percent) reported no wage labor expenses. On the other hand,

a small nmnher

of farms reported very larbe payrolls. Fer example, 15,150 farms reported 'wing

more than $100,000 in wages annually. liked labor is most important on hams

growing labor-iutensive crops like fruits mid vegetables, and such employment

lends to be erratic during the productiou seusoll. Workers tumble to

We KC steady

employment oe any one farm are often it:wired to moviefrom

one employer to

another. The geographical range of such movement is emended when

there is

regional specialization in a limited number of

crops, because workers are forced

to migrate to another location when seasonal employment in the local specialty

dries up.

Farms specializing in the production of labor-intensive commodities

me knmd

throughout the United Slates, but the demand kw migrant farm

workers is es-

pecially pronounced in areas where most farms

are engaged in the production

of labor-intensive crops. In parts of Florida, Texas, and California,

farms me

typically very large and engage in highly specialized produaiiin. Labor

rehaions

on such farms bear little resemblance 10 the agrarian ideal discussed earlier.

Observers have long noted that labor relations

ou large-scale farms are quite

impersonal. Workers arc viewed abstractly

as labor, that is, as is factor of pro-

duction to be utilized as efficiently as possible in die production

process (Daniel

1981).

To minimize the costs associated with employing farm workers,

farmers

have sought to maximize their control

over the work force. Stich emend is

often at odds with the interests of farm workers. For

example, larineis have

typically attempted to hold down

wages, and these efforts have kept workers

living in poverty. Farmers have also made

an effort to insure that workers

are readily available when needed for a particular farm operation and that

they remain on the job until the work involved is

completed. However,

when these workers have been no longer needed

mi the farm, they have

been encouraged to leave the area in search of other work

so that any direct

or Wired costs associated with their maintenance (e.g., the provision of

so-

cial services, education, and so on) would be minimized

(lcakins 1985;

Pfeffer 1986).

To maintain control of the migrant farm work force, employers

of large

numbers of farm workers have sought to billuence

government policy.

of their strategy is to represent their interests

as identical to those of the

broader farm sector.

In doing so, they have been able to conjure

up the

agrarian ideal as a Malls of gemrating sympathy for their

cause. Thus Mid-

atives to improve the lot of farm workers have been portrayed

as inimical to

the economic survival of all farmers, both large and small. The

central argu-

ment presented against protective legislation for farm workers is the need

protect family farmers from exorb:tant costs. The exclusion of farm workers

from protective labor legislation has played

an important part in maintaining

the powerlessness of farm workers to improve their working conditioes

(Daniel 1981; Goldfarb 1981),

MitIRAN I FARM WoltKIIKS

145

FARM WORKER POWERLESSNESS

Migrant lam workers enjoy few of the advantages

presumed to stem from

close personal lies between workers and their employers.

As noted earlier, this

! notion embodied in dm agrarian ideal has been used to justify

their exclusion

from protective legislatiou granted other workers. In

light of this experience, it

is not surprising that migraut farm workers have

remind an impoverished

segment of American society. Moreover, they

have been unable to mount sue-

. cessful drives to improve the conditions

of their lives.

On the face of things. farm workers hold a strategic

position. Given the

perishability of many form commodities, the failure of workers to

harvest the

crop could prove disastrous for farmers.

However, several factors have come

together to limit tlic effectiveness of collective efforts to promote

farm worker

interests. For one thing, given their impoverished condition,

migrant farm work-

ers have lacked a resource base with

which to challenge established social struc-

tures. For mother, migrants have never

been a stable part of the agricultural

community like the farm workers portrayed in the agrarian

ideal. The erratic

mid seasonal !lattice of their employment coutribules to

their exclusion from

membership in a stable community and has inhibited the

development of social

solidarity with other farm workers. 'lids lack of rootedness

in a community also

makes them ineligible for a variety of social services

offered to local residents

(Jenkins 1985).

'Ile social marginality of migrants has been reinforced

by the active recruit-

ment of ethnic and racial ;ninorities into farm work.

Such recruitment has some-

dines been justified on account of the unwillingness of Whiles to work on farms,

given the mow desirable working conditions in urban areas.

This practice was

effective because of mist sentimeuts of employers and labor

unions in urban

areas. Racism had the effect of

excluding the Chinese, Japanese, Blacks, Fili-

pinos, Mexicans, and others from all but the most menial jobs

in turban areas

(Schwartz 1945; Pfeffer 1983b). The powerlessness of

migrant farm workers

was in part due to "the recruitment of a

workforce whose estrangement from

the social and cultural mainstream was so profound and

unalterable as to render

it captive economically' (Daniel 1981, p. 27):

The success of the United Farm Workers (UFW) union

in California in the

late 1960s and the 1970s raised the prospect of a new era

for migrant farm

workers. For the first lime in U.S. history, what PTeaced to

be a stable orga-

nization representing the interests of farm workers had come

into being. How-

ever, the 1980s proved to be a

difficult time for the UM. Membership has

declined steadily, end many of the gains won in previous years appear

to be in

jeopardy. For example, new technologies that permit the

field packaging of

products like lettuce and broccoli have served to erode the

UPW's base of power.

In 1977 the UFW and the Teamsters Union reached an agreement on

the or-

genization of agricultund workers. Under this agreement the

UFW had jurisdic-

tipml

organize lield workers, and the Teamsters would limit

their organizing

146

POOR PEOPLE ANII POOR PLACES

efforts to workers in packing-shed and postharvest handling operations. But

the

advent of lield packing technologies eroded this distinction, and the

Teanisteis

have been able to negotiate contracts with growers to cover between 5,000

and

6,000 workers involved in such operations. Many or these workers mc

migrant

workers, but of a new sort. They tend to

skilled workers who maintain field

packing machines and portable refrigeration units. These workers move with the

harvest. For example, those involved with the lettuce harvest will

be in the

Imperial Valley and Arizona in the winter and in the Salinas Valley in the spi ing

and summer. Unskilled packing workers tend to be local women who

do not

move with the production. The UFW has made no new

efforts to organize milkers

in about the last len years. Instead, it has concentrated on repiesenting the

approximately 25,000 workers that it has already organized. !however, aggiessive

efforts to organize lettuce workers have been made in recent years by a breakaway

group from the Teamsters. Nevertheless, the vast

majority of California's farm

workers (about 750,000 by sonic estimates) remain unorganized, and little effort

has been made to organize unskilled migrant workers (Villarejo 1990).

Thus

what the future holds for furm workers in California remains micettain at best

and bleak at worst. Despite sonic success by the UM on the West Coast.

migrant form workers in many parts of the United Stales have not laid the

benefit

of organized and stable representation. For the most pawl, migrants remain all

impoverished group lucking access to stable employment and the benefits and

protections enjoyed by workers in other sectors of the economy. We get a better

sense of the problems of migrant farm workers by

taking a closer look al their

attributes and special needs.

THE CURRENT SCENE

Migrant agricultural workers in host stales arc ()ken an "invisible" population

to most, year-round residents who do not know when and where migratills

wink.

This invisibility and the varying definitions of "migrant" mentioned earlier have

meant that fcw accurate statistics have been collected on this

population. Livemm

though we know little about the characteristics of migrants on a national level

(Shenkin 1974), there arc a number of local aud regional studies that shed some

iight on this population (White-Means, Chi, and McClain 1989; Rogers

(984;

Bfeiweis et al. 1977; Barr el al. 1988; Friedland and Nelkin 1971).

Age and Sex

Until recently, the Current Population Survey had a special supplement every

two years in December to estimate the farm worker population

in thc nation.

Workers were asked about their employment the previous two weeks.

This

underestimated seasonal and migamt farm workers because in the cold days of

December few of them are employed in agricultural work. In addition,

seasonal

and migrant farm workcrs who live in Mexico dating the winter ale never

M untANT FARM WORKERS

147

counted. Thus it

is geaerally agreed that the number of migrant agricultural

workers is underestimated. !However, a we assume that the characteristics of

those who are counted are similar to the characteristics of those who arc not

counted (this may be a dubious assumption), the following description of migrant

workers in 1985 (reported by Oliveira add Cox iii 1988) would be appropriate:

migrant workers ate predominantly male; they tend to be older workers, with a

Median age of 32; their racial composition is about 46 percent White, 15 percent

!hispanic, and 39 percent Black and other races.

Faultily Status

Each group may wom k as a family unit, or the adults may travel as "singles,"

leaving families behind. 'the specilic farm activities in which the migrants are

employed often determine whether children and wives arc brought along. By

and large, it is an advantage to have families luirvesting field crops such as green

beans, cucumbers for pickles, peppers, and cabbage because families are often

paid by the. "bushel basket." Children are ma useful if migrants work in can-

neries, where workers get an hourly wage, and husbands and wives often work

the same shifts. Mexicans tend to travel in families: labor contracts with other

nations are usually for "singles." liven if a husband and wife sign up together,

it is likely that they will not be permitted to sleep in the same quarters, because

when housing is provided, males mid females are usually placed in separate

dinmikprics.

Others found in the migrant population ate called "freewheelers" because

they omen the country in search of farm work, going where information hum

their "grapevine" tells them jobs are available. Because of the unpredictability

of weather and the difficulty of judging whether a crop is going to be substantial

or thin, freewheelers often perform am important service for fanners. flowcver,

they usually do not have labor contracts, will often accept wages that are below

the minimum wage, and live in housing that is neither inspected nor even defined

as "housing," such as abandoned barns or cats or even a blanket under a tree.

Socioeconomic Status

Both national data (Whitener 1984) and in-depth interviews with random

samples of migrant workers in Wisconsin (Slesinger I 979a; Slesinger and Ofslead

1990) indicate that the likely annual income.of migrants is barely above poverty

level. Migrants who travel loner distances each year (over 500 miles) arc more

likely to be minorities and to receive all their income from migratory farm work

(Rowe 1979). For example, in the 1989 Wisconsin study about 46 percent of

the makers reported that all of their 1988 income came from migrant work.

Another 22 percent supplemented income from migrant agricultural work with

unemployment compensation in the winter! Fifty-eight percent of the families

qualified for and received Food Stamps, and one-fourth of the families also

148

Poiot Flit11$1.6 ANI1 Ft ItIII PLACES

participated in the Women, Infants, and Chiklren's nutrition program..i plogiant

offered only to families with pregoant or lactating ..Nomen

and chiklren undo.

live Other minor sources of IIIL:0111C included othev wage work,

self. employment ,

and borrowing from relatives, friends, and banks.

Counting all of these soma's,

their median family income was approximately $7.330 in 1988.

On the average,

5.2 persons were dependent upoi this income, placing the average

household

in poverty (Slesinger and Ofs lead 1990).

Health Problems

Migrant health and education rat two areas of contempormy major ci meet it.

Both areas were considered so seriously uuderserved thmugh the

usual state and

local governmental and private system that during the Wiwou Poverty

the lederal

government established national programs to address

the special needs ot this

unusual population. The establishment of migrant health clinics was ;ohm

ited

in 1962 under the Public Health Service Act as part or the

Connnuaily !With

Centers program for the poor and medically underserved

population. This imam

that throughout the United Stales, federally Waded migrant

health clinics welt,

opeued where there were sufficient groups of migratory workers.

Stalling usually

included a physician placed under the Nationid Health Service Coups, as

well

as physician assistants, nurse

practitioners. nutritionists, and otmeach woikeis.

Recently, oversight for these clinics was combined with that of the community

health centers, the network of centers that were estahlished mostly in poor. oilman

neighborhoods. Medical services were expanded km include dental care and eye

care.

In 1988, however, federal funding for the National Health Service

Comps was

almost eliminated. The administration also made a strong effort to

eliminate the

special federal funding of communally health centers and

lolditinto the "block-

grant" concept of giving states blocks of money and letting local

political powems

decide how to divide the pot of money. This was successfully

fought by the

community health centers and their constituency, so that

federal funds still llow

directly to these health centers for the poor. However, budgets

have barely been

maintained and have not increased with inflation. Thus in real

dollars budgets

have been reduced, and many services have been

eliminated.

Given the authors' familiarity with Wisconsin, we elm briefly

explain what

this has meant. lii 1984 the Wisconsin migrant health clinic,

La Clinica de los

Campesinos, had One main location in the state, situated

within reasonable reach

of about 50 percent of the migrant workcrs in the slate. It also

maintained two

outstations, one near a set of canneries that employed migrantsT-the other

in a

distant area where there was a large arca of field work. The

outstatimms woe

open two long days a week and

provided medical and dental services. nice

outreach workers from La Clinica traveled to the various

housing camps. They

identified pregnAmomen and infants who needed checkups or

immunitatious;

MINRANT FARM WORKIMS

149

led small group talks about nutrition; and movided information about the services

mound the stale thal were available to !Ingrains.

Recently, La Clinica has had to close the Iwo outstations. For a few years

they tried sending a van with a registered nurse to the different locations to

conduct blood pressure screening and eye and hearing tests and to provide

inform:dim about various health conditions. However, the budget was again cut

in 1989, and the van sponsored by La Clinica is not in operation. An order of

nuns from a nearby city has taken on iik tole and in the

1989 season visited

the camps with

a van staffed by two nurses. With only one outreach

worker

pow budgeted by 141Chnica, case-finding activities of the clinic have been

ninanly

curtailed.

In the 1989 season Slesinger repealed the migrant health survey that was

originally cooducted with migrant workers in Wisconsin in 1978. 'the major

health ptoblems identified by migrain wm kers in the recent Wisconsin survey

differed little from those mentioned over leo years earlier (Slesinger 1979b,

p. 35). lime 1989 problems included back pain,

headaches, eye trouble, ner-

vousness, 'irritability, dental problems, stomach trouble, coughing, shortness

breath, and trouble sleeping (Slesimer and Oktead 1990). Preventive health

care was one of the most serious trammel health needs.

Almost 30 percent or the

workers had never had a general pLysical examination, one out of hair wom kers

had never been to a dentist, and 43 pcieent had never had a vision lest (Slesinger

and Ofslead 1990; Slesinger 1979. I). 47).

Educational Problems

How kw time a child migrates Is, ilk his oilier parents, education suffers. The

animal mobility means that the ehiid lately is registered in only one school each

year. Offen in the early ages the child is not placed in any

school. Once the

child is in lirM or second grade, iumwever, the parents try to keep the child going

,to school. Once again, using ail example of Wisconsin migrant families, this

may mean that the child starts !wink)! late in September or early October when

the family returns to Texas. By the end or March or early April the family -tarts

its annual trek northward. As long as the family is on the move, the child will

it be entered into schools alolig the way ((his can be in Arkansas, Missouri,

or Minnesota). In late May or early Jime, w.

arrive in Wisconsin, the

Mud receiving slate, the "regular" school yt

.aost completed. With the

advent of a summer school program especially

ondueted for migrant children

by the Texas Migrant Council, these children are placed in preschool, elementary-

school, or high-sehool

with bilingual leachers. The funds to conduct these

classes are pnwided I

'Ki7 amendment to Title 1 of the Elementary and

Secondary Education

1965, designed to help educatimudly deprived

Not only did this federal act provide kinds for hiring bilingual teachers and

milting school space ill receiving slates, it also established the Migrant Student

1 7

150

MOS

AP4I/

Acus

Tabk 7.3

Distribution of Children in Wisconsin's Migrant

Educathm Program by Tobd

Number of Schools in which Child Enrulkd

betwnn September 1, 1982, and

August 31, 1983

Number of

SciamLEarszlhumis

Current Migrant

Former Migrant

Family

__amity*

14.6

27,6

11.4

24.5

9.2

21.3

12.2

10.3

13.1

14.0

31.9

Incomplete Information

7.6

1.5

Total

(%)

100.0

(N)

1,421

658

Source: Cawley, Slesinger, and Parra 1985.

*Current migrant families arc those who have been in migrant

agricultural work wiihni the p:isI Iwo

years. Former migrant families arc those

who were employed in migrant woik Iwo to six yems

ago.

Record Transfcr System (MSRTS) in conjunction

with another amendment. This

is a computerized system, with educational records

of migrant children from all

over the United Stales

maintained on a computer located in Little Ruck,

Arkansas.

The purpose of this system is lo track the

educational records of migrant children.

Thus, when a local school registers a

migrant child, the office can pull the

academic record of that child in order to see what

grades the child has completed,

what national lest scores were recorded,

and other basic information about the

child. Very often the child returns to the same set

of schools year alter year.

Through this system school officials can see

what happened when the child was

in his or her home state, and vice versa.

Howt,ver, discontinuities in education

still prevail. Table 7.3 presents data from a

review of records of children reg-

istered in Wisconsin in the MSRTS system for

the 1982-83 year. Filly-seven

percent of children in families currently

in the migrant work force have had four

or more enrollments

in one caleathir year. This compares with

25 percent of

children in families who had been in migrant

work, but who had "settled out"

of the migrant stream two to six years

in the past.

For Mexican and Central and Latin

American children, having a bilingual

MIGRANT 1:Alltd WORKIMS

151

teacher is helphd. Pethaps what is even more important is that there

is some

appreciathm of their cultural heritage and lik-style. Dropout rates arc

still high

for children a migrant workers. In the 1989 study 72 married women

aged 18

49 in migrant families had produced 307 children, or on averago,

4.3 children.

Of these, 182, living in 44 families, were age 12 or

older and "al risk" of

dropping out of school. Twelve of these mothers (2 /.3 percent)

reported that

(IIIC or more or their children had

dropped out of school; approximately 40 percent

had thopped out before WWII glade. Many children are forced to

drop out because

their labor is needed by the iMuily. Some parents feel

that children do not need

high school if they are to do farm wurk for the rest of their

lives. Some parents

tlo not realize how difficult it

is 11W their children to continue in school when

they must leave the classroom before the term is over and SW

ill a class after

the term has begun.

Summer programs definitely help this situation.

Remedial work is usually

stressed in the sipper guides. However, to our kaowledge, no

evaluation of the

summer inogram has yet been

conducted. It is hard to kccp track of the edu-

cational progress of the children registered in the MMUS program,

much less

those who are not registered in the program.

PUTURE TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Looking toward the future of the migrant workers, we identify

live national

and internatimml trends that will affect their numbers and

well-being: (I) bio-

technology and genetic engiueedng; (2) continued sisechastizuti ii

in agricultural

production; (3) low-chemical-input or sustainable agriculture;

(4) immigration

lmlicies mid patterns; and (5) federal minimmn-wage increases.

rsl, we are now in the midst of broad applications to

agricultural production

of genetic engineering and biotechnology. As this is being written,

there is much

public concern over bovine sommotropin (liST), or bovine

growth hormone

MGM as it

is popularly known, and its use on dairy herds. Although

milk

production and dairy farms rarely employ migrant labor, the replacement

of labor

by technology remains a concern. Dairy scientists anticipate greater

milk pro-

duction based on fewer cows and less farm labor. However, this

technological

advance does not target hired hands, but hits the family farm

and its idealized

place in American tradition, us staled earlier. Instead or

hired hands being laid

off, some critics of BM suggest that it is sounding the

"death luiell" of the

family farm.

Wc canuot say what additional technological and scientific

developments may

be under the electron microscope. But some possible

developments we envision

may include pickles that stop

growing at three inches; lettuce that will not wilt

or .husise; and corn whose sugar content

will remain for a week after picking.

Should these developments occur, migrant field hands will not be needed to

pick

and sort cucumbers for size, cut each head of lettuce

individually, or work

mound the clock in canneries canning corn within twenty-four

hours of picking.

152

POOR

AND Mint

Second, mechanization has already reduced hand picking in potatoes, grapes.

tomatoes, and cherries. It is not unrealistic to expect new

machines to be de-

veloped to pick apples and cucumbers. Whenever a successful

ineehaaical picker

is invented, fewer migrant hands are needed. When

migrants do continue to be

used after new technology is adopted, us in the case of

the mobile pa,.king

'4x:rations described curlier, migrant work will involve

fewer workers and may

be transformed from unskilled to skilled workers with ketter pay.

Third, the cull by some farmers, consumers, and environmentalists

Fin the

production of agricultural commodities with fewer chemical inpnis

has received

increasing attention in recent years. Historically, chemicals served as a

ielatively

cheap substitute fur more expensive labor inputs. Such substitution

is especially

apparent ill the use of herbicides that eliminated

the need for manual or machine

cultivation to control weeks. However, the negative consequences

of such chem-

ical usage arc now becoming inure apparent. Tke UFW, in

particular. has made

a major effort in recent ycars to

educate the public about the perils of agricultural

chemicals for farm workers. The development of aricultural practices

that allow

for the reduction or even elimination of chemicals

from farm ponhiction may

have profound effects on the lives of farm workers. Given

the great health risks

associated with the use of chemicals, a move toward low-input

agricultme might

mean improved working conditions

for farm workers. It is also possible that

low-input agriculture will increase the demand for

labor, thereby counteracting

sonic of the trends toward the reduced

employment of migrant workers discussed

earlier.

Fourth, the erratic history of immigration policies and patterns in

the United

Slates will no doubt be repeated in the future. When agricultural

prodncem s el y

out for minimum-wage faun workers, usually immigrants are

the only labor pool

available. Yet immigration policies are political, favoring persons Irian

comMies

whose ancestors are already here, or who arc fleeing from political or

religimis

persecution. Occasionally priority is also given to those whose

occupatams are

needed. Unskilled laborers, under the latter category, have

lowest priority, There-

fore, as in the past, special immigration laws arc created to

satisfy agricultural

labor demands. We anticipate that (his patchwork policy

will continue.

Finally, we address the minimum-wage legislation. Many

critics of povcity

policy have noted that marginal poverty families can be raked

above poverty

level if the minimum wage is raised. Thcre is no doubt that

this argument apphes

to migrant workers. Those who work

in canneries or packing houses would gel

immediate raiscs in income. Many lield workers also earn minimum

hourly wages

because the "bushel" rale is pegged to the minimum

hourly wage.

However, workers and their families who earn only the

minimum wage over

the planting and harvesting season would still remain in

the poverty group,

because their annual income is based on their employment

durin.only a pin don

of the year. For these families, a federal guaranteed

annual income plan would

be appropriate.

MIORANT PARM WORKERS

153

CONCLUSIONS

.As we have doctuneuted, migrant ham workers as a grorip are poor and have

always been poor. The lack or economic hnprovement stems from a number of

sociopolitical reasons that include the political powerlessness of farm workers,

the political influence of agricultural employers, and the marginal status of farm

workers iii U.S. agricultural development. The number of workers needed in

agriculture has been declining and will probably continue to decline, due to

developments in mechanization for Outten and harvesting and advances in

computerization of production lines in canneries and packing plants. At the same

lime, we anticipate that there will frequently

I;e fequirements for large groups

I of farm laborers for shout periods of time as farmers change their crops, depending

oo world prices. Exemplifying this in Oregon arc

the thousands of new acres of

asparagus lields, a crop that is labor-iniensive. Other

examples are the "organ-

ically grown" knits and vegetables now being demanded by consumers. These

crops often must be hand weeded instead of using

applications of herbicides.

and this reSults in sizeable labor requirements. None of these labor needs can

be adequately filled by local workers, friends, neighbors, or relatives of the

Winos. Migund workers are and will be sorely needed. But until employers,

govermnent officials, organized labor, and others recognize

that farm workers

have die same rights as employees in other industries, few of the special needs

of the politically and economically powerless migrant workers will be melt

I. Some have inoclaimed the tealizmion ill

this aparian ideal with the abolition of

slavely at Me end of the Civil War (e.g., Cochrane (919).

2. thiemployment compensation (11C) benefits are difficult for migunns to claim. First .

they mnst have worked !Ur employers who qualify to pay UC. And is. the emplbyer

must have paid cash farm wages of $20,000 or more during any calendar quarter or

employed ten or mote milkers in agricultural labor for a miuimuimmuuum of twenty dit ferent

weeks in this or the plevious year. When a migrant is out of work, lie or she must file

a Coon mt which he or she lists every employer he yr she has

worked for, im matter

whew the employer was located.

state then checks these employers to see if they

ale "covued" employets. If so, the person will receive UC. however,

because migrants

olten wink in many stales, it is a computer nightmare to check these employers' names,

especially since small employers me not coveted. UC is also administered by states, so

Ithat states differ in tepoithig periods, qualilying work. and other requirements.

It is

usually unplugs wbo air employed by large, national companies who are covered by

Ur, e.g., Green Giant. Del MIMIC. Mini.. and so on,