Transcribe
Translate
Chicano-Indian American Cultural Center miscellaneous newsletters, 1977-1978
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
UFW support To the Editor: Douglas L. Pinney argued against the migrant workers' lettuce boycott in a September 19 equal time editorial. His arguments are misinformed and incomplete. The United Farm Workers are already on strike, so it is not the loss of jobs that is at stake, but rather the hope of future jobs that humans can survive on. At present, a farm worker's family income is $1,000 below the poverty level, invariably with the whole family picking. Secondly, the growers are shrewd enough to reconnoiter that a loss of demand is caused by the boycott. He won't feel it's coincidental that less are picking, more are picketting, and less are buying his lettuce. As with the grape struggle, the grower will realize that the way to solve the boycott problem is to recognize the United Farm Workers' demands. This is the migrant worker's present condition: besides the $2700 per family income that Pinney quotes, they have no job security, and no grievance procedures; no health insurance and no retirement provisions; the United Farm Workers must contend with an agribusiness industry that maintains no pesticide regulations and work in an industry with an accident rate three time the national average. A migrant worker does not make enough money to justify his children going to school--80 per cent never reached high school. Cesar Chavez' and the United Farm Workers' struggle for the recognition of the union and for adequate income, adequate living standards, and adequate working conditions was met with an agreement by the growers to negotiate in 1971. While bargaining the growers betrayed by the negotiations by privately preparing what finally manifested as Proposition 22 on the California ballot. If passed in November this initiative would give the grower the real potential to serve a sixty day injunction during harvest season to a striking worker. A lettuce harvest rarely lasts 60 days. If proposition 22 does pass the effects could be disastrous to the strike. This threat redoubles the mandate the boycott can fulfill. Just such a boycott proved successful for the grape workers when they established contracts in 1970. With both widened and sustained consumer support the boycott can succeed in gaining UFW demands. Dan Harris 2217 Muscatine Ave. Iowa City, 52240 [Handwriting] 9/27/72 [cartoon text] on the UFW... "$2 an hour for lettuce! Where the hell they think they are -- California?" IF YOU PLAN TO COMMIT SUICIDE DON'T BOTHER TO READ THIS. Six deadly pesticides poison the lettuce you eat. Each year, 70 to 80 thousand farmworkers are poisoned, often fatally, by working in fields which have been treated with these pesticides. In an effort to create safe working conditions for thousands of workers, the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, under the leadership of Cesar Chavez, has been waging a determined, non-violent struggle to force the elimination of DDT, DDD, Endrin, Aldrin, Parathion and Dieldrin from the lettuce fields of America. Safer working conditions for farmworkers means safer food for you. Help yourself to a healthier life by supporting our struggle. For your own sake and ours, don't eat lettuce. [handwriting] 9/27/72 UNITED FARM WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 19 West 34th Street * New York 10001 * 594-0694 [handwriting] from The Daily Iowan 'Pinney is wrong' To the Editor: In regards to Douglas L. Pinney's opposition to the lettuce boycott, there are two contentions that I feel require further inquiry and refutation: 1) That an increase in consumer purchasing of lettuce will consequently increase opportunities for migrant workers, i.e. wage hikes, working conditions, employment and 2) That unionization is entirely defective and offers no relief nor protection for migrant workers. In reference to the first contention: Since the lettuce "industry is an economic animal, (seeking) to minimize its own loss" at the expense of the workers assuming the boycott achieves any measure of success, the character of the industry will naturally seek to maximize its own gain should consumer purchasing increase. New profits will not affect the dismal condition of the workers; new profits will only go into the pocket of the industry--simply because the worker is denied any method of bargaining, any representation, any guarantee whatsoever that his labor is affected by the law of supply and demand. It never has been. Corporate farming has flourished for decades with the migrant working conditions absolutely atavistic to the current state of American capitalism. In reference to the second contention: Under the organization of Cesar Chavez and the formation of the United Farm Workers, there is evidence that unionization is, not only possible, but, successful. As a result of the grape boycott, a contract was drawn between the industry and the workers in 1970 guaranteeing a $2.00 minimum wage, a ban on pesticides (800 workers per year were dying on this account), available drinking water, medical facilities, and a clause describing grievance procedures to avoid arbitrary dismissal of workers. In addition to a medical insurance plan, a stipulation citing no employment discrimination according to race, religion, sex or language. Under these new conditions, one working family member earns over $5000 annually and usually twice the amount currently earned by the entire family of non-unionized workers. Thus, one union laborer can support his whole family, enable his children schooling, and works under much safer conditions. Two unionized working family members affords a whole new life style. This is the result of solidarity. As for Pinney's "training" the migrant worker for a skill "with which he should have more earning power," the problem arises as to whom will administer this training. Since federal arbitration has not interfered even to this day, training will certainly not be sponsored by the state. Pinney is wrong--boycott lettuce. Ric Gentry 605 E. Burlington [Handwriting] 9/26/72
Saving...
prev
next
UFW support To the Editor: Douglas L. Pinney argued against the migrant workers' lettuce boycott in a September 19 equal time editorial. His arguments are misinformed and incomplete. The United Farm Workers are already on strike, so it is not the loss of jobs that is at stake, but rather the hope of future jobs that humans can survive on. At present, a farm worker's family income is $1,000 below the poverty level, invariably with the whole family picking. Secondly, the growers are shrewd enough to reconnoiter that a loss of demand is caused by the boycott. He won't feel it's coincidental that less are picking, more are picketting, and less are buying his lettuce. As with the grape struggle, the grower will realize that the way to solve the boycott problem is to recognize the United Farm Workers' demands. This is the migrant worker's present condition: besides the $2700 per family income that Pinney quotes, they have no job security, and no grievance procedures; no health insurance and no retirement provisions; the United Farm Workers must contend with an agribusiness industry that maintains no pesticide regulations and work in an industry with an accident rate three time the national average. A migrant worker does not make enough money to justify his children going to school--80 per cent never reached high school. Cesar Chavez' and the United Farm Workers' struggle for the recognition of the union and for adequate income, adequate living standards, and adequate working conditions was met with an agreement by the growers to negotiate in 1971. While bargaining the growers betrayed by the negotiations by privately preparing what finally manifested as Proposition 22 on the California ballot. If passed in November this initiative would give the grower the real potential to serve a sixty day injunction during harvest season to a striking worker. A lettuce harvest rarely lasts 60 days. If proposition 22 does pass the effects could be disastrous to the strike. This threat redoubles the mandate the boycott can fulfill. Just such a boycott proved successful for the grape workers when they established contracts in 1970. With both widened and sustained consumer support the boycott can succeed in gaining UFW demands. Dan Harris 2217 Muscatine Ave. Iowa City, 52240 [Handwriting] 9/27/72 [cartoon text] on the UFW... "$2 an hour for lettuce! Where the hell they think they are -- California?" IF YOU PLAN TO COMMIT SUICIDE DON'T BOTHER TO READ THIS. Six deadly pesticides poison the lettuce you eat. Each year, 70 to 80 thousand farmworkers are poisoned, often fatally, by working in fields which have been treated with these pesticides. In an effort to create safe working conditions for thousands of workers, the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, under the leadership of Cesar Chavez, has been waging a determined, non-violent struggle to force the elimination of DDT, DDD, Endrin, Aldrin, Parathion and Dieldrin from the lettuce fields of America. Safer working conditions for farmworkers means safer food for you. Help yourself to a healthier life by supporting our struggle. For your own sake and ours, don't eat lettuce. [handwriting] 9/27/72 UNITED FARM WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 19 West 34th Street * New York 10001 * 594-0694 [handwriting] from The Daily Iowan 'Pinney is wrong' To the Editor: In regards to Douglas L. Pinney's opposition to the lettuce boycott, there are two contentions that I feel require further inquiry and refutation: 1) That an increase in consumer purchasing of lettuce will consequently increase opportunities for migrant workers, i.e. wage hikes, working conditions, employment and 2) That unionization is entirely defective and offers no relief nor protection for migrant workers. In reference to the first contention: Since the lettuce "industry is an economic animal, (seeking) to minimize its own loss" at the expense of the workers assuming the boycott achieves any measure of success, the character of the industry will naturally seek to maximize its own gain should consumer purchasing increase. New profits will not affect the dismal condition of the workers; new profits will only go into the pocket of the industry--simply because the worker is denied any method of bargaining, any representation, any guarantee whatsoever that his labor is affected by the law of supply and demand. It never has been. Corporate farming has flourished for decades with the migrant working conditions absolutely atavistic to the current state of American capitalism. In reference to the second contention: Under the organization of Cesar Chavez and the formation of the United Farm Workers, there is evidence that unionization is, not only possible, but, successful. As a result of the grape boycott, a contract was drawn between the industry and the workers in 1970 guaranteeing a $2.00 minimum wage, a ban on pesticides (800 workers per year were dying on this account), available drinking water, medical facilities, and a clause describing grievance procedures to avoid arbitrary dismissal of workers. In addition to a medical insurance plan, a stipulation citing no employment discrimination according to race, religion, sex or language. Under these new conditions, one working family member earns over $5000 annually and usually twice the amount currently earned by the entire family of non-unionized workers. Thus, one union laborer can support his whole family, enable his children schooling, and works under much safer conditions. Two unionized working family members affords a whole new life style. This is the result of solidarity. As for Pinney's "training" the migrant worker for a skill "with which he should have more earning power," the problem arises as to whom will administer this training. Since federal arbitration has not interfered even to this day, training will certainly not be sponsored by the state. Pinney is wrong--boycott lettuce. Ric Gentry 605 E. Burlington [Handwriting] 9/26/72
Campus Culture
sidebar
