THE FARM WORKERS. . .

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I was appalled and shocked that The Harvard Crimson would permit an article like your October 21, 1974, "Has Chavez Fooled Harvard?" to be printed.

For over two years, I served as the National Legislative Director for the United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO; and, I have just been elected to the California Legislature. I know the farm worker problem first-hand and within this space I would like to rebut the following statements made by your "reporter":

1. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE STATISTICS: It is very easy to play with numbers as Ferrara has proven. He uses numbers of a national survey to account for a problem which is Californian in nature: the boycott of scab grapes, Gallo wines and iceberg lettuce. According to the same source (U.S. Dept. of Ag.) there are well over 200,000 farm workers in California (1967, latest statistics available). Of these 1/3 are migrants. In 1968, the average hourly wage in California for a farm worker was $1.75 per hour. This included permanent and seasonal workers. BUT, farm workers in the table and grape industry were earning only $1.15 per hour!

It was between 1968 and 1970 that the growers, under increasing fear that the Union (UFW) would be successful, began to increase the wages. Therefore, the average farm worker in the grapes was earning $1.65 per hour. Yes, a $.10 increase, BUT also a medical plan (growers never provided a medical plan); ranch committees which would report health and safety violations (remember the UFW was first to ban the use of DDT in its contracts), replace the farm labor contractor with a hiring hall, grievance procedures to make sure the grower complied with the complaints of the workers; plus $.10 per box picked; and, the right, not the privilege, to negotiate their own contracts.

When you add $.10 in increased wages to self dignity and self determination, the farm workers under UFW contract in 1970, were the "richest" in the world! Ferrara also fails to mention the increase to $2.41 per hour in 1973 under the UFW contracts; and, other U.S. Dept. of Agriculture statistics like: Infant Mortality in farm workers in 125% higher than the national rate; Maternal Mortality is 125% higher than the national rate; Influenza and Pneumonia is 200% higher than the national rate; TB is 260% higher than the national rate; and, the average life expectancy is only 49 years!

2. THE CALIFORNIA CONCILIATION SERVICE AND TIEBURG'S TESTIMONY: The UFW did reject the service's offer because the chairman of that service had just competed a statewide tour denouncing the United Farm Workers Union and the right of farm workers to organize and strike for a Union of their own. Chavez asked for the Federal Mediation Service and the American Arbitrator's Association to step in as a more objective alternative, the growers refused. But the Association did come in later to arbitrate various elections on the ranches.

As to Tieburg's testimony: in 1965, when the first strike was called, the California Department of Employment would only accept one or two affidavits from farm workers who were out on strike to confirm that a strike existed. At that time 32 ranches were on strike with well over 5,000 workers walking off the job in support of the Union. According to Jerome Cohen, general counsel for the Union, Tieburg's testimony was based on his own "information and belief." For in fact, there could not have been more than 64 affidavits on his desk in Sacramento.

3. "2000 MEMBER AGRICULTURAL WORKERS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION": This organization is funded by Teamster and grower money and had a predecessor known as the "Agricultural Workers Freedom to Work Association." This group was disbanded because of the lawsuit filed by the UFW, charging that the group was in violation of the Landrum-Griffin Act which prohibits employee groups being funded by employers. This group was closely allied with the National Right to Work Committee and the National and California Farm Bureaus, who were all opposed to any union and its activities.

4. DOLORES MENDOZA, SHIRLEY FETALVERO: These "ladies" are traditional strike breakers, or as the workers call them: "SCABS." Dolores is particularly loud-mouthed and abrasive. A small portly woman, she helped organize the "Mothers Against Chavez," composed chiefly of growers' wives and a few of Dolores's friends like Shirely.

I knew Dolores Mendoza because I had debated her many times on television during that campaign. I was always puzzled how she appeared in many states throughout this country speaking out against Cesar Chavez and the Union, on her allegedly "small income" as a farm worker.

5. "THE GROWERS [UNDER CHAVEZ] WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HIRE WORKERS": The growers rarely did hire their own workers. They had their "coyotes," the farm labor contractors like Mayor Frank Herrara. The growers relied on contractors who were responsible for "paying" the workers. As a court interpreter in Sacramento County Federal District Court, I found time and time again that contractors were about to pay their workers when out of nowhere the Immigration and Naturalization Services agents would appear. They would arrest the illegal workers and take them off to the Sacramento county jail. It was amazing how many "anonymous" phone tips the INS would receive at pay time. The contractors also thrived on the business markups in the lunches and drinks and cigarettes that they would sell to the farm workers while they were working. Their markups were at times as high as 60-100% above the prices being paid in town by the locals.

6. The reporter cites the lack of support of the workers for the UFW and uses examples such as the "Riverside ad" which was allegedly paid by "8,000" workers. That ad was paid by the growers, through a worker front, much like the dirty tricks of the Nixon administration. As further proof of the ad's phoniness, ELECTIONS TO RATIFY THE CONTRACTS SIGNED BETWEEN THE UFW AND THE TABLE GRAPE GROWERS IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY WERE HELD DURING THE DAYS THAT AD APPEARED. THE UNITED FARM WORKERS WON EVERY ELECTION OVERWHELMINGLY! Doesn't it seem strange that "8,000" farm workers "pay" for an ad one day "condemning" the union and the next day they overwhelmingly vote for the United Farm Workers Union as their collective bargaining representative and ratify the contracts?

The farm workers will continue to struggle against the Teamsters and Gallo and other growers and they will win. They will win for the very simple reason that their cause is just. Time is on their side.

Boycott Harvard Provision! Boycott Gallo! Boycott Grapes! Art Torres   Fellow, Institute of Politics   Assemblyman Elect [D.-L.A.]