Transcribe
Translate
Chicano-Indian American Cultural Center miscellaneous newsletters, 1977-1978
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
mail The Daily Iowan welcomes your signed letters and opinions. However, you must type and double-space your contribution and, in interests of space, we request that letters be no more than two typewritten pages long. [hand drawing of people in line] Viva la causa To the Editor "Until then I will continue to eat my four salads a day," said Douglas L. Pinney in an article that appeared in the Daily Iowan on September 19, 1972. Until Mr. Pinney is convinced that the boycott is for the good of the farmworkers he will continue to eat lettuce. Poor Mr. Pinney, maybe he should take his own advice and try to put himself in the place of the farmworkers. I hope economics is not Mr. Pinney's major area of concern because his observations on the effects of the boycott are very short-sighted. In comparison to other expenses the grower has (transportation to market, plowing, seeding, pesticides) the labor expenses play a small part. Let's not forget that the individual consumer is not the only one who buys lettuce. Large institutions also buy lettuce. The federal government, from past experiences with the grape boycott, has been willing and able to take up the slack in terms of buying lettuce. "Unionization seems great, but with a boycott and the temporary reduction in need for your labor you are not sure you can survive," states Mr. Pinney. Trouble is even without a boycott a farmer's future is in doubt. The U.S. Public Health service estimates that while other Americans can look forward to over 70 years of life, the farmworker's life expectancy is only 49 years. Maternal mortality and child mortality at birth are both 120 percent higher than the national average. Tuberculosis and other infectious diseases run 260 percent higher. The accident rate for farmworkers is 30 percent higher than other workers. These observations were in the original article. I just wanted to remind Mr. Pinney that there really isn't much difference between "surviving" with a boycott or without one. The $2,700 figure is not the income of just one individual, but the combined efforts of a family of four. The industry's low wage level, according to Mr. Pinney is not the result of industry oppression but the results of the low value of the work of the farmworker. But low value to whom? Certainly not to farmworkers whose very shakey existance depends on his job. Certainly not to the growers, for if this were the case the growers would replace them with machines--eliminating them altogether. Mr. Pinney makes some suggestions to alleviate the plight of the farmworkers: 1. He suggests that we can make his work "worth" more by consuming more lettuce. This is far from what actually happens. The ideas of big business is to maximize profits. By eating more lettuce does not mean that the farmworkers are going to recieve more money. The only reason for organized labor is to secure benefits for the workers. There has never been in this country's history and never will be an industry that will knowingly incurr any added expense unless it is absolutely necessary. If this were not true then why would any worker need organized labor? 2. Mr Pinney suggests that by training the farmworker in labor that is valued more by society and industry we can help him. Let's be practical Mr. Pinney, just who do you suggest to assume the responsibility, for this, at the very least, expensive. Unionization is not wrong when it seeks to help the worker. The defects that Mr. Pinney points out are defects in industry simply because they will cost more and not because they are harmful to the farmworkers. The United Farm Workers are not out to discriminate against anyone. We have experienced enough discrimination. Mr. Pinney thinks that the most unskilled, the most unattractive, the most feeble, workers with the most need aren't going to benefit by the union. This is exactly why we need the United Farm Workers, so every farmworker can be protected under the umbrella of the U.F.W. The idea behind this reply is to shed some light on many misconceptions that the people like Mr. Pinney have. So continue to have your four salads a day, Mr. Pinney. In doing so you reinforce my commitment to the farmworkers. Ben Pintor Chicano Indian-American Student Union [handwriting] The Daily Iowan 9/22/72
Saving...
prev
next
mail The Daily Iowan welcomes your signed letters and opinions. However, you must type and double-space your contribution and, in interests of space, we request that letters be no more than two typewritten pages long. [hand drawing of people in line] Viva la causa To the Editor "Until then I will continue to eat my four salads a day," said Douglas L. Pinney in an article that appeared in the Daily Iowan on September 19, 1972. Until Mr. Pinney is convinced that the boycott is for the good of the farmworkers he will continue to eat lettuce. Poor Mr. Pinney, maybe he should take his own advice and try to put himself in the place of the farmworkers. I hope economics is not Mr. Pinney's major area of concern because his observations on the effects of the boycott are very short-sighted. In comparison to other expenses the grower has (transportation to market, plowing, seeding, pesticides) the labor expenses play a small part. Let's not forget that the individual consumer is not the only one who buys lettuce. Large institutions also buy lettuce. The federal government, from past experiences with the grape boycott, has been willing and able to take up the slack in terms of buying lettuce. "Unionization seems great, but with a boycott and the temporary reduction in need for your labor you are not sure you can survive," states Mr. Pinney. Trouble is even without a boycott a farmer's future is in doubt. The U.S. Public Health service estimates that while other Americans can look forward to over 70 years of life, the farmworker's life expectancy is only 49 years. Maternal mortality and child mortality at birth are both 120 percent higher than the national average. Tuberculosis and other infectious diseases run 260 percent higher. The accident rate for farmworkers is 30 percent higher than other workers. These observations were in the original article. I just wanted to remind Mr. Pinney that there really isn't much difference between "surviving" with a boycott or without one. The $2,700 figure is not the income of just one individual, but the combined efforts of a family of four. The industry's low wage level, according to Mr. Pinney is not the result of industry oppression but the results of the low value of the work of the farmworker. But low value to whom? Certainly not to farmworkers whose very shakey existance depends on his job. Certainly not to the growers, for if this were the case the growers would replace them with machines--eliminating them altogether. Mr. Pinney makes some suggestions to alleviate the plight of the farmworkers: 1. He suggests that we can make his work "worth" more by consuming more lettuce. This is far from what actually happens. The ideas of big business is to maximize profits. By eating more lettuce does not mean that the farmworkers are going to recieve more money. The only reason for organized labor is to secure benefits for the workers. There has never been in this country's history and never will be an industry that will knowingly incurr any added expense unless it is absolutely necessary. If this were not true then why would any worker need organized labor? 2. Mr Pinney suggests that by training the farmworker in labor that is valued more by society and industry we can help him. Let's be practical Mr. Pinney, just who do you suggest to assume the responsibility, for this, at the very least, expensive. Unionization is not wrong when it seeks to help the worker. The defects that Mr. Pinney points out are defects in industry simply because they will cost more and not because they are harmful to the farmworkers. The United Farm Workers are not out to discriminate against anyone. We have experienced enough discrimination. Mr. Pinney thinks that the most unskilled, the most unattractive, the most feeble, workers with the most need aren't going to benefit by the union. This is exactly why we need the United Farm Workers, so every farmworker can be protected under the umbrella of the U.F.W. The idea behind this reply is to shed some light on many misconceptions that the people like Mr. Pinney have. So continue to have your four salads a day, Mr. Pinney. In doing so you reinforce my commitment to the farmworkers. Ben Pintor Chicano Indian-American Student Union [handwriting] The Daily Iowan 9/22/72
Campus Culture
sidebar
