DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Chicano-Indian American Cultural Center miscellaneous newsletters, 1977-1978 |

Transcribe
Translate

Chicano-Indian American Cultural Center miscellaneous newsletters, 1977-1978

Behind the boycott

The struggle of Cesar Chavez and his United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO, to organize the lettuce field workers of California and Arizona is called a "jurisdictional dispute with the Teamsters Union" by the growers and the American Farm Bureau.
But it is not a jurisdictional dispute int he sense that the public usually thinks of that term: a struggle for power between two unions who want to represent the same workers, with the employer squeezed helplessly in the middle.
Instead of squeezing the growers, the Western Conference of Teamsters and the UFW have twice formally agreed that the UFW should represent field workers and the Teamsters should represent processor employes. The Teamsters offered to rescind their contracts in favor of the UFW on two occasions, but only a few growers agreed to this step. One of these, inter Harvest, said, "The Teamsters had our contract but the UFW had our workers."
The basic dispute is between UFW and the growers.
Current discussions of the lettuce situation overlook distinction between the bulk of the Teamster contracts, signed a step ahead of the Chavez campaign,and the long-term Salinas Teamster pacts. The lettuce boycott was called by Chavez because the growers got a court order in 1970 halting the effective strike by some 7,000 field hands that he was leading.
The order was issued by a Monterey County Court on the ground that grower contracts with the Teamsters made the dispute a jurisdictional and therefore illegal strike. Prior to the Monterey Court ruling, a Santa Barbara County Court declared that the strike was not a juristictional dispute, because there was insufficient evidence of worker support for the Teamsters Union. The Monterey court declared Chavez in contempt of court because of the boycott and jailed him, but a higher court ordered him freed.

The UFW has branded the hurry-up Teamster contracts "sweetheart contracts", but the wage scales and fringe benefits are as good as, or better, than, those in UFW contracts. The growers association is emphasizing this wage scale We have seen not other grower refutation of another UFW charge--that all dues are not being collected (the contracts are union shop agreements) and all benefits are not being administered on every farm.
Involvement of the two unions in the lettuce fields is one factor which has taken some bite out of this lettuce boycott. it is difficult to trace the history of the involvement of the two unions and weigh the merits of each case.
The merits may be beside the point. Chavez is organizing agricultural workers with an effectiveness not measured by his UFW membership. If a Chavez threat is enough to make growers welcome another union--any other union--with open arms (as they did the Teamsters) , then a lot more workers on the big "factory" farms are going to be organized.
The main drive of the growers and the Farm Bureau, however, is not to get the workers into the Teamsters Union but to get state laws which virtually outlaw the boycott and bar strikes at harvest time. These are the two major bargaining weapons of workers in a seasonal industry where many workers are not full-time employes.
It is becoming more evident all the time that some sort of national legislation, preferably inclusion of farm workers under the National Labor Relations Act, is needed. Farm workers are at a severe disadvantage as compared with workers in other industries, and it is time they were given the same kind of bargaining and organizing rights as other employes. The nationwide consumer boycott could then be logically outlawed.
It is clearly in the interest of family farmers to encourage such legislation and unionization of farm workers on the "factor" farms which now compete against the family farm operator with cheap labor.

The Des Moines Register

[Handwriting]
SEPT 21, 1972

Saving...

Behind the boycott The struggle of Cesar Chavez and his United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO, to organize the lettuce field workers of California and Arizona is called a "jurisdictional dispute with the Teamsters Union" by the growers and the American Farm Bureau. But it is not a jurisdictional dispute int he sense that the public usually thinks of that term: a struggle for power between two unions who want to represent the same workers, with the employer squeezed helplessly in the middle. Instead of squeezing the growers, the Western Conference of Teamsters and the UFW have twice formally agreed that the UFW should represent field workers and the Teamsters should represent processor employes. The Teamsters offered to rescind their contracts in favor of the UFW on two occasions, but only a few growers agreed to this step. One of these, inter Harvest, said, "The Teamsters had our contract but the UFW had our workers." The basic dispute is between UFW and the growers. Current discussions of the lettuce situation overlook distinction between the bulk of the Teamster contracts, signed a step ahead of the Chavez campaign,and the long-term Salinas Teamster pacts. The lettuce boycott was called by Chavez because the growers got a court order in 1970 halting the effective strike by some 7,000 field hands that he was leading. The order was issued by a Monterey County Court on the ground that grower contracts with the Teamsters made the dispute a jurisdictional and therefore illegal strike. Prior to the Monterey Court ruling, a Santa Barbara County Court declared that the strike was not a juristictional dispute, because there was insufficient evidence of worker support for the Teamsters Union. The Monterey court declared Chavez in contempt of court because of the boycott and jailed him, but a higher court ordered him freed. The UFW has branded the hurry-up Teamster contracts "sweetheart contracts", but the wage scales and fringe benefits are as good as, or better, than, those in UFW contracts. The growers association is emphasizing this wage scale We have seen not other grower refutation of another UFW charge--that all dues are not being collected (the contracts are union shop agreements) and all benefits are not being administered on every farm. Involvement of the two unions in the lettuce fields is one factor which has taken some bite out of this lettuce boycott. it is difficult to trace the history of the involvement of the two unions and weigh the merits of each case. The merits may be beside the point. Chavez is organizing agricultural workers with an effectiveness not measured by his UFW membership. If a Chavez threat is enough to make growers welcome another union--any other union--with open arms (as they did the Teamsters) , then a lot more workers on the big "factory" farms are going to be organized. The main drive of the growers and the Farm Bureau, however, is not to get the workers into the Teamsters Union but to get state laws which virtually outlaw the boycott and bar strikes at harvest time. These are the two major bargaining weapons of workers in a seasonal industry where many workers are not full-time employes. It is becoming more evident all the time that some sort of national legislation, preferably inclusion of farm workers under the National Labor Relations Act, is needed. Farm workers are at a severe disadvantage as compared with workers in other industries, and it is time they were given the same kind of bargaining and organizing rights as other employes. The nationwide consumer boycott could then be logically outlawed. It is clearly in the interest of family farmers to encourage such legislation and unionization of farm workers on the "factor" farms which now compete against the family farm operator with cheap labor. The Des Moines Register [Handwriting] SEPT 21, 1972